The Minnesota Legislature is attempting to tackle voter fraud that has been alleged in the past couple of election cycles here in Minnesota. The new plan, if passed, would require all voters to present a photo ID that is issued by the State of Minnesota. Proponents of the bill point to other states, i.e. Georgia, Florida, and Indiana, require photo ID's for all those voting while opponents to the bill believe that 135,000 eligible voters would not be able to vote because they lack a government ID. Let's face it, being elected to State or National positions is big business. To ensure that our voting process is as free from fraud as possible has lead the Minnesota Legislature, and others states, to go toward a photo ID requirement.
Another objection to the requirement of a photo ID is that it may restrict access to the voter booth for those low-income and low educated people. In a Rutgers University study reported that, "Voters in states that required photo identification were 2.9 percent less likely to vote than voters in states where individuals had to give their name." My question is how do these same people purchase alcohol, tobacco, and lottery tickets where IDs are required and often asked for? In listening to talk radio I heard one pundit assert that requiring a photo ID equates to a poll tax which is banned. I don't see the requirement of a photo ID as a poll tax because vast majority of us have one and in addition to the three items I listed above one is often asked for a photo ID when writing a check or using a debit or credit card. In an age where ID theft is prevalent and honor, integrity and giving ones word has been eroded requiring a photo ID to vote is starting to make sense.
Now, what I don't like about this bill is that it sets aside $25M to assist with people to get a photo ID. The Government should not be handing out these photo ID's for free. That being said, the cost of getting a non-driver license ID should be sold at cost to those that "cannot" afford it. Does it make sense to have a photo ID? Has giving ones Word or Honor been eroded over the past several decades?
What I find interesting is that when I went to vote back in November, I was asked for ID. Required or not, I was asked. Even when I did same day voter registration back in 2008, I was asked to see my ID and a copy if our most recent utility bill.
ReplyDeleteThe funny thing is, I don't think it's a big deal to be asked to show ID.
I do agree that MN should not have to pay for the an ID if someone doesn't have one (I think a "non-license" ID is $8 in MN? Maybe $15?).
I find it concerning that we are moving to create a new system of regulations based upon allegations, not factual fraud. MN has one of the most error free election processes in the country. Do errors happen? Of course. Are they major? Not by any measure that has been proven.
ReplyDeleteAllegations should not be enough to justify changing our voting process.
I find the current system enough to validate a person. In fact, I've seen people attempting to register "day of" rejected for lack of proof.
So where is this "crisis" coming from other than the republicans who lost two very close elections?
Like Truman said....a solution searching for a problem. Voter fraud is almost unheard of, and would be quite difficult to do unless those at the voting station were in on it.
ReplyDeleteI don't see that we are fixing a "crisis" rather ensuring the integrity of the process. The evolution to photo ID's is similar to moving from Chad's to electronic voting.
ReplyDeleteMinnesota Majority reported these findings after the 2008 elections:
ReplyDeleteThere were approximately 40,000 more ballots counted than voter histories to account for them. In addition, we discovered:
§ DUPLICATE VOTER REGISTRATIONS: We discovered thousands of voter records that have an exact match on the criteria of first name, middle name, last name and birth year. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) requires duplicate registrations to be removed from SVRS.
§ DOUBLE VOTING: Using the SVRS list provided by the Minnesota Secretary of state, we found evidence of nearly 100 cases in which voter registration and voter history records strongly indicate that a single voter may have voted more than once in a single election. We’ve identified thousands of additional voter records that merit additional investigation.
§ VACANT AND NON-DELIVERABLE ADDRESSES: The United States Postal Service (USPS) has flagged the addresses recorded for nearly 100,000 voters as being either "vacant" or "undeliverable". We visited approximately two-dozen of these undeliverable addresses to verify the USPS results and discovered approximately 50% of the addresses in our sample to be correctly flagged, in that the addresses did not exist. We have taken photographs of empty lots and non-existent addresses where our investigation revealed invalid addresses.
Here is more:
ReplyDelete§ RETURNED POSTAL VERIFICATION CARDS: In addition, the state’s primary registration verification tool is the Postal Verification Card (PVC). These post cards are mailed to newly registered voters. If the PVC is successfully delivered to the stated address, the voter is assumed to be legitimate. If the card is returned as undeliverable mail, the voter’s identity is in question and they are supposed to be challenged for proof of identity and residence at the polls in the next election. Over 46,000 of these postal verification cards have been returned to the county auditors as non-deliverable since 2004. About 38,000 of them were from 2008 and 23,000 stemmed from Election Day Registrations (EDRs).
