Saturday, February 25, 2012

Voter Photo Identification

Oh no, I apparently share a common opinion with Gov Walker of Wisconsin.  Maybe I am slipping off my fence toward the Conservative side.
"Walker’s spokesman Cullen Werwie said, “Requiring photo identification to vote is common sense – we require it to get a library card, cold medicine, and public assistance. Gov. Walker will continue to implement common sense reforms that protect the electoral process and increases citizens’ confidence in the results of our elections.”"

Now I understand that the Liberals fear that some small portion of the population that is so far removed from the norm will not have a photo ID.  And due to this they will not be able to vote if these laws pass.

How can someone not have a photo ID and function in this society?  Do we really think these off the grid folks would stand in line to vote?  Do we really want someone that off the grid voting?  What is your rationale for thinking that flashing a photo ID is so wrong? (and no...  "It is a Republican conspiracy" is not a rational argument)
I linked to the MN Publius sight where I particpated in the comment section.

MSNBC Courts will be Busy
MNPublius Woman does not have Right

44 comments:

Anonymous said...

I always wondere why equating the right to vote, something essential to our democracy with the buying of cough syrup made sense to people. The government doesn't have the right to require you to provide an ID when you enter a church, speak out on an issue, or hire an attorney.

The issue voter ID addresses is impostor voting, the possibility that someone presenting himself at the polls is not who he says he is. How often does this ever happen? Have you ever tried to vote only to find someone has voted in your place? Has it ever happened to anyone you know? A couple of weeks ago a letter to the Strib reported an incident where the writer had an experience like that. Someone with the exact same name as the letter writer who lived in the same precinct had signed the voter roll on the writer's line, not her own. Would voter ID have even prevented even that kind of innocent mix up?

--Hiram

John said...

So I summarize your argument in the "I can't tell that my house was ever broken into, so I'll not take a typical action of locking my door even though I own a set of keys..." category.

My rationale is that voting is much more important than entering a church, speaking out on an issue, or hiring an attorney, therefore we would like to ensure that everyone that is voting is who they say they are. And that they are lawfully registered and approved to vote as a citizen of the USA.

Then again if folks think voting isn't as important as buying beer or collecting a welfare check, then I can understand why ID's would not be required.

By the way, I am pretty sure the Attourney will ask for an ID, or at least a credit card. Though cash may meet their need in some cases. But I am pretty sure the court will be asking for an ID.

Anonymous said...

I just am not good at analogies. I lack the requisite imagination. And I don't think voting is much like burglary.

I think there are two basic motivations behind the drive for voter ID. First is the traditional one. Republicans believe low voter turnout is good for them, and in particular, the voters who don't have ID, and who would be turned away from the polls are likely to be Democratic voters. It really is hard to prove or disprove this but it's what both parties believe. That's why we have registration drives and Republicans don't. It's why Republicans viewed the efforts of ACORN with such scorn.

The second motivation behind has to do with legitimacy, or rather Republican attacks on political legitimacy. In broad terms, Republicans believe that only Republican governance is legitimate, and that when Democrats win elections, the only explanation is that some sort of fraud has occurred. We see this drama played over and over again. There is no evidence of such fraud of course, but it is in the circular nature of conspiracist thinking that the fact that there is no evidence is itself evidence that conspiracy is more sophisticated since it's able to cover it's tracks.

Finally, whenever those analogies are considered, the ones where voter id is requested, ask yourself is it really identification they are checking? For example, when you buy beer at your local liquor store. Is it your ID, or your place of residence that the clerk is looking at? Or is it perhaps, the date of birth and not identification at all? Qualification to vote, in this case the age requirement, is not within the scope of what would be checked at the polling place. That's determined when the registration is accepted.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

Concerning credit cards, since the issue is raised here. I almost always use credit cards. People are willing to hand over to me thousands of stuff in merchandise in exchange for my credit card. On the internet or in mail transactions they don't even need to see my credit card; they take my word for it.

My credit cards don't have my picture on them. Although they have spaces for me to sign them, I never do actually sign them for security reasons. There is literally no reason at all for a clerk to think that a credit card I offer establishes my identity or even belongs to me, yet they take it anyway, always without question. Here is my question about that. Why exactly is it, that merchants are so willing to accept credit cards? What would be the fallout for them if they didn't? And what are the implications of those answers for voter ID?

