Last updated on 2012.03.26
Our neighbors in Minnesota are likely to have on their November ballot a constitutional amendment to require voters to show photo ID at the polls. The Winona Daily News points out two relevant numbers:
- "The Minnesota Secretary of State's Office estimates the proposal would be a problem for 215,000 current voters. That's roughly 7 percent of the nearly 3.1 million registered voters in Minnesota."
- While Minnesota has a good rep on keeping elections clean, 113 Minnesotans were convicted of voter fraud in the 2008 election. The majority were felons who mistakenly thought they had gotten their voting rights back, not people who pretended to be someone else or voted twice. "The number represents about 0.00004 percent of the roughly 2.9 million Minnesotans who voted in the 2008 election."
Big Stone County's Rebecca Terk went down to the courthouse in Ortonville to vote in a special election Friday. A county employee incautiously said, "Voting is a privilege." Terk corrected the employee immediately. Terk then corrects her state legislature for trying to tie voting to drivers licenses:
Perhaps those pushing this amendment don't understand the difference between rights and privileges. I'd wager that's because many of them haven't ever had to learn. They haven't ever had to wonder how they'll afford the photo ID or the documentation required to get it&ndashor how to arrange the transportation to put it all together. They reside in a world where privileges are never taken away, and so they are taken for granted as "rights."
...voting IS a right, and one that does not, and should never, require an attendant privilege to exercise [Rebecca Terk, "Rights and Privileges: The Voter ID Debate in Minnesota," Big Stone Bounty, 2012.03.24].
The Minnesota amendment would allow citizens to obtain free government ID cards. However, the Republicans rejected an amendment that would have allowed university students to use their school photo IDs. It's pretty clear the Republicans in Minnesota want to do ALEC's bidding and make voting harder for folks who have less time and money.
Update 2012.03.26 06:33 MDT: The Republican National Lawyers Association (that name ought to give you a creepy feeling) has data on voter fraud around the country. AlterNet contends the low number of voter fraud convictions doesn't justify stricter voter ID laws.
Another Republican way to surpress voting by the poor and minorities.
This a solution to no exsisting problem!
This proposal is so wrong, wrong, wrong! What makes it even "wronger" is putting it into the constitution! The Repub legislature is doing ALEC's/Koch's bidding in the first place. They are trying to put it on the ballot as an amendment because Dem governor Dayton vetoed the bill. One of many good editorial writers urged that it be adopted as a law for one year so that it can be tried out and changed as necessary to make it more effective.
Our Sec of State has proposed a voter ID system that uses electronic poll books that will include photos of the voters. MN has same day registration. If the new voter does not have a MN photo ID, their picture can be taken and immediately uploaded to the system to see if there are any duplicates. The same would work for students. Also, it would be cheaper than providing photos for the hundreds of thousands of people who don't have an ID. It would ensure that those hundreds of thousands of citizens are not disenfranchised.
As you might guess, the Repubs are opposed to all of that. Of course, that's because disenfranchisement of all those potential Dem voters is the very goal ALEC/Koch has in mind.
This is all quite sickening. 1% fascism marches on!
Here's a sordid glimpse into the dark recesses of the Republican mentality, from a real live registered Republican (on paper, anyhow).
The reasoning goes as follows (note that I do not say "our"!):
1. No good citizen should want fraudulent votes to go into the system.
2. Illegal immigrants are not citizens and they should therefore not have the right to vote.
3. Most illegal immigrants are poor.
4. Most poor people are Democrats.
5. Conclusion: Getting rid of fraudulent votes will favor Republicans.
I don't intend to support or refute any of these items, or support or refute the conclusion.
But if any of the foregoing statements are false, or if any of the logic is mathematically flawed, please tell me which statements or logical increments they are, and then explain why.
All that said, the path to absurdity is cobbled with logical stones; the road to totalitarianism is paved with longings for freedom.
Will all the required documentation be provided free of cost too?
Oh, I forgot to add the Final Conclusion that Republicans arrive at and fear:
6. Most fraudulent votes go to Democrats.
True or false? (I honestly do not know.)
Nick, that is an excellent question. Even I, the quintessential Model Citizen, had to scrounge my records to ensure that when my driver license expires in 2014, I'll be able to renew it right away.
The answer to your question would obviously have to be no. How can the government reimburse people for all the time they'll have to spend getting their poo-poo in a proper pile?