§ DECEASED VOTERS: Using a standard deceased matching service commonly utilized by mailing houses, we discovered thousands of individuals flagged as deceased who are still on the active voter rolls. Following the 2008 election, we were able to check the SVRS voter history against a list of dead voters and found thousands of potential matches. Further investigation into a small sampling turned up (high confidence match) death records for several voters indicating that they had died before voting in the 2008 election.
§ FELONS REGISTERING: Just prior to the 2008 election, an investigation by Fox 9 News discovered nearly 100 convicted felons who had newly registered to vote in 2008. Some were registered while in prison, suggesting someone else may have registered in their name. When these findings were brought to Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, he said he wasn’t aware these felons had registered, but assured the reporter that felons would be checked for and appropriately challenged for the election. See the TV news report by KMSP Fox 9.
§ FELONS VOTING: Following the 2008 general election, we obtained a disk containing a list of all convicted felons “on book” in Minnesota from the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. Comparing that list to the Voter Histories in the Statewide Voter Registration System revealed 2,803 exact matches on name (first, middle and last) and year of birth. Checking court records against the BCA and SVRS data, we have so far been able to positively confirm approximately 50% of the felons identities and match them to SVRS voter histories indicating fraudulent votes. We followed up by checking polling place rosters for signatures of ineligible felon voters and made copies of some examples. In no polling place roster, was the required notice, “Challenge: Felon” affixed to felon voter’s signature line. We have forwarded the names of approximately 1,400 suspected felon voters to the Ramsey and Hennepin County attorneys for investigation. As of February 2010, Ramsey County reports having charged 26 felons with fraudulent voter registrations and 12 with fraudulent voting. They've reported 20 convictions. See our full Report on Fraudulent Votes Cast by Ineligible Felons in Minnesota's 2008 General Election. See TV news coverage by KSTP Channel 5 here.
And more:
ReplyDelete§ VOTE TOTAL MISMATCHES: Hundreds of precincts have reported different vote and registered voter totals in the SVRS system than were reported on election night 2008.
§ SVRS / CANVASS MISMATCH: A comparison of the SVRS voter histories and the State Canvassing Board certified election results revealed a mismatch of 40,000 unaccounted for ballots in Late April, 2009. As of September 2009, the discrepancy still had not been reconciled.
§ CANVASS / VOTER SIGNATURES MISMATCH: Examining the original polling place precinct rosters in 5 Ramsey County precincts revealed that more ballots were tallied in the official election results than there were signatures of voters in those precincts. In 4 of the 5 precincts, the voting machines tabulated more ballots than there were signatures and AB (Absentee Ballot) stamps on the precinct voter roster pages. This could in part, explain unreconciled discrepancies in SVRS and it demonstrates a potential hole in the integrity of the system, making it possible for some voters to vote twice - once by absentee ballot and once in person with both votes being counted.
The Minnesota Majority?
ReplyDeleteYou mean that crack-pot right-wing group that lost the senate race in 2008 by a very close margin? If you can find REAL proof to any of these allegations, I would like to hear it. Otherwise you will be effectively ignored.
Like it has been said...a solution searching for a problem.
Anonymous
ReplyDeleteI suppose you believe that we need to take Media Matters as gospel? Did you read the objections reported? As they do cite other groups that reported similar reports in the local media.
Okay..let's not point fingers at the original of the data. It is important but not overriding. The question is if Minnesota Majority findings are false. If so, let's post information that shows that instead of questioning the slant. This is why a lot of debates slow down and accomplish nothing because when one side feels wronged they attack the source instead of providing factual counter argument.
ReplyDeleteHere is an article my MPR that unearthed some voter fraud: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/10/26/hennepin-county-voter-fraud/
Guys, this is simple. The MN Supreme court reviewed the claims from both sides and made it's decision. The Supreme court does not have a history of making political decisions.
ReplyDeleteThat means these claims are invalid or unsubstantiated.
If you have proof, put it in the public light for scrutiny. But to claim "40 thousand" fraudulent ballots is not the same as providing proof of 40k fraudulent ballots.
Again, voter fraud in MN is rare and typically caught as part of the vote count process.
Therefore, as another poster said, this is a solution looking for a problem.