--Hiram

Unknown said...

I see this issue in a sort of cost/benefit way.

With voter ID we will have greater certainty that there is not the election fraud of a person voting more than once (though there currently is no evidence of this type ofelection fraud) (benefit)

requiring govt issued photo ID will be a barrier for some number of people (estimates as high as 11%) (cost)

To me the costs look much higher than the benefits. And there is also the $ costs to the counties to implement this unneeded law.

voter ID

I also have many questions about the details such as if my driver's license address is not current will that be a barrier to voting? Many young and low income people move frequently and often lack ID with a current address.

Lastly I find it hard to believe that people will commit the felony of impersonating another voter in order to cast more than one ballot. Maybe in the last two elections (Franklin/Colman and Dayton/Emmer) this type of voter fraud could swing the very close outcome. It is much easier to imagine a turnout surpressed by 5% because of voter ID laws that tips the election to a GOP candidate.

John said...

I'll take these in order...

I know almost nothing about ACORN. Here are some links. Concerned Citizens Kill ACORN?

Carding for beer purchases accomplishes 2 things. 1. Is the ID holder 21. 2. Is the ID holder really that person? Seems appropriate at the polls. Voter registration is supposed to ensure the person is allowed to vote. The ID at the polling location shows that they are really that person?

Do you really think 11% of 18 yr old citizens do not have a photo ID? (~27.5 million people...) Does that feel realistic at all in our world of showing an ID for so many things.

As for a non-current driver's license. Isn't that illegal? Get it updated.

It concerns me if the Democratic hopes for a win rest on the votes from those that do not even maintain a valid ID... Much less participating actively in our society... Interesting.

Anonymous said...

Minnesota's voting process is very nearly free of fraud, and entirely free of voter impersonation. I've not seen any single examples of malicious voter impersonation--do you know of any? Let alone any statistically significant number of examples. As far as I can tell, this is a solution (and an expensive one) in search of a problem.

And yes, it will disenfranchise voters, but not the ones you think. People who are here illegally are not going to be so invested in the political process that they're going to take time and effort to schlep to the polls and vote. No, the people you're going to prevent from voting are college students and the elderly/disabled.

I have elderly relatives whose have never missed an election in their lives. Their licenses have expired and because of deteriorating physical health they've not renewed them. You're going to make 80 year old war veterans who don't drive, who live 30 miles from the county seat and have no way to get there, who've known their precinct election judges their entire lives--you're going to make them jump through a fairly complicated hoop, or else forfeit their right to vote? Because you feel like if they don't have a current photo ID, you "really don't want someone like that" voting? Holy cow, that takes my breath away.

And besides--It's a basic right of citizenship! Putting up barriers that have direct or indirect fees feels like a poll tax to me. If your argument is essentially--"If voting is important to you, you'll be willing/able to get an ID" then you're halfway over the line to "If voting is important to you, you'll be willing/able to pay $2 to defray the cost of the election".

--Annie

Anonymous said...

@Laurie "Maybe in the last two elections (Franklin/Colman and Dayton/Emmer) this type of voter fraud could swing the very close outcome."

True. Except it didn't swing the outcome. Every single vote was counted and recounted and recounted. If there were ANY statistically valid fraud, it would have been identified in those elections, because of the scrutiny. If I recall, the vote was found to be approximately 99.999% legitimate. The handful of votes that were thrown out were felons who were ineliglble and photo ID wouldn't have prevented them from voting.

--Annie

Unknown said...

Annie,

The point I was trying to make was that nonexistent voter fraud swinging an election is extremely unlikely, while voter suppression could have a real impact. You made some good points in further explaining the drawbacks and who will be affected by a voter ID law.

John,

I think more than 11% of 18 year olds lack a driver's license and the tone of your comments bug me.
Here is some more reading to help you understand who might be affected.


The Driver License Status of the Voting Age Population in Wisconsin


Let's just say that enacting a voter ID law decreases voter turnout by 3% and another 5% go through the hassles of getting the required ID, does this seem reasonable to you to solve a nonexistent problem?