Somehow, I sense that certain very bad people, very bad dead people, are tossing in their graves right now, but not from discomfort, not from hellfire, but from joy, mirth, hilarity! They are winning and they know it.
I like SD's voter laws. If someone forgets or doesn't have an id they just sign a form and say they are that person. Pretty simple.
Why can't every state just use SD's laws?
Just renewed my driver's license and it wasn't very hard. But it certainly could have been, had I not been in my present circumstance.
1. I had a valid passport.
2. I had a W2 form from "my employer" (myself).
3. I had a recent utility bill sent to my address with my name on it.
If these are roughly the same requirements it takes to get a photo ID to vote, it's easy to see why it could be inconvenient for some people economically or logistically to do so. Is it coincidence that those for whom this is true tend to vote for the Democrats?
And does it make a difference whether one's disenfranchisement is intentional or unintentional? Isn't it just as harmful either way?
Not a problem?
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/07/20/Al-Franken-May-Have-Won-His-Senate-Seat-Through-Voter-Fraud
Bars can require an ID to serve a simple beer; however, requiring an ID to vote to prevent fraud and repeat voting is evil?
Not the same thing, Stace. If you think it is, that's a problem.
(...apparently, Stace doesn't think underage people ever drink alcohol. LOL.)
p.s. Stace, the Franken issue pales in comparicon to what happened when the SCOTUS appointed GWB president and in the process disenfranchized every single voter in the State of Florida, as well as overriding the popular vote of the Citizens of the United States of America. There are some things a fella just needs to move beyond, Nelson, if you know what's good for ya. ;^)
Beat me to it, Bill. Control the federal bench, Dems.
So Bill, how many fraudalent votes did Gore need in Florida? How many registered voters are no longer in South Dakota or who have died? Is there a process to remove from the voter roles those who pass away?
Not enough, Sibby: they just vote to kill black kids anyway.
"The voter ID proposal also has direct fiscal costs associated with updating technology and election infrastructure. Minnesota Management and Budget has estimated the first-year local costs at between $8.3 million and $23.3 million." MPR.
How many fraudulent votes are you planning on getting, Sibby?
I may have to write Sibby in if there aren't any more candidates in my district.
Based on your reactions, looks like those who promote and worshiop immoral sex are also OK with voter fraud.
Yes, you're going to have problems getting the libertarian, Masonic and scientific, critical thinking, masturbation and fornication vote, Sibby. Because even if you do get some, you're going to consider them fraudulent... illegitimate. You should maybe make a sign or something that says "True Jesus Voters Only" just so your conscience can rest easy.
Immoral Church of Larry-Day Saints-R-Us.
It's an opinion piece Stace. Given your background and expertise, I would think you would have seen that and looked for proven facts.
But since you introduced opinion, here's one from that radical feminist group...the League of Women Voters and sworn testimony in front of Congress:
http://www.lwv.org/content/statement-elisabeth-macnamara-president-lwvus-forum-entitled-excluded-democracy-impact
Yes, Stace you of all people should be against these laws that suppress the vote. Good point, Jana. It's not a right vs left thing it's a right vs wrong thing.
@Bill every single voter? Could have sworn it skipped a granny from Kissammee; however, I have been know to make a mistake now and then.
@Jana! Longtime no acidic biting comments received! How r ya? Good I hope? Would it help that I talked with some MN legislators who bitterly cited the rampant fraud? no? So no measures to protect the voting process? No problems there?
Stace, the final step in Florida would have been to recount all the votes. It was partly the Gore campaign's mistake for not requesting a recount in all voting districts, and the SCOTUS's for not insisting on it and declaring the election over, but either way the Florida Court's wishes were made null and void by the US Court, essentially making every Florida voters wishes moot point.
Thanks Stace, sorry if you thought that was an acidic biting comment...I'll try be more sensitive to your delicate nature and follow your example of tactful discourse and decorum ;-)
Do please share the facts from the Minnesota Legislators you visited with and provide the proof of the instances they cited and how that should be the basis of disenfranchising large blocks of voters.
Here's a couple of cases that happened that should offend you in terms of voters being denied the right to vote because of the voter ID laws you favor.
The first has been used in the court cases against the voter ID laws. You can use the google and look up Ricky Tyrone Lewis, a 58 years old Marine Corps Veteran who was denied the very right to vote he defended with his life.
