Support voter ID question
To the editor:
There is a lot of misinformation about the voter ID question on the ballot in November.
As a registered voter, however, I deserve to have confidence in the election process. Fair, transparent elections give confidence to all voters, regardless of their political affiliation.
Voter fraud is only detected after the election is over and it is very costly to the taxpayers. It is much better to prevent the fraud in the first place.
A valid photo ID would help to do this. Most Minnesotans have a photo ID already if they drive a car, register for college, or apply for a bank account.
Voting is indeed a right, but you have to meet eligibility requirements. These include being at least 18 years of age, a resident of Minnesota, and a resident in the precinct in which you will cast your vote. A photo ID will provide all of this information to an election judge.
I hope that you want to protect your vote by supporting this vital law in Minnesota.
PAM PICKETT
Lakeville
Will you please site for me the cases of proven voter fraud and how costly it was to tax payers, which you claim as your reason for supporting the Voter ID Amendment?
The bottom line is this…
The Voter ID Amendment that you are supporting will intentionally prohibit those without valid residential addresses from voting, such as the homeless, those who live in shelters and foreclosure victims, since you cannot renew or obtain government issued ID without a residential address.
The Voter ID Amendment that you are supporting intentionally leaves out ANY provisions for those who cannot vote in person, such as seniors in nursing homes and deployed military troops…despite the fact that other Voter ID States thought it necessary to include these provisions in their amendments (As well as the US Supreme Court).
The Voter ID Amendment that you are supporting intentionally ends same day registration voting and replaces it with a provisional balloting system that will prevent the votes of 500,000 Minnesotans from being counted on election day.
The Voter ID Amendment that you are supporting is an unfunded mandate that will inevitably add millions of dollars to the property tax bills of Minnesotans in the name of a problem whose existence has literally NO supportive evidence at all.
I understand your desire for fair and transparent elections, but this years Voter ID Amendment does NOT create that system. It may look like a common sense proposition, but the devil really is in the details.
We have a more and more people coming into the community that are not citizens of the US and we need a law to make sure they cannot vote until they granted citizenship. Huge numbers of non citizens can change the outcome of elections. We have no way to know who is or who isn’t without this law. The US of the past is not the US of today and if we intend to keep the values we grew up with and keep a free and open society we must protect the very fabric of America as a Republic and not allow it to be turned into a socialist/communist nation this law is necessary and proper. Our founding fathers knew the people that they were dealing with. We have people who want to change our society into what they are used to in the nation they came from. They, not us, need to change and adapt to our values and not try to change the fabric of America to meet there idea of what a nation is. Change for the worst is not a good thing. It cause England, (at one time a great nation) into a bunch of Give me, Give me, Give me, I’m entitled! You earn the right to vote by being born hear or naturalized. To permit anyone to vote simply by stating they have the right and don’t have an ID gives that right and privilege away. We have given away enough rights. It is time to enforce the law and the Constitution! Anyone who doesn’t needs to live in the Soviet Union and live under that kind of control and you will come back and here and kiss the ground that you stand on. America for Americans of every race and creed but not for people who have not earned that right.
So, what I’m hearing you say is…
“I’m okay with this amendment, even if it knowingly takes away the right to vote from lawful citizens, as long as it prevent illegals from voting. Also, I’d rather not discuss options that would prevent illegal votes, without suppressing the votes of Americans, this version will do just fine since I assume every against it is a communist/socialist.”
Did I miss anything there?
Also, you did a great job not addressing any of the points I brought up… did you even mean to reply to my comment?
Mr. Q, How would you deal with the situation of voter ID fraud? I’m guessing you might say “just let it happen”. “Not a big deal”. It is my belief that if you can make it too church, the courthouse, the casino’s you can certainly find a way to get a proper photo ID. If for some reason you don’t meet the qualification of a Minnesota resident than you just can’t vote in Minnesota until you meet the proper requirements. Quit feeling sorry for those less fortunate. Some just prefer it that way while others have to endure the pain and humiliation of a disability. I commend them for the manner in which they find a way to live and enjoy life in their own way. They always seem to find a way to get things done in their own time frame and terms. No matter who you are, there is always someone less fortunate than you and always will be. My thoughts are, if you do not have a photo ID in your pocket, you don’t want one there. I was always wondering, if you don’t carry a photo ID, how can someone qualify you for any support or benefits you may qualify for? Also without a photo ID you can’t be identified in the event of an accident or death. You then put a burden on our public servants to try identify you using tax payer dollars. If you can’t find a reason to get a photo ID, in my opinion you do not deserve to enter a poling booth and vote because you have nothing to vote for. My thinking is that if it comes down to support or benefits being on the line, you will get a photo ID. End of story!