Anonymous said...

1. Is the ID holder 21.

That's something that for voters is established in the registration process. There is no need for it to be established at the polling place, and I don't think that's what election judges at the polling place would check for.

2. Is the ID holder really that person?

Clerks don't check for this. They quite simply don't care who you are. They are checking ID for age, not identity. They don't for example need to know if you bought beer someplace else that day.

As for young people, the statistics show what they show. Many of them don't seem to have ID's that qualify. Maybe it's because the address is wrong. Young people move a lot.

"It concerns me if the Democratic hopes for a win rest on the votes from those that do not even maintain a valid ID."

And of course, here is where the cat emerges from the bag. Republicans think that it is ok, don't even see what's wrong with thinking it's okay that certain barriers be inserted between potential voters and voting. If for some reason a person who or can't maintain a valid ID, that person is not fit to vote, however qualified to vote that person might be. We can't take away their franchise wholesale, but with the highly polarized, evenly split electorate, if we just discourage a few voters from exercising their constitutional rights, it will give us a winning edge. And blocking qualified voters from the polls, to gain a partisan advantage, is just about the most shameful attack on the integrity of election system they I have heard about lately.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

I also have many questions about the details such as if my driver's license address is not current will that be a barrier to voting?

I don't think it's a crime to possess a driver license that lacks a current address. When you change addresses, you are supposed to get a new license, but I don't know that it's a crime if you don't, or even if you drive without a current license. In any event, these considerations are irrelevant to voting. I take Voter ID literally. That they are checking ID, not address. There is no reason at all a driver license that's expired, or lacks a current address can't serve perfectly well as an identification.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

"Minnesota's voting process is very nearly free of fraud, and entirely free of voter impersonation. "

HA! I must ask, where is your evidence? If you don't look for voter impersonation or double voting or legal status or correct address, how can you possibly say they didn't occur? "I know I wasn't speeding officer, because nobody speeds on this road."

I know for a FACT that there were several THOUSAND cases of false voting in the last election, and perhaps TENS of THOUSANDS of cases of double voting. Minnesota has one of the two LOOSEST election laws in the nation, and leads in voting fraud convictions.

Every time photo ID goes to the courts, opponents are unable to produce a single person who would be denied the right to vote. The only reason to oppose it is because one side of this debate WANTS and NEEDS fraudulent votes to win.

J. Ewing

Anonymous said...

where is your evidence? If you don't look for voter impersonation or double voting or legal status or correct address, how can you possibly say they didn't occur?

Where impostor voting is concerned, the evidence is the lack of evidence. If this were a problem, we would see frequent reports of voters arriving at the polls only to find someone else has signed in for them. I see very few reports of this happening. As for being unable to prove that anyone has actually been denied the right to vote, that suggests to me that voter ID isn't even enforced. Surely someone must have been rejected at the polling place for failing to have appropriate ID.

Voting is a big and complicated thing. No system is perfect. Mistakes will be made. But to insist on some ultimately unattainable and artificial perfection will inevitably mean that qualified voters will be discouraged from voting. And that's fines with some. Joe Soucheray wrote a soon to become legendary spilling of the beans column just the other day about how it's fine with him if certain voters he doesn't like are discouraged from voting.

Republicans remind of that scene in "Citizen Kane" where Kane's newspaper, prior to the election, have prepared two headlines to be run after the election results are in. The first is "Kane Wins". The second is "Fraud at Polls". For Republicans these days, no election result is honest or valid, unless they win it, and that's a standard I am simply unwilling to accept.

Tens of thousands of case of double voting? Something that's known for a fact? Voting is a matter of public record. Anyone can check whether you have voted or not. If there has been double voting tens of thousands of time, where is the evidence?

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

The only reason to oppose it is because one side of this debate WANTS and NEEDS fraudulent votes to win.

As always, voter ID doesn't protect against fraud. It doesn't deal with the issues of citizenship, felons voting, false residency, it doesn't seem to address any of the issues relating to absentee voting, an area where voting laws are often violated. All it does is address the issue of impostor voting, something we are assured happens tens of thousands of times in the abstract, but which nobody seems to be able to prove in reality at all.