Why is it that when the right wing loses, they look to government to "solve the problem" but when businesses screw us, it's not the governments responsibility to fix it? I'm not an advocate of government intervention, but I also get really tired of illogical and hypocritic positions by those on both sides of the aisle.
"The question is if Minnesota Majority findings are false."
ReplyDeleteNo, the fact is that the MN Supreme court that reviewed the claims found insufficient evidence to warrant dismissal of the ballots.
It is not our responsibility to disprove their lies. It is their responsibility to prove their claims. If they don't stand up in a court of law, why would we accept them here?
Chase these red herrings all you want, but leave the voting process alone until there is concrete proof of fraud.
What is wrong with requiring the photo ID?
ReplyDeleteExactly what Truman said Viper...there is no REAL issue with voter fraud. If you require a photo ID to go vote, you have just created a new law where there wasn't a problem in the first place.
ReplyDeleteAgain, there has been issues raised over dead people voting, convicts voting and people that may not be residence of Minnesota voting. The allegations from the last vote didn't go to court because Emmer didn't want to push it and Republicans discovered a way, as 23 other states do, to mitigate voter fraud via the photo ID. To say that the poor will not be able to vote is a red herring.
ReplyDeleteJust because a process works relatively smoothly does not mean we don't find ways to improve it. We have gone from hand reading votes to electronic reading of votes so why not go from producing an electric bill to a photo ID?
Dead people voting and convicts voting...really? How would this even be possible? If the MN Supreme Court has found no instance of REAL voting fraud, thats not good enough?
ReplyDeleteYou will not develop a scheme for voting that runs perfectly. These issues get raised only because the election was close. In a landslide, no one seems to care...and even then they usually are unsubstantiated.
Now personally, I don't care about the photo ID. I have one on me at all times and when I move it is easy to get another one. But what if someone doesn't carry a photo ID? And to bring up the booze, cigarette, lottery ticket slant is VERY stereotypical. Some people just don't carry around an ID.
True, if you want to buy certain items you have to prove your age. And if you want drive you have to have a license which proves your identity.
But were are talking voting here. Something EVERYONE 18 and up should be doing. Why layer another rule on top that might cause less people to vote? (Perhaps so that upper/middle-class white people are the only ones who actually vote--but I digress)
The real culprit is the registration process. Here in Arizona, you can register to vote when you buy tabs for your car online, or if you change your drivers license online. The information goes directly to the Recorders office and you get a voting card for your district. I have always thought that this was fairly handy. There are other easy ways to do it as well, and you are required to prove your identity when registering. However, you are not required to show an ID when voting, just make sure your name is on the registration roll. To me the registration process is what needs to be streamlined.
The real issue with voting actually getting people to vote. To say that people are trying to screw the process is insulting. We need more people to vote, not less. More people voted on American Idol than they have on recent elections.
What does that say?
How about not saying people are trying to screw the process - but instead recognizing the potential, and then using methods to prevent it? Help me understand, with statistics if possible, how many people would NOT vote if required to show an ID in order to vote? And anon - the method you described in AZ to register would require you have ID (drivers license tabs, you need a license to get, etc). So how is asking for the ID at the polls any different?
ReplyDeleteWhile it's a "solution looking for a problem", I'm not understanding how this is bad in any way? As Chris said, what is wrong with requiring ID for voting?
Ted
I only described one method of registration...there are plenty of others that does not include a photo ID, just a proof of residency.
ReplyDeleteBut wait a minute...you are agreeing that this is a "solution looking for a problem", but you are in favor of it why? To me....and I am sorry if this sounds insulting...is just a further control factor to get less people to vote, increasing the chance of conservative candidates to win. That happens A LOT here in AZ. Even without the photo ID rule.
Lets improve the registration process by focusing on registering more people
Lets focus on campaigns--making them less dirty and nasty. Maybe more people would want to vote.
More ballots by mail?
I don't know, whatever. You are not going to solve election problems by requiring everone to show a photo ID at the voting booth
Thanks for clearing some things up.
ReplyDeleteYou're right. You're not. But I'll ask again - HOW is it going to insure less voters? You, and others keep saying that - help me understand, with more than just that statement.