Good letter, Ms. Pickett.
We put locks on our doors to protect our homes. We use passwords to protect our online transactions. We install electronic systems to protect our cars. We shred our trash to protect our identities. All of those precautions are usual and customary—common sense. Yet, when it’s suggested that we should protect the integrity of our election system, there is outrage. No one disputes that human beings are capable of being burglars, hackers, car thieves and identity thieves. The proof is everywhere. Assuming that human beings suddenly become perfect angels when participating in an election is ridiculous.
Also ridiculous is the notion that voter ID prevents voting. Voter ID does not prevent voting. It keeps the process legitimate.
Clearly, preventing voter fraud is just plain common sense. If we don’t protect our elections, voting will become pointless.
A valid voter ID would not prevent fraud. Felons are not marked as felons on their driver’s licenses. Illegal immigrants usually have social security numbers of dead people and may or may not have voter ID, but it’s not worth the risk of deportation for them to vote. The only case where a photo ID offers any help is when one voter impersonates a different voter. The state of Minnesota has never had even a single voter impersonation case.
An electronic pollbook is a cheaper, more effective means of combating fraud, and would not disenfranchise thousands of legal voters who are seniors, veterans, recently moved, or college students. That’s why the Republican legislature refused to consider them. The only point of the ALEC-sponsored amendment is to make sure some voters stay home.
The Amendment, if passed, would add tens of millions of dollars to our state’s $4.5 billion deficit and would not prevent fraud.
Collin Lee defending Big Gov practices? Business as usual. Or maybe, monkey business as usual.
According to MPR news reporter Catharine Richert there were one hundred and thirteen convictions for voter fraud associated with the 2008 election in Minnesota. It’s impossible to know how many cases of voter fraud went undetected and therefore were not prosecuted.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/archive/2011/10/poligraph_voter.shtml
Woop-tee-doo, Jan.
According to Ramsey County’s Joe Mansky (sp?), cited in the above story, the voting criminals were mostly convicted felons ignorant of their voting status. And, Mansky says, a voter ID law such as the one on the ballot would not necessarily root them out.
The above story, a fact-check on MPR, also rates Minnesota Majority’s claims inconclusive.
Is this all about Franken v. Coleman and the recount? Is it all about ALEC? Heck — has there been such a rash of voter fraud in the last four or so years that Republican legislatures across the country just HAD to stem the tide? If so, has that been Independent of ALEC’s agenda? Maybe it doesn’t matter, but if it has been an ALEC thing, ALEC’s adherents might at least ‘fess up.
Why do so many who proclaim themselves “constitutional conservatives” support laws that will, in Minnesota anyway, have the inevitable effect of eroding, however much or little, the SHARE of eligible voters who exercise the franchise? There have been many examples raised in Minnesota suggesting that it would impede a substantial number (yes, an inexact sum) of legal voters.
But why impede them at all?
And, if as suggested by Mansky, felons are the bulk of the problem, what are we to conclude from that? Are most of them Franken voters and/or Democrats?
And though it’s a provocation, I’ll just put this out there: Why would the Minnesota GOP help put itself in debt by contesting a gubernatorial election separated by 9,000 votes? Does galloping paranoia on the right have no bounds?
Jan, I thought your dismissal of Colin Lee’s points curt and beneath your self-proclaimed standards of debate. I won’t endorse his “tens of millions” statement because I don’t know it to be true (election officials DO say there would be additional costs). But the rest of his post make sense to me.
wageslave:
1. Voter fraud is voter fraud, no matter the perpetrator. It sounds like you’re saying voter fraud by felons is okay. I disagree.
2. The idea that voter ID will impede voters is nonsense. If anything, a guarantee of above board election procedures are will encourage more to vote. Voter fraud exists. Taking steps to curb it makes sense. If voter fraud is tolerated—encouraged by lax controls—where’s the incentive for honest voters to even bother participating in elections?