--Hiram

John said...

Definitely an interesting discussion.

Laurie's link left me wondering how may folks are out in Wisconsin driving without a license. And if they have no license, do they at least have a State issued photo ID? From my brief look, it did not seem to discuss that option at all.

From what I understand, the voter registration process is supposed to ensure the person is eligible to vote in that polling site. The ID would just prove that they are who they say they are. (Hiram, That is why the ID has a picture...) Not sure what happens if the 2 addresses don't match. I assume they need to register and vote where their license or ID says they live, since that is their legal address.

As for Annie's older relatives, maybe they should get an ID when they give up a license. Hennepin Process MN DMV Search Though I must admit the State does a terrible job of finding answers regarding them.

Finally found something. Over 65: the ID is valid for life. State ID Info

John said...

Without Photo ID checks, I think any stats on voter fraud are somewhat pointless. Without verification we have really no idea who is voting.

How fraud could easily happen and not be detected. Canvass a neighborhood, find folks that will not be voting, pay them to fill out a voter registration card, and then vote for them via absentee ballots or showing up at their polling site. I am pretty sure the the recounts would not be able to find these issues. Correct?

Which raises another issue. How in the world would Voter ID handle mail in ballots? Do they go away?

As for keeping "certain" people from voting, I am torn on that topic. Though I agree that all citizens that are eligible should have the right to vote. I am frustrated that we would risk fraud so our society's non-participative and rebellious can have an equal voice.

If they are a citizen, let them be on the grid with a legal ID. Is that too much to ask? I thought the big government folks would want everyone identified and their data tracked.

Anonymous said...

I think any stats on voter fraud are somewhat pointless. Without verification we have really no idea who is voting.

Statistics are always an invitation to fallacious thinking. They have an illusion of precision that just doesn't exist in the real world. But the fact is, we know precisely who is voting. It's a matter of public record. Anyone can check whether you vote, and indeed how you vote, whether by absentee ballot or in person.

Absentee ballot issues don't seem to be talked about much. As is typical with these kinds of discussions nothing very precise seems to get talked about much. The fact is, the statutes are pretty specific about who is eligible to cast an absentee ballot, and these provisions are routinely and increasingly ignored. Basically, more and more people are voting absentee out of convenience rather than because they are out of state or within some other qualifying category. And I suspect, completely without evidence of course, that some folks are voting in more than one state. And my own guess is that those voters skew Republican. But that just isn't something I worry a lot about. It's the substance that's important that people shouldn't have barriers to voting.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

I should also note that this notion that there are tens of thousands of voters out there intent on voting illegally, risking severe criminal penalties in the process, and that somehow all tens of thousands never duplicate ballots, or talk to the press, and in never any way come to public notice seems implausible. I mean, how would one go about finding all those ineligible folks? You couldn't run an ad for them in the newspaper.

In the real world we live in, the one where Republican paranoia is just that, the real problem is getting eligible voters to vote. I simply don't have the arguments one would need to persuade someone who isn't eligible to vote, which probably means he doesn't care much about voting, to vote illegally, which gains that person nothing of monetary or any other form of value, and which risks years of imprisonment. I don't even know how to start that conversation or how if I did, I could keep it out of the news media if entered into that conversation tens of thousands of times.

--Hiram

--Hiram

John said...

"But the fact is, we know precisely who is voting. It's a matter of public record."

I think "fact" is the incorrect word, since no one is checking that the voter is who they say they are.

Anonymous said...

@John--"I am frustrated that we would risk fraud so our society's (blank) can have an equal voice."

Well, I understand your frustration, but I believe your feelings are trumped by the fact that voting Constutionally guaranteed right, and it's not constrained by the posession of an ID card. What you put in the (blank) is not what I put in the (blank), but every.single.citizen (over 18, non-felon). has the right to cast a vote. There's nothing about presenting an ID, neither should there be. I truly can't quite get why folks are suddenly so vexed by this idea. You want to rewrite the state Constitution. . . for this?