Sorry if my using that comment made it sound like I was agreeing - I'm not. I made that comment about a "solution looking for a problem", as I was quoting someone else on this thread (maybe you? Not sure). I take that as "if it ain't broke don't fix it", and I do not agree with that mentaility. We can always improve things. Do I know if requiring everyone to provide ID will improve or insure integrity of the voting process? No. Do I know if it will harm? No. So that is why I ask, and I will ask yet again. How exactly will it harm?
"What is wrong with requiring the photo ID?"
ReplyDeleteWhat is wrong with the laws as they stand today? You advocate constantly for LESS government intervention. Requiring me to have a photo ID when there is no substantive reason (ie. true fraud) is MORE intervention, not LESS.
"Again, there has been issues raised over dead people voting, convicts voting and people that may not be residence of Minnesota voting."
And again, the MN Supreme court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to warrant the allegations and threw them out. Raising issues is not the same as putting forward facts.
"We have gone from hand reading votes to electronic reading of votes so why not go from producing an electric bill to a photo ID?"
Viper, when you register for the first time, you must provide PHOTO ID AND UTILITY BILLS.
Per the States website, these are the rules for registering as a voter:
1) A valid Minnesota driver’s license, learner’s permit, Minnesota ID card, or receipt for any of these
2) A valid student ID card including your photo, if your college has provided a student housing list to election officials
3) A Tribal ID card that contains your picture and signature
4) A valid registration in the same precinct under a different name or address
5) A notice of late registration sent to you by your county auditor or city clerk
6) A voter registered in the same precinct as you who can confirm your address with a signed oath
7) An employee of the residential facility where you live who can confirm your address with a signed oath
8) Both 1) a photo ID from the list below, and 2) a current bill from the list below with your current name and address in the precinct
Most people use option #8 which requires BOTH photo id AND utility bill. To say that you can register with ONLY a utility bill is disingenuous to say the least.
I just don't get how this merits MORE legislation to manage what is not a problem currently. I'm not saying zero fraud occurred. What I'm saying is that it is infinitesimal in the grand scheme of things. MN is known nation wide for having fair and fraud free elections. Our process is one of the benchmark standards in this nation.
How is it broken and needing fixing? And why are the anti-government people trying to use the government to fix a problem that doesn't exist unless there is a political motivation to all this?
Truman hits the nail on the head....
ReplyDeleteIts about regulation...regulations don't seem to be a problem when we pass laws that effect, say...poor people?
And not only that how far would you be willing to take this?
Perhaps a thumbprint? Retnal scan?
Your DNA has to match up to the DNA provided on the registration form...I know I am being hyperbolic but what end are you seeking?
Why can't we open the process of voting to EVERYONE who is eligible to vote, instead of creating more regulation that could PREVENT and eligible person to vote.
Is that really so hard to get Anon?
Truman and Anon
ReplyDeleteBy requiring a photo ID is not " a fix looking for a problem" nor does it reduce voter turnout. Here is the results of 2008 vote for those states that require a ID to vote:
Colorado - 70.20%
Michigan - 68.40%
Alaska - 67.70%
Viriginia - 67.50%
Connecticut - 67.40%
Missouri - 67.20%
Florida - 66.90%
Montana - 66.80%
Ohio - 66.60%
Delaware - 66.50%
Washington - 66.50%
North Dakota - 64.30%
South Dakota - 64.10%
Idaho - 63.70%
Georgia - 61.50%
Alabama - 61.40%
Louisiana - 61.10%
Indiana - 59.30%
South Carolina - 58.50%
Kentucky - 57.90%
Tennessee - 57.00%
Oklahoma - 56.30%
Arizona - 55.10%
Utah - 54.50%
Texas - 54.40%
Arkansas - 52.60%
Hawaii - 50.50%
The National average, http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html, 61.60%
I agree we need to get more people voting and it is a shame that our average is only 61.60% but at the same time we need to mitigate to potential of Dallas Cowboys being able to register and vote in Arizona when they don't reside in Arizona; ACORN case.
What does the # of people voting have to do with telling people they need an ID? The ID is meant to fight voter fraud, not incent people to vote.
ReplyDeleteThis is a red herring.
Show me factual proof that there was systemic voter fraud in this last or any recent MN election. Then explain to me why it was overlooked by the MN Supreme court.
If you can meet those requirements, then there is perhaps room for a law being added to the books to address voter fraud.
If not, this is nothing but a political stunt meant as fodder for a segment of voters (republicans) who feel cheated that they lost and are looking for something or someone to blame.
It's ironic they're looking to government solutions to their problem since they rail against government intervention constantly.