3. An estimated cost of implementing voter I.D. is $5 million. Protecting election integrity is essential if our American way of life is to survive. A $5 million price tag for election integrity is a bargain. (The annual operating budget for Minnesota state parks is about $24 million.)
4. I did some investigating and learned that ALEC stands for American Legislative Exchange Council. Is that the ALEC to which you refer? Interesting organization.
5. Colin Lee’s past ultraliberal writings in this newspaper, including a scathing condemnation of American individualism (“We bleed together,” 2010), reveal his true collectivist ideology in his own words. A politician attempting to cloak his true ideology in order to get elected is monkey business, pure and simple. If your sensibilities are offended by the term “monkey business” feel free to switch that term out for skullduggery, trickery, shenanigans or just plain old deceitfulness.
6. In the above comment, Colin Lee includes a hyperlink to his donation site. Kind of a cheap trick, which brings us back to monkey business, skullduggery, trickery, shenanigans and just plain old deceitfulness.
7. Whoop-de-doo?
If it seems to you that I’m endorsing voting by felons who are ineligible to vote, try reading for comprehension.
I think it was “woop-tee-doo,” but whatever.
Oops! I think you chastised me once for using “whatever.” I withdraw the colloquialism.
I think, and many agree, that many more lawful voters are at risk of being impeded under the amendment than fraudulent voters are of being caught. You don’t agree. OK.
For what it’s worth (oops — a cliche!), Republican Gov. Pawlenty said while in office that he would back election reforms only if they had bipartisan support.
Bravo. That’s, “Bravo.” It means I endorse and applaud the former governor’s position.
(My cousin Vinny gets sprung on Nov. 1. “I want three things,” he told me. “A babe, a beer and a ballot. And not necessarily in that order!”)
Collin Lee’s collectivist mind-set. His insertion of a link to his donation site in this comments forum. Anything to say regarding those issues?
I did reread the opening lines of your last comment and am still left with the impression that you have a c’est la vie attitude toward felons and voter fraud. Throwing up our hands and sighing, “Oh, well” embraces the problem of voter fraud, it doesn’t solve it.
You are correct; I do emphatically believe that photo ID will enhance voter participation by ensuring election integrity. It will in absolutely no way impede participation in elections.
Regrettably, I am skeptical that the prison system is successfully rehabilitating your cousin Vinny. What’s he in for? I’m guessing not voter fraud.
You missed the point, Jan. Photo ID does not stop felons from voting. A felon’s ID card or driver’s license is not marked with “Felon” or taken away, nor should it be. Their rights are restored after they serve their full sentence. Only an accurate pollbook stops felons from voting!
This is why the bipartisan solution is to use electronic pollbooks, which would stop felons and repeat voters from voting. A few Republican politicians supported electronic pollbooks, but this was not the ALEC-approved voting solution so it was ignored by leadership.
Minnesota’s Republican politicians voted for the strictest photo ID law in the country in a strict party line vote because they are concerned about Democrats, soldiers, and college students voting, not felons. Young soldiers will struggle to vote because the proposed law forbids military IDs and harms troops requesting absentee ballots. Most college students are also legal voters, but young voters do not share Republican feelings about marriage, medical marijuana, or subsidies for the fossil fuel industry.
If you must stop legal voters from voting to win, your ideas are lousy.
Yeah, Vinny. Scumbag. Of course he’s not in for voter fraud. Sheesh — ya think?. In keeping with your doubts, our trailer-trash clan’s hopes for Vinny are … muted!
I didn’t see, seek out or ignore Colin’s link. Sorry.
I suspect both sides may be exaggerating their claims in this nationwide, ALEC-provoked debate. I still back full eligible-voter access vs. the unnecessary altering of current ballot practices, in Minnesota, anyway.
You are truly a seer to say: “It will in absolutely no way impede participation in elections.”
I bow. No, kneel. And request empirical evidence equal to the surety of your claim.
Why should ALL VOTERS support an election reform supported by only ONE party and promoted nationwide by large money heavily connected to THAT party?
Pawlenty had this one right — he wouldn’t sign voter-reform legislation unless it had bipartisan support. That’s a badge of courage in the sycophant party of which he’s a member.
I understand the concerns people have about voter id.