@Speed--"I know for a FACT that there were several THOUSAND cases of false voting in the last election, and perhaps TENS of THOUSANDS of cases of double voting."
Wow. This is really important news (clearly, because that's a LOT of CAPITAL letters!), and I find it astonishing that in the two exhaustive, expensive recounts (accepted and approved by both parties and candidates)--recounts which examined every ballot, every precinct record, every signature, every absentee document-- this was not uncovered and made public. Please, do provide examples and links!

@John " I thought the big government folks would want everyone identified and their data tracked."
Similarily, I'm amazed that the party of small government, the party that wants less intrusion, the party of fiscal conservatism---this party wants to invent new ways to overreach, ask for "papers", and implement new regulations that have significant cost now and higher ones in the future, as technology will most certainly change in the next decade. What's a reasonable price--implementation and maintence--to solve this newly-invented problem?

--Annie

Anonymous said...

Let's talk more about who is impacted negatively by this law.

So here's a U of M freshman. She got here in September. Has no Minnesota ID, and no reason to get one, but still has her SoDak license (aside--if she DOES get a MN license, she'll then have ID in two states, and I suspect there'll be Republican wailing about students fraudulently casting votes in both. . ).She also has her U student ID as well as mail at her Mpls address. Her roommate could vouch, if need be. No car--this girl walks or bikes. She carves out time from her full load of courses and her 20 hr work study to schlep to the precinct to vote, because we tell students it's their civic duty and they need to take it seriously. You honestly think she shouldn't have the right to cast a legal vote because of this invented ID language?

John, this could be a version your daughter in a few years, am I right? Are you willing to concede that your ID plan will make it unrealistic or at least significantly more difficult and expensive for people like her to vote?

--Annie

John said...

If her legal address is in SD. Have her vote there via an absentee ballot. That is where she apparently lives.

That was J. with the lots of CAPS. R-Five is Speed.

I think most us pro-ID folks just want to ensure the people are citizens that are voting and they are only doing it once.

I offered up the black ink pot technique, however that only gets us half the way there. I think it would be funny seeing all these folks walking around with black fingers instead of "I voted stickers..."

Anonymous said...

I think most us pro-ID folks just want to ensure the people are citizens that are voting and they are only doing it once.

The residence requirement for voting in Minnesota is 20 days before election day. Although nobody seems to be working out details, I know of no reason why her UofM ID or for that matter her SoDak license couldn't serve as ID, assuming that what we are asking for is limited to identification. Of course, there isn't anything stopping her from also voting in South Dakota by presenting the same ID there. Or for that matter, it's possible to register in different precincts, and present the same ID in each different precinct. Of course, one might get caught, but it won't be because one wasn't able to prove her identity. The ID requirement would have been satisfied. All voter ID does is prove identification. It may help prevent double voting in one precinct, but if it does anything more than that, it's because safeguards are in place in the registration process.

--Hiram

Unknown said...

Since John and J are having trouble coming up with a single incidence of voter fraud I decided to help them out, though it has not been proven and it is from another state.

Did Mitt Romney Commit Voter Fraud?

John said...

Now Laurie, how exactly would one prove that there are imposters voting if no one is checking ID's?

Please help me understand, and then I can start looking for examples. It seems like an example of some strange circular logic test.

As for the Romney article, that was interesting. I am not sure how folks that live out of suitcases do it. I guess the question is was he paying his taxes like a Mass citizen or was he claiming an out of state status. Assuming they have a state income tax.

I assume both Mass and Cal taxes are pretty high, so I don't think one would have a big benefit.

Unknown said...

John, I have never gone to vote and found that someone has already signed the register and voted using my name, nor have I read about this happening to any other voter. I can imagine a person voting getting by with voting in two different states, one by absentee, though I think being charged with a felony if caught is sufficient deterrent.

Maybe there is voting fraud on a very small scale. I just believe voter ID laws create a much bigger problem than the very small solve one that they claim to prevent. Voting is a civil right, not a privilage, and creating unnecessary barriers has the potential to impact the outcome of elections.

BTW, in my first 17 years of adulthood I moved 19 times and only updated my drivers license every five yrs when it was due to expire. I used same day registration many times with my utility bill and never considered voting more than once using my previous addresses/registrations. Who is it that you think is committing this felony and how are they keeping this widespread organized fraud so secret? Wouldn't the recounts in the last two elections have exposed this nefarious scheme?

