"Writer says Anderson is unfit to serve...
To the editor: Legislators who advocate for ballot initiatives either don't understand their jobs or don't want to do it.
Making laws is not easy. It involves the hard work of understanding the existing legislation, analyzing the nuances of the issue, crafting a bill that effects the most good while doing the least harm, providing opportunity for comments from the public and affected interest groups and then convincing other legislators of the proposed bill's wisdom.
Legislators are elected to do a job and to represent us in doing so. Throwing an issue to the voting public in the form of a ballot initiative is an abdication of those responsibilities.
Unfortunately, my representative, Sarah Anderson, doesn't get that. Instead she has been in lockstep with her Republican colleagues to put serious Constitutional issues on November's ballot as a cynical attempt to circumvent the legislative process and engage in wedge politics.
She apparently doesn't know that our founding fathers could have formed the United States as a true democracy, but in their wisdom they didn't. Instead, they created a representative democracy where we elect representatives to do the hard work of legislating on our behalf.
If she does understand that, then she has chosen not to do her job. Either way she is unfit to serve. Kelly Guncheon Plymouth"My opinion is somewhat more aligned with the Minnpost article. In a time when the politicians were more practical and centered, I could agree more with Kelly. However in our current culture of extremists on both sides of the aisle, I just don't see successful moderate discussion occurring on some of these topics. (ie Dayton planning to veto Teacher performance as a layoff consideration) {oops... got sidetracked...} Also, the State's founding fathers must have allowed for these amendments, otherwise they would not be able to put them on the ballot.
And though Sarah is a bit Right of Center for me, I am sure she will get my vote as usual. And I am fine putting the most divisive topics to a popular vote, it is the one time a moderate like me has a real say...
So what do you think regarding these amendment votes and letting the people decide? I think we may get a shot at Voter ID's, Right to Work, Marriages, Tax Increases, Others? It should pump a lot of money into the Ad, TV, Radio, Printing and other industries. (ie Thank God for my MP# player...)
MinnPost Legislature Quality
58 comments:
Issues that people should decide are political issues, and properly considered in the people's forum, the legislature. The constitution is for issues that should be taken out of the hands of the people. If you notice, the issues under consideration for amendment are highly controversial, issues where not so long ago, the public views were very different. Partisans on these issues are fearful that if they don't freeze their position in the constitution, public opinion will change to their disadvantage. We see that most clearly with respect to gay marriage. Entombing controversial policy choices in the constitution is exactly the wrong choice, the very opposite of "letting the people decide".
That last comment was from me.
--Hiram
I don't know who Minnpost appeals to, but they seem to have presented a thoughtful piece, whereas the Letter-writer is just a left-wing loon. We have a lot of them here in MN, which accounts for why the legislature OUGHT to be polarized. There's no compromising with the Looney Left. As I've said before, if they want to spend $6B more than we have and the GOP wants to spend no more than we have, where is the proper and sensible compromise?
On these amendments, if a majority of the people's representatives pass a bill it is the people's will, supposedly. So why is it not an affront to that process when one individual without reason, the Governor, strikes it down in a fit of partisan pique? He could have signed voter ID (which 80% support) and preserved marriage (70% support) and right to work (70% support) but he didn't. Now, to do what the people want he must be bypassed by an actual vote of the people.
J. Ewing
I am not sure if these amendments are as overwhelmingly supported as J says, however we will likely get a chance to find out.
Though I am curious, is Dayton acting any more/less partisan than Pawlenty was?
about "However in our current culture of extremists on both sides of the aisle"
there is a big difference in the number and influence of the so called extremists in each party. With dems there are few who have very little power.
About the amendments I think the constitution should be about protecting rights and the two that are up for s public vote are about restricting rights. The GOP should have to have the gov and the legislature to pass laws from their agenda to which the dfl strongly objects.
With respect to Voter ID, I believe support is broad, but shallow, and that for most Minnesotans it's a very marginal issue. I think public sentiment on gay marriage is changing fast, and in my view, that's an issue that's an issue that should be hung around Republican politicians' necks, particularly in the suburbs.
"Though I am curious, is Dayton acting any more/less partisan than Pawlenty was?"
I can tell you that many Democrats are concerned that this is not exactly the case. Mark Dayton didn't get the endorsement of the DFL and isn't particularly beholden to them. During last year's budget negotiations, he excluded DFL legislative leaders from participation, something that is neither forgiven nor forgotten.