My problem is, the amendment gives the legislature power they don’t deserve. There is NOTHING specific in this amendment. They are saying, give us the power, and we’ll decide what to do with it later.
Are you kidding, people? Do you want to give this kind of power to government?
With true statesmanlike eloquence, Colin Lee calls my ideas “lousy.” Okay, Mr. Lee. It’s your right to have that opinion and express it on whatever plateau of communication you wish. This is America. America was founded on recognition of and respect for the rights of the individual. Recognition of and respect for the rights of the individual are also among the filters I use when formulating my ideas. Upon which standards do you base your ideas?
Regarding Lee’s kooky conspiracy theory that photo ID for voters is some kind of sinister Republican plot, it flat out doesn’t hold water. ALL voters will be required to have photo ID. Voters who are currently without photo ID can get one free from the state. It’s an across the board proposition. By any honest logical interpretation, voter ID is not discriminatory. Oops. I take that back. Voter ID does discriminate against illegal voters and voter fraud.
Finally, I emphatically register exception to Lee’s implication that US military men and women are too inept to figure out how to get the identification necessary for voting. What a ridiculous and insulting assertion. Some might call it “lousy.” The brave members of America’s military keep us free. It’s impossible to fully express the gratitude I feel for their heroic service.
Jan, you clearly do not care whether our troops are impeded from voting. Find me the Minnesota DMV in Afghanistan and I will listen to what you have to say.
So, Mr. Lee, do I have this right? For ongoing discussion to occur you demand that I find you “the Minnesota DMV in Afghanistan.”
1. First off, what a purely silly thing to say about a serious subject.
2. Second, there is no Minnesota DMV to be found anywhere on Earth. In my state we nteract with DVS, Driver and Vehicle Services.
3. Next, please refer back to a previous comment regarding statesmanship.
4. Finally, I’ve got to throw in pure silliness one more time.
Photo ID in elections is just plain common sense. None of the convoluted talking point arguments against it, including Mr. Lee’s, holds water. In desperation, Lee is forced to sink to a personal attack by making the offensively erroneous assertion, “Jan, you clearly do not care whether our troops are impeded from voting.” I feel no obligation to respond to that untruthful and insulting assertion.
The bully pulpit is not yet yours. Mr. Lee. As of right now, the field of debate is a level one. And it’s logic that wins a fair debate, not unfounded vitriolic inventions about the opposition’s internal motivation.
I urge voters to take note of Mr. Lee’s sketchy political style. Remember it well during the upcoming election. Whether you are a Democrat, a Republican, an Independent, a Libertarian or anything else, ask yourself these questions. Do Colin Lee’s attitude and manners match yours? Do you want to put your money where his mouth is?
You cannot seriously be tossing around the word “silliness.” This issue could not be more serious. Voting represents our most fundamental right in a democracy. Our soldiers went overseas to fight and possibly die to protect our rights and we are on the verge of deciding whether to curtail their rights without any recourse if their vote is canceled.
You want us to believe without a shred of evidence that our troops will not be impeded from voting. Your Republican legislators refused to consider what protections there would be for military absentee voters fighting on foreign soil. Your cavalier attitude about their fundamental rights is terrifying. What recourse is there for a soldier whose registration is illegally purged due to a name similarity? Do they get to cast a “provisional” absentee ballot? Of course not.
I know you cannot answer these questions and you appear to not care. For you, this is mere attack politics.
So, I point out your inappropriately silly words in addressing the serious subject of voter ID. You boomerang back with, “You cannot seriously be tossing around the word ‘silliness.’ This issue could not be more serious.”
First, use of the “I’m Rubber and You’re Glue” and the “I Know You Are But What Am I” arguments is out of place in grown up discussion.
Second, you are clearly profoundly confused, Colin. To clarify, your words are the silliness to which I refer. What are silly are your words. The subject is serious; your words are silly. After all, you invented a nonexistent state department then demanded that a branch of that imaginary department be found in Afghanistan. If those are not silly words, I don’t know what are.
Photo ID for voters is common sense.
Jan, you have added no new information since the original letter. Every post is just new vitriol and new attacks. You claim that voter ID is “common sense” yet we never used it in over 200 years of our great Republic, even when revolution and war drove the country apart with British Loyalists and Confederates still among us. None of your posts addresses the point that up to 700,000 legal voters could be negatively affected in Minnesota and you show complete disdain for the populations who are likely to lose their most fundamental right.
wageslave:
Georgia and Indiana have required voter ID since 2005. After voter ID was initiated in those states, turnout among Black voters increased several percentage points.