Anonymous said...

how exactly would one prove that there are imposters voting if no one is checking ID's?

If impostors were voting there would be numerous accounts of people finding that someone had already voted in their name when they arrived at the polls to vote. Certainly, that would be the case if tens of thousands of people were impostor voting. To do that would require a massive organizing campaign, which would have to happen entirely out of public view. Is it plausible that such a campaign could happen on such a large scale, without perhaps a Republican somewhere being contacted? Or just a person who might be affronted by such a proposal who would take it to the media or to the cops? And what would be the incentive both for organizing such a campaign or participating in it? I may be a Democrat, but I certainly am not willing to go to jail for the party. And what about the potential impostor? What's in it for him apart from a pack of cigarettes maybe? Is that really worth a prison term?

--Hiram

John said...

I don't think the recounts would catch impersonation. Probably only registration and ballot issues.

I am guessing if it were to occur it would be within groups that rarely vote. This would eliminate Laurie or Hiram having found that someone already voted for them.

Anonymous said...

"So here's a U of M freshman. She got here in September. Has no Minnesota ID,..." -- Annie

A perfect example. According to Minnesota election law, this woman offers her student ID on election day and MUST be given a ballot. It doesn't matter that she may already have voted in So. Dakota by absentee, and nobody ever checks. Fraud, built into the law! Here's another: There is no requirement that the number of people who sign the rolls on election day must match the number of ballots cast. In the last election, there were thousands more ballots cast than people voting. And another: right now, I can register to vote with no ID whatsoever. When I go to the polling place, I say I am "Donald Duck" and I get a ballot, and it gets counted. How can I be found to prosecute me, if anyone tried? How would anyone even know? Meantime, my vote has been counted and can't be uncounted. A recount will only count it again, not detect its fraudulence.

OK, perhaps it's paranoia and nobody would do such a thing, right? So then what is the objection to closing these "loopholes"?

J. Ewing

Anonymous said...

@J--Yes, it IS a perfect example. As Hiram has pointed out, the U of M freshman, under your new Law of Election Paranoia, would STILL be able to vote in both places. It's not illegal to hold an ID in more than one state. (pssst--I'm eagerly waiting for your FACTS proving the THOUSANDS of fraudulent voters. . )

Elections require some degree of trust in its citizens, and as mentioned upthread, the threat of felony is a fair deterrent.

Frankly, I'd have no reservation about John's Ink Dip method, but that it doesn't account for absentee voting, which is well-utilized by many citizens (of both parties. . ) in our very mobile society.

"OK, perhaps it's paranoia and nobody would do such a thing, right? So then what is the objection to closing these "loopholes"? "
Because. . I'll say it slowly this time. . it will disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of legal voters. The elderly voter I mentioned earlier, if he turned in his license when he quit driving? Can't vote. The college freshman? Can't vote. Both are totally legal voters and you should not have the right to put up financial and logistical barriers to their right to exercise their constitutional right to vote.

@John--"So I summarize your argument in the "I can't tell that my house was ever broken into, so I'll not take a typical action of locking my door even though I own a set of keys..." category."

Well, sort of. Except it's more like living in an extremely safe neighborhood where you've never had any personal or property crime, and you suddenly realize you could be burglarized at any moment, and hire three armed security guards with dogs to patrol your street and alley--at great expense, and creating a huge hassle to your neighbors.

It seems to me that the people proposing this law very clearly want to lower the voter turnout rate. In order to keep away some imaginary voting rascals, you're willing to strip the rights of many many perfectly legal voters.

--Annie

John said...

Annie,
I am happy that you feel our voting is secure, though I think comparing a simple everyday ID to 3 guards with dogs may be a bit excessive.

Oh well, only time will tell. And I can't wait to see if online voting happens at some time. It seems like a natural progression, though I am certain that it will concern lots of people from both sides

Unknown said...

J,

"There is no requirement that the number of people who sign the rolls on election day must match the number of ballots cast. In the last election, there were thousands more ballots cast than people voting."