Truman - It's not a poor loser aspect. It is above improving the best State in the Land in regards to voter fraud prevention. Nothing has been proven here that it will turn away voters.
ReplyDeleteI do like how you taint the conversation with "ironic they're looking to government solutions" as no one in the Republican, Conservative or Tea Party camp is saying "No" to all government. We all recognize a certain amount of government is needed to ensure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Don't we all look for areas of improvement in our own jobs? Instead of saying why not, explain as why or how going to an ID would damage our process and not improve it?
Viper
ReplyDeleteYou are wasting your font. Those against the requirement are not arguing from a rational basis because there are several other states that require an ID and still have high voter turnouts. Plus, those against the process I ponder if they ever had to improve a process without an obvious defect.
If swiping an ID, like being proposed, would ensure or at least lessen the possibility of felons voting then I am all for it. If it mitigates the opportunity of putting non-residence on the voter rolls then I am all for it. I agree that Minnesota is not running rampant examples of these but why wait?
"It's not a poor loser aspect. It is above improving the best State in the Land in regards to voter fraud prevention."
ReplyDeleteAgain, it's a solution looking for a problem. Why?
BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE A FRAUD PROBLEM IN THIS STATE.
"We all recognize a certain amount of government is needed to ensure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
I'm not tainting anything. You are leveraging the government to solve a NON PROBLEM. How is that any different than the democrats who use government to solve problems that should be solved by the private sector?
"Instead of saying why not, explain as why or how going to an ID would damage our process and not improve it?"
It would improve it IF there was a problem with fraud. Given that there is no problem with fraud, there's no need to improve it. And the intrusion that this creates by forcing people to have photo id's is more government not less.
And for a man who advocates less government constantly, you seem very eager to advocate more when it suits an agenda you support.
Even when that agenda isn't backed by facts, logic or reason.
So let's re-ground this debate.
Please cite evidence of fraud that has occurred in this state in the past 2 election cycles that was submitted to the MN Supreme court AND wasn't deemed to be meritless? Then lets discuss materiality to the election. Then, if we see there truly is a problem, I think most people would be open to discussing solutions. But this hasn't happened, and so it appears to be nothing but an attempt to appease the right wing base over the last 2 election cycle losses.
@Anon
"Those against the requirement are not arguing from a rational basis because there are several other states that require an ID and still have high voter turnouts."
Yes, because changing our laws around the electoral process should be guided by hearsay, innuendo and supposition instead of facts. Because that is what the right is putting forward as their rationale for changing the laws, NOT FACTS.
And voter turnout has NOTHING to do with why I'm against this. I'm against it for the same reason I'm against most laws that are nothing but solutions looking for problems. It's because they clutter our legal code with nonsense simply to appease a political base.
And I'm not saying the process doesn't have problems. I'm saying FRAUD ISN'T ONE OF THOSE PROBLEMS.
Don't presume to know what I'm thinking and thus put words in my mouth.
"Don't presume to know what I'm thinking and thus put words in my mouth."
ReplyDeleteThat is a great point, Truman. One I think every single one of us would do well to consider as we read and respond in these debates.
Sorry to derail the debate - Chris, you can delete if you find innapproriate. I only comment like this, because of two reasons:
1. I enjoy this blog, more for the debate than the blogs themselves. I don't know that I agree with Chris on many of his views - but who cares? I enjoy getting to understand where he, or Truman, or whomever is coming from, and I think it's cool to get someone's perspective on something they may or may not be passionate about. Chris does a pretty good job of fueling that with many of his posts.
2. I HATE when I have to read assumptions about or attacks on someone's character, based on a comment or two. And I will be the first to admit I myself have done that. I'm sorry for that. I'll do my best to NOT do that in the future. I think when we do that, we quickly take what could be a very good debate, conversation, what-have-you, and turn it into a mudslinging contest, or an argument we feel we need to win at any cost. So often I feel like that is why nothing gets done in politics - and while we aren't getting things done, the DISCUSSION doesn't have to be ended just becuase you have a differing view than I, does it?
With all due respect to all who read this.
Ted
Ted
ReplyDeleteYour comments are perfectly fine. I have noticed that people often revert to attacking the person instead of point being made. Not sure why this is but it is a breakdown in the debate when it does take place.
Hopefully going forward those that comment on the blog will take it into consideration and keep their comments to the topic at hand.