--Hiram
"About the amendments I think the constitution should be about protecting rights and the two that are up for s public vote are about restricting rights." -- Laurie
Or at least that is what the left would have you believe. From the conservative point of view the opposite is true. "Right to work" means exactly that. The right to vote does not include the right to cheat and vote multiple times or under false identities, which tramples on the right of other voters to have their ballots fairly counted. Lastly, there is no "right" to gay marriage recognized by the state and there never was. How can protecting the definition of marriage from RE-definition by a few appointed judges be an abrogation of rights or anything except the right of the people to democratically decide such issues.
Again, in the case of gay marriage, it might have been better if the Governor had signed a bill into law, which could be more easily changed as our culture shifts (which I hope it never does). But he didn't.
What I would suggest to you is that partisanship can be determined by seeing which side has (the best or perhaps only) actual REASONS for its position, in which case it is the other side being purely partisan. In the three cases under discussion, we have an unreasonable governor.
J. EWing
I would also say that Sarah Anderson is a nice lady who is certainly qualified and fit to serve in the legislature. I wouldn't say or suggest as the letter writer did, that differences on political issues, of which I have many with Sarah, is something that goes to fitness to serve. I would like to see that kind of rhetoric toned down a bit, actually.
--Hiram
The interesting thing about the term extremist is that it is so relative... Often the Right applies it to the Left, and the Left to the Right, and yet they see themselves as rational and pragmatic.
Man I love human psychology! !!!
To me, the most fascinating aspect of the voter ID discussion is how little the remedy Republicans propose has to do with the problem they claim to identify:
"The right to vote does not include the right to cheat and vote multiple times or under false identities, which tramples on the right of other voters to have their ballots fairly counted."
Since the same ID could be presented multiple time in different precincts, or even in the same precinct if the same name appeared more than once on the registration rolls, Voter Id would do literally nothing to solve the alleged problem of multiple voting. The compromise measure proposed by the DFL, computerized poll books, would have.
--Hiram
it might have been better if the Governor had signed a bill into law, which could be more easily changed as our culture shifts (which I hope it never does). But he didn't
Current Minnesota law bars single sex marriage. There is no reason for opponents of single sex marriage to pass such a law at this point and submit it to the governor since they have no objections to the law as it stands, as far as it goes. Had that not been the state of the law, I am sure that this Republican controlled legislature would have done that.
--Hiram
Hiram,
As I understand it there are 2 parts to the voting verification process.
1. Voter registration - Ensure the right people show up on the right lists. And the wrong people show up on no list.
2. Voter verification - Ensure the person voting is the person on the list.
I think they are working on #2.
2. Voter verification - Ensure the person voting is the person on the list.
I think they are working on #2
I suppose they are, although voter ID doesn't completely address that problem. The best that it can do, is to prove the person has the same name as the person on the list. It doesn't prove that the voter is the person listed. Voter ID has nothing to do with establishing residence. The ID need only be government issued. That means a California driver license would work, and so would a Canadian passport. The problem voter ID addresses is voter impersonation, the claim that people are voting in someone else's name.
--Hiram
There is a certain irony here with respect to Voter ID. Should voter Id pass, and should Democrats return to the majority in both houses of the legislature, the effort to make sure everyone in the state has ID, might be huge. I fully expect government sanctioned photo booths will be established outside each polling place in the state so that no one will have an excuse for not having an ID to vote.
--Hiram
"Since the same ID could be presented multiple time in different precincts, or even in the same precinct if the same name appeared more than once on the registration rolls, Voter Id would do literally nothing to solve the alleged problem of multiple voting. The compromise measure proposed by the DFL, computerized poll books, would have." -- hiram
That's just incorrect. Voter ID must verify THREE things together-- that the person with the ID is the one in the photo, that the name is valid and on the verified rolls, and that the ADDRESS on the ID matches the ID and address on the rolls. You can't vote multiple times in different precincts, addresses don't match. You can't say you are "Tim Tebow" because your photo won't match. You can't vote twice because your name will be checked off already. There are tens of thousands of potential fraud cases out there that have nothing to do with impersonation, and the electronic poll books address essentially none of them. To anybody that thinks that there's no fraud now I would simply say "prove it." You can't. To those that think people will be disenfranchised, I would say "prove it." They can't. Minnesota has the loosest election laws in the country. Time to tighten them up. If that means that dead people, felons, fictional characters and non-residents lose their "right" to cast a ballot, so be it.
J. Ewing
Now I know Voter ID is fascinating and controversial, however what do you think of Kelly's letter and thoughts?
Should we boot all these GOP politicians for shirking their duties?
Or should we award them for their out of the box thinking and willingness to have the people decide?
I think it would have been better if Dayton signed the voter ID bill last year. Then this voter suppression law could more easily be changed to something sensible like electronic poll book when the dfl regains the majority.
So if this Voter ID is such a bad idea, why do the Liberals seem to think it will pass. Have we no faith in the people?