I never read about this and it doesn't sound at all believable, especially in an election with a much scrutinized recount. Do you have a link?

Also you must never have done same day registration. To register and vote as Donald Duck you would need a current utility in the name of donald duck with an address in the precinct in which you are trying to vote. Or you could bring your friend Mickey Mouse who is registered in the precinct to vouch for you. If you somehow try to scam these procedures you would have to be willing to risk a felony conviction for casting your fraudulent vote. What is the profile of someone who would do this?

Anonymous said...

Annie and Laurie (sounds like an old song) (excuse me for addressing you in the third person) continue to deny that any fraud exists. They may be correct in one or even two ways. First of all, the people who are double voting or triple voting may not think of it as fraud, and second, since there are no laws against what they are doing and we have no way to catch them at it if there were, we would have a hard time mounting criminal prosecutions of the thousands of suspected cases.

Since you seem to be unwilling to take my word for these things, even though I have run the data myself, been an election judge and election observer, participated in the recount and done voter registration drives, I will offer up SOME substantiation for my claims. See:
http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2012/02/07/breaking-video-tim-tebow-and-tom-brady-register-to-vote-in-minnesota/

and this:
http://www.looktruenorth.com/component/content/article/363-elections/voter-fraud/18804-minnesota-s-election-system-no-longer-the-gold-standard-part-iii.html

There are hard facts and hard truths here, and then there are the lies of people who do not want voter fraud prevented. They claim 100,000+ legal voters could be "disenfranchised" by having to have a voter ID, yet are unable to produce any of these individuals when the matter goes before the courts. The only voters disenfranchised by having to present an ID, just as you must do for dozens of other routine things in life, are those who are dead, don't exist or are in some other way fraudulent.

"To register and vote as Donald Duck you would need a current utility in the name of donald duck with an address in the precinct in which you are trying to vote." Except that you can see from the video, or just by looking at the form itself, that no ID whatsoever is required to get yourself on the regular voter rolls, from which you can vouch for 15 more people (it used to be 30), and THEY require no ID whatsoever.

The list of flaws in our election system in Minnesota is long and the potential for fraud is great. A simple photo ID requirement would solve many of them. Solving the rest was proposed by the Republican legislature, but of course our hyper partisan Democrat Gov. vetoed it.

J. Ewing

John said...

For your convenience:

PJ Media: Tebow and Brady Register

True North: MN Not Gold Std

Anonymous said...

The argument seems to be shifting from voter ID at the polling place to registration. The claims of tens of thousand voters seem to have disappeared. I have no problem at all with using the registration process to crack down on potential fraudulent potential voters like Mr. O'Keefe. My problem is with requiring ID at the point of voting.

Secretary of State Ritchie has proposes a passive voting ID system such that election judges have access to identifying information. There are problems with that but I think it's a very positive proposal, one that voter ID proponents seem to running away from.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

Something I have noticed with voter ID proponents is that they suffer from mission drift. To start with, voter ID is a very narrow thing, that addresses a very narrow issue, impostor voting. I think proponents understand that and feel a need, perhaps unconsciously to expand ID. What I am seeing now is an effort to evaluate mental status at the polling place, to ask judges to rule, perhaps provisionally, perhaps not, on whether someone is sane enough to vote. Insane people are ineligible to vote. However laudable this goal might be, I wonder about the practical implications. Are we going have a psychiatrist on call at every polling place in the state, available to make on the spot diagnoses as to whether an individual is sane?

--Hiram

John said...

Just like eating that proverbial elephant. Ensuring the Voter is who they say they are is likely just one part of improving an apparently rather lax system.

It sounds like the voter registration side may need some help also.

Anonymous said...

