Column:

Kennedy: compromise not plausible

Earlier suggestion for compromise regarding Election Day registration and photo ID not feasible.

By Nate Kennedy

Published April 17, 2009

Concealed weapons on campus are a bad idea and most everybody thinks so. UM system President Gary Forsee; the campus safety departments of MU, Truman State and Missouri State University; the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators; three fourths of the Boone County state representatives; The Columbia Daily Tribune; and this newspaper's editorial board have all come out against it.

So why did 106 state representatives vote for it last week?

To paraphrase state Rep. Mary Still, D-Columbia: It seems like most members of this chamber have a Freudian pre-occupation with guns.

Maybe that's the case, but it may also be pandering to the National Rifle Association.

To get the coveted A+ rating many rural legislators think they need to be re-elected, they must vote for this bill or feel the wrath of NRA Director Wayne LaPierre -- a scary proposition, because that man is insane.

Concealed weapons aren't the real issue, though. To protect students from Virginia Tech incidents and other assaults we must emphasize the availability of the free mental health clinic on campus and expand the number of blue lights, campus police sub-stations and add bike-cops to the force.

I have much more to say on that issue, but I must address a problem with my last column.

From time to time politicians and pundits will say something that gets them into hot water with their own party. We see it all the time: Columbia Rep. Chris Kelly's support of the "Fair Tax," U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill's vote on FISA, Gov. Jay Nixon's support of the gay marriage ban and Attorney General Koster's switch to the Democratic Party (I guess that one worked both ways). Because my last column, "Missouri Senate should pass early voting, voter ID," was published a week ago, I've been blogged about by Show-Me Progress and have received several calls from partisans and non-partisan voting rights groups alike.

Apparently my "well-informed" column failed to make its mark last week and I apologize. In light of several facts I didn't know at the time, I completely retract the last two paragraphs of that column in which I offer a compromise I now know is unfeasible for several reasons.

First, Election Day Registration is unconstitutional in Missouri. This is very unfortunate from a policy standpoint. Simple statutory revisions will not fix it. To get it in place, Missourians would have to pass it in a statewide election after the bill went through the legislative process or initiative petition. Besides the costly campaign a third party would have to fund to get it passed, the state is not in shape financially to put the system into place at this time.

Because Election Day registration is unconstitutional, my argument for a compromise is essentially void.

Second, even with the voting conveniences of Election Day registration and early voting in place, it still wouldn't be equal to the state disenfranchising 240,000 Missourians as the photo ID bill would. (Also note that the headline to my last column was incorrect when it says "voter ID." We already have that. I was talking about photo ID.)

Third, from what I've heard, the Missouri Senate is debating a watered-down version of the early voting bill Secretary of State Robin Carnahan is in favor of, not the one I want to see passed either.

So citing those reasons, I completely failed at attempting to bring Election Day Registration into the early voting versus photo ID debate. My bad.

Nate Kennedy is the chairman of the Young Democrats of Missouri College Federation. He can be reached at nkennedy@themaneater.com.