The second is Paul Carroll, an 86-year-old World War II veteran who has lived in the same Ohio town for four decades and is probably best understood from his own words: Carroll told the Cleveland Plain Dealer that he got the ID from the VA after his driver’s license expired because he doesn’t drive anymore:
“My beef is that I had to pay a driver to take me up there because I don’t walk so well and have to use this cane and now I can’t even vote,†said Paul Carroll, 86, who has lived in Aurora nearly 40 years, running his own business, Carroll Tire, until 1975.
“I had to stop driving, but I got the photo ID from the Veterans Affairs instead, just a month or so ago. You would think that would count for something. I went to war for this country, but now I can’t vote in this country.â€
Here's another example of the people whom you choose to disenfranchise:
World War II veteran Darwin Spinks went to a testing center last month to get a photo ID for voting purposes. Under the law, any resident without a photo ID is supposed to get one free of charge. But when Spinks asked for an ID, he was told he had to pay an $8 fee:
Spinks said Tuesday he needed the photo because when his driver’s license with a photo expired the last time, the driver testing center issued him a new license without a photo on it. State law allows people over 60 to get a non-photo driver’s license.
The retired print shop worker who moved here 17 years ago said he told people at the driver center he wanted an ID for voting purposes. He was sent from one line to another to have a picture taken, then was charged.
“I said, ‘You mean I’ve got to pay again?’ She says, ‘Yes,’†explained Spinks, a resident of County Farm Road, who was stationed on the USS Goshen in World War II and was called to duty again for the Korean War.
Are you really saying that the ID and the current proof of voter eligibility won't disenfranchise people?
To quote Rick Perry...oops. the last sentence should read: Are you really saying that the ID laws you are proposing won't disenfranchise people?
This is where the rubber meets the road, Stace.
One has to assume that, at least for the time being, our voting system cannot be absolutely perfect. Given that as an existential truth, what is the greater good? To allow as many citizens to vote as possible? Or to restrict the number of votes to only those who can, and are willing to jump through all the necessary hoops.
Put another way, should we have more or fewer people voting? (...keeping in mind that even under the most liberal voting circumstances, only about half of the folks eligible actually cast votes.... that means even those candidates who win "by a landslide" only got around 30-35% of the total possible votes.)
So, is that a good thing? Or a bad thing?
Nice Bill! I would only add the word 'afford' to your statement "Or to restrict the number of votes to only those who can, and are willing to jump through all the necessary hoops."
"here’s one from that radical feminist group"
Thanks for proving my point on the tie in of fraudalent voting to the worship of sex.
And Bill, sounds like you would have been among those shouting CRUCIFY HIM.
Yes, Jana. As per Nemec, if there is cost involved, that most likely constitutes a poll tax. We shouldn't have to pay to be able to vote. Free means free, right?
I am opposed to the death penalty, Steve. It's against my religion.
"Stace, the final step in Florida would have been to recount all the votes."
Recount all the votes...including the fradulent ones. Florida should be an example that supports voter ID.
"I am opposed to the death penalty, Steve."
No, you are not, it is called "abortion".
Voter fraud wasn't the issue in Florida, Sibby. Voter suppression was. As for abortion, I'll argue that you are as "pro-abortion" as I am. You just refuse to tell the truth about it.
Mr. Nelson made an excellent point, in regards to ID. If voting is supposed to be this sacred, pure thing of democracy it is made out to be, how can it be less regulated than cigarette or alcohol sales?
Also, and don't take this the wrong way, this is a bit of political humor, but wouldn't anyone willing to lie on an affidavit be so poorly versed in social contract theory that they could only possibly support the leftist fiscal policies of the contemporary Democratic Party?
I've been living and voting and politically involved in MN since 2007.
Accusations about cheating in Franken's election have been flowing since he won. They still flow. Investigation has followed investigation has followed investigation . . . Repubs have conducted plenty of their own investigations. As a result of their investigations, some claims of cheating continue. There is only one problem.
No investigation has found any EVIDENCE of any election-altering cheating. None, zero. But just like the claims that Obama is a Muslim and the anti-Christ, the accusations go on.
Rep. Nelson, you can always find people who will claim there was cheating. And Elvis is not really dead, and there is a world-wide cabal of evil-doers controlling the planet.
Can anyone tell me why the MN secretary of state's plan for voter identification at the polls, at a greatly reduced cost, should not be put to use?
"Voter fraud wasn’t the issue in Florida, Sibby. Voter suppression was."