Hiram, you are the only one suggesting, in this venue, that the only reason voter ID proponents have for demanding voter ID is to rid ourselves of the "voter impersonation" method of election fraud. That is a red herring if, as do other defenders of voter fraud, you mean that someone pretends to be a legal, registered voter, gets to the polls before said registered voter does, and "steals" their vote. Since no one, apparently, has reported such a theft, the requirement of a photo ID would seem to be unnecessary unless: A) non-citizens are voting and their IDs are not checked for immigration status, B) someone registers prior to election day and isn't required to present any ID whatsoever, C) someone is vouched for, D) someone uses a student ID to claim local residency while voting absentee at home, E) votes in their old precinct as a registered voter and uses their state ID to same-day register at their new address, E) impersonates someone who does not or cannot – perhaps by reason of being dead – vote in person, F) is one of a number of people voting under previously-created false registrations, or G) some other variant or combination of the above. For all of these very real scenarios, a requirement for voter ID would be an effective deterrent, if not stop it altogether. There are other things required to bring Minnesota's election laws up to some minimum standard of integrity, but there is simply no excuse for leaving all of these loopholes open.

J. Ewing

Anonymous said...

Basically J Ewing's problems are not voter ID problems, they are registration problems. I have no problem at all with tightening up registration. That's where the problem of voter fraud should be addressed.

Voter ID as I understand it, addresses the issue of the identity of the voter. It doesn't do more than that. It doesn't for example prove citizenship, eligibility to vote or competence to vote, it doesn't really solve the problem of voting in multiple precincts, since how many precincts you might happen to be in, you have the same identity.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

hiram, you've perhaps never voted; you've almost certainly never been an election judge. Voter registration and voter ID go hand-in-hand. The voter registration, if IT were based on photo ID, would say that Mr. X lived at such and so Hollow Head Lane. When he came in to vote, his name AND address would be verified against the registration book (so that he is eligible to vote only in the correct precinct), and his photo checked. This registration book would, if properly maintained by the Secretary of State, who at present is either incompetent or criminal, tell us if the person was unqualified to vote for reasons of felony conviction or incompetence, and the photo ID would tell the election judge immigration status (if our Secretary of State would include that in his training of election judges, which he does not).

It is correct to say that photo ID does not solve all problems that give Minnesota the loosest election laws in the country. But it's a great first step.

J. Ewing

Anonymous said...

I have no problem with tightening up registration procedures. SOS Ritchie has proposed a video poll book, which I think addresses most of the concerns.

What seems to be contemplated is some sort of massive overhaul of the election system, the verification of the eligibility of every voter in Minnesota. I see one of our sad sack local attorneys seemed to file a lawsuit for that the other day. There must have been a shortage of ambulances. Personally, I think that's a waste of time and money, but hey go for it.

Election judge wise, I have a real problem with giving them a lot of authority to reject voters on election day. Election judges weren't elected to anything.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

Election judges are there, and trained to (supposedly) follow the law and "reject" those who are ineligible to vote, while allowing those who are eligible to vote, to vote. That by definition is their job.

Their ability to do that job is severely limited if the Secretary of State fails, through incompetence or illicit intent, to do HIS job of maintaining the voter rolls so that ineligible voters do not get on them, or are flagged as ineligible. Electronic poll books do absolutely ZERO to improve election integrity so long as the Secretary of State refuses to purge dead people, nonexistent people and known felons from the rolls, and permits tens of thousands of people to be added to the rolls on election day, with no verification whatsoever – the Main subject of the lawsuit.

Now, if you want to add electronic poll books, =properly maintained=, to a voter ID, you would have the "21st century voting system" proposed by the Republican legislature a year ago and vetoed by Mark Dayton – a DFL hack.

J. Ewing

Anonymous said...

I have no problem with maintaining the voter rolls in the most current way possible. I think that's been improved under Ritchie, and I am sure Kiffmeyer supporters can argue that she improved the maintenance of the voter rolls also. In particular, when a court issues an order taking away someone's voting rights, that order should direct the Secretary of State to remove that voter's name and registration from the rolls. That seems not to be the case now.

Here is a question. Does the Secretary of state have the power unilaterally remove a name from the rolls absent an order directing him to do so? Should he have such authority?

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

My understanding is that the Secretary of State is required to "maintain" the voter rolls. This would include such things as searching through death notices and removing dead people from the rolls, searching through postal notices of change of address, and verifying that new registrants actually exist, with valid addresses. Any one of these would authorize the Secretary of State to remove a person from the voter rolls. By all accounts, Mr. Ritchie isn't doing that job very well, and many would say it is because he is seeking partisan advantage by enabling voter fraud.

J. Ewing