Colin:
There are 3,098,862 registered voters in Minnesota. 3,035,553 Minnesotans are licensed drivers. A driver’s license is an official photo I.D. About 56% of Minnesotans hold passports. A passport is an official photo I.D. In other words, most Minnesota voters already possess official photo identification.
As I understand it, the legislation in question provides free photo I.D. for voters without driving licenses. Students, elderly non-drivers and the poor who want to vote may still vote.
The estimated cost of voter I.D. is $5 million. Protecting election integrity is essential if our American way of life is to survive. A $5 million price tag for election integrity is a bargain. (The annual operating budget for Minnesota state parks is about $24 million.) Why is it that so many of the same voices which ceaselessly cry out for increased spending for public education, public health care, public arts programs, public transportation, public food programs and public everything under the sun are so suddenly and uncharacteristically fiscally concerned when it comes to a $5 million dollar program to ensure election integrity?
To suggest that Americans in Afghanistan, including military members, have no access to government services causes puzzlement. Besides the US diplomatic mission in that country, each branch of the military provides internal government liaison assistance.
None of the talking point arguments against voter ID holds water. What’s the big objection to monitoring the legitimacy of elections? Does somebody have something to hide? Mr. Lee doth protest too much, methinks.
Voter ID will help ensure legitimate elections. We–Independents, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians and all voters with common sense–can make it happen.
ALERT!
24,000 fraudulent driving licenses detected in MN.
Computer face recognition detects more than a million duplicate DLs in MN.
Those are the mind-boggling headlines I woke up to this morning. I’m still reeling. I fear that the monkey business has been grossly underestimated.
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/the_challenge_of_obtaining_voter_identification/
Jan: “As I understand it, the legislation in question provides free photo I.D. for voters without driving licenses. Students, elderly non-drivers and the poor who want to vote may still vote.”
Me: Praises! Let them bow down to Republicans for the hoops they may have to jump through for still being allowed to vote! By GOD, don’t look a gift-ballot in the mouth, even if it was yours to begin with!
I await evidence that elections in Minnesota have been hijacked (or even marginally affected) by scofflaw voters seeking partisan advantage, alone or in concert with one another.
I do, however, see ONE party seeking “reforms” that WOULD (see link above) purportedly make it harder for some people to vote. And that movement is not Minnesota grassroots, but a nationwide craze among Republicans.
I don’t see why any American — you know, the rugged, can-do type — would sign up for rule-fixing. Former Gov. Pawlenty, while in office, wisely stated that election reform should have broad bipartisan support before it is implemented.
Voters will decide. Constitutional amendments have been used sparingly in Minnesota. Republicans, now in power in both chambers, are suddenly crazy about them. They’re eating their own about what DIDN’T get on the ballot.
Why do Republicans — this current crop of them, anyway — hate due process? Why are they so impatient? Why do their amendments PRECLUDE equal rights that society may agree to confer (marriage) and EXCLUDE some eligible voters?
It’s backwards, the way they want to redefine the state constitution. Maybe that’s federalism? These conservatives wouldn’t TOUCH any raised letter of the U.S. Constitution. I guess it’s cool to screw with the state constitution as much as you can to achieve your goals.
In November 1960, many Chicago police officers wore a button stating, “Vote early. Vote often.” We know now that this occured, as Kennedy carried Illinois, with a surprising 117% of eligible voters participating in the election.
I am unsure if a voter ID program would fully solve this issue. Undeniably, there is vote fraud. However, if correcting such means that some will not be able to cast a legitimate vote, then two wrongs do not make it right. The system needs fixing, including substantially harsher penalties for fraud. We often hear, “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” Can the same train of thought be applied to vote fraud? Additionally, the proposed ID law would create yet another government bureaucracy requiring taxpayer funding. Would such bureaucrats who run that “office” be insulated from party attempts to encourage them to look away from fraudulent activity? For every action, there is a least one reaction. In this case, there are far more than one, and the negative reaction seems to handily outweigh the potential positive impact. Still, something needs to be done.