Was that because they had voter ID laws?
"I’ll argue that you are as “pro-abortion†as I am."
Not surprised coming from a deceptive political activist whose ends justifies the means.
Elliot, there's not a checkout guy in Rapid City that has ever asked me to see an ID when I buy alcohol and/or tobacco. They wouldn't ask Nelson either. You they might. But that's about it. The two are completely different animals and Stace's point is ridiculous.
Here's the overview of the debate, Sibby. Add that to my notes abouve regarding the SCOTUS cancellation of the recount.
http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000660
As to the abortion issue, don't start a fight you're not willing to finish. You are as "pro-abortion" as I am if you allow for exceptions under certain circumstances and if you believe it's okay for women to have menses and miscarriages. The difference between us is that I have respect for women and their rights as citizens and you do not. That's it in a nutshell.
p.s. Also, Elliot, in case you forgot, alcohol and tobacco are controlled substances that can harm your health and endanger others. Voting is not. It is legal to drive and take your absentee ballot to the Post Office. But not legal to drink a beer on the way, or smoke a cigarette in the building when you get there. You must have forgot to put on your thinking cap this morning.
I really want all of the conservatives who love the voter id laws to explain what's conservative about them.
The closest comparison is the social security number. When the cards were first issued, the number implied a private contract between the citizen and the government. Now, one needs to hand out the number for nearly everything. When I was growing up, no one needed a card until he or she got a job. Now people get the number at birth.
The same trajectory will happen with voter id cards. They will become the de facto national id card that will be demanded for nearly every transaction.
My basic definition of freedom is that I can put $5 in my pocket and walk to Starbucks and not have to show anyone an ID. If the social security number grew to be a requirement for nearly everything, carrying the voter id card will be a requirement for leaving the house.
Modern conservatives seem to hate government unless they are the ones creating new government requirements.
LK, *gasp* are you saying voter ID cards might be the "mark of the beast?" Oh boy... Sibby's not gonna like that one bit.
Bill, I'm hanging my head in shame that I didn't make myself clear. I'm saying that one won't be able to pilot one's black helicopter without one.
(...I bet Sibby would give every fertilized human egg a social security number if he could figure out how to do it. Mark o' the Beast, baby.)
Well, that's a little better I guess, LK.
I was gettin' nervous for a minute there.
See Sib? The Book of Revelations makes everybody go nuts.
Bill,
Just to clarify a bit more.
Every objection that conservatives make against health care reform, gun laws, helmet laws, texting while driving laws, or anything else they don't like can be made against the ID cards. I would contend that these arguments may be more valid if applied to the ID cards than they are to many other issues.
The self proclaimed liberty loving conservatives who support the ID card don't care about those arguments, which may be more valid on this issue than they are on many others, because they have ulterior motives for using the ID card.
LK, it's an excellent point. What's driving is is, as noted before, is paranoid politics... kind of a double dose of it actually.
The stringent new rules on obtaining a drivers license have to do, I think, with ensuring those obtaining them aren't terrorists or non-US citizens. It's amazing to me that this would be a priority in SD where we historically have had very few (if any) of either.
Second, as per your comment, there is a concern about who votes, and mechanisms being put into place to disenfranchise libertarians, poor people, young people and old people, again for seemingly no reasonable purpose. It's not as though the Republicans are having a hard time of it politically in our state.
More and more, it seems our legislators are passing laws to solve problems we don't have. And the "cure" is oftentimes more deadly than the supposed "disease."
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." — Benj. Franklin
Stace, are you still ok?
I'd politely asked you what you thought of those veterans who were denied the right to vote based on the photo ID laws being pushed by ALEC.
Pretty sure you would have weighed in on those examples of how the voter id laws can have some pretty bad consequences.
Hope all is well with you and look forward to your comments.
@Jana Sorry, swamped with things to get done around our little farm and trying to get campaign in high gear for a primary in a couple months.
You are correct, the voter ID laws do have some down sides and I understand folks' concerns. Ideally there will come a day when folks can walk in to the polling place and be confirmed on the spot as being legal to vote. Until then we have to try and work our way through ensuring our elections are not stolen while not stomping on the rights of voters.
Thanks Stace. I'd also add to your list that we abolish things like voter caging and other activities designed to keep blocks of people from the voting booth.
32,299 UFO sightings, 352 deaths by lightning, but only 9 cases of voter impersonation from 2000-2007. RT @thenation.