Laurie, the electronic poll book is just an attempt to keep the same old voter frauds going but in a fancy new electronic suit. It does absolutely nothing that the current poll books can't do, which means that Voter ID is still necessary. Now if you want to do BOTH, that's OK with me.
And this "voter suppression law" will not suppress one single LEGAL voter. Nobody in the DFL can prove otherwise.
J. Ewing
"To anybody that thinks that there's no fraud now I would simply say "prove it." You can't."
The law says "necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit", which translates to "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges". If you're suggesting Minnesota should not just change the law, but change the Constitution, I'd say the burden of proof is squarely on your side.
"If that means that dead people, felons, fictional characters and non-residents lose their "right" to cast a ballot, so be it."
And that would be such a persuasive argument, if only it were true. The facts say that after combing through millions of ballots with a fine-toothed comb in the last few elections, barely a handful fit into one of your categories (felons). And the others are pure fiction--not one single case.
This amendment represents government overreach and would be hugely expensive to implement--how does this fit into conservative ideals, again?
I've said it before--you have a solution in search of a problem.
--Annie
"So if this Voter ID is such a bad idea, why do the Liberals seem to think it will pass."
I think it polls well, I don't necessarily think it will pass. I think support is broad but soft on the issue. Politically, I am comfortable with my stand on the issue.
"Have we no faith in the people?"
I certainly don't have faith in polling. Nor do I believe the electorate always makes right decisions. But remember, I am the guy who doesn't want to take these issues out of the hands of the people, and put them in the constitution. The reason gay marriage folks want to put their proposal into the constitution is that they know public sentiment is shifting against them on the issue. They will tell you flatly that the fact that the law is on their side right now isn't good enough because the people, through their elected representatives, can change. So who is it, is without faith in the people?
--Hiram
And this "voter suppression law" will not suppress one single LEGAL voter.
People without ID can't vote. How is that not an attempt to suppress voters.
Nobody in the DFL can prove otherwise.
Why should we have to when it's clearly the intent of the proponents to take away the vote of those without ID?
--Hiram
Republicans have a problem, and their tactics with respect to both voter Id and gay marriage, give us insights into how Republicans understand that problem and how they expect to deal, or maybe I should say, finesse it. The problem is, in simple terms, that the performance of the Bush administration refuted basic tenets of Republican policy, among them, that tax cuts are a panacea for growth. The contrast between Republican and Democratic approaches and results is stark. The Republicans nearly destroyed the economy, Democrats faced with the wreckage, have worked tirelessly and with some success, to bring it back to life. That's what happened, and that's what Republicans, if they are to succeed, must distract the public's attention from. Hence, gay marriage, voter ID, trashing education, all the issues seemingly irrelevant to what should be the main issue, the economy, but which are actually relevant to the GOP main goal, distracting voters from the successes Democrats have achieved in the last four years.
--Hiram
By the way, John raised an excellent question, which I glossed over. No, I don't think the problem with legislators proposing constitutional amendments are that they are shirking their duties. I differ with their proposals, but the job of legislators is to consider and make proposals, not necessarily to agree with me. As much as I disagree with Sarah on various issues, I find her a diligent and capable legislator, and one who doesn't shirk her duties.
--Hiram
"The facts say that after combing through millions of ballots with a fine-toothed comb in the last few elections, barely a handful fit into one of your categories (felons). And the others are pure fiction--not one single case." -- Laurie
Of course that's what the "facts" say, because those doing the supposed combing have absolutely no idea who it was that marked those ballots. Only a "handful" of ineligible felons were CONVICTED of voter fraud, but a far greater number, we know, actually voted. We had some precincts in which the number of ballots cast was substantially higher than the number of people who signed the voter rolls. Who marked those ballots? How about the 20,000 or so "people" whose postal verification cards came back (AFTER the election) as "no such person or address"? Who were THEY, really? Do all of those vouchees really live at the address the voucher says they do? In every precinct that the bus takes them to? We know that people can actually register to vote with no ID whatsoever, using any name whatsoever. How many of those people are real and eligible? How about the roughly 150,000 people who, judging by their name alone, voted two or more times? How can you POSSIBLY assure me that every one of those is a unique individual that voted only once?
I say we HAVE the evidence to warrant a change to the law. The fact that you cannot prove these failures of the law did NOT happen is not evidence that they did not, but rather that they CAN and do. Besides, it is pointless to detect this AFTER the ballot is cast and counted. It must be prevented, and that alone warrants a change to the law.
J. Ewing
Here are four issues raised by J. Ewing. Whatever their merits, how does voter ID address them?
1. Felon voting
Felons have ID's. Voter ID is irrelevant to the issue of their voting.
2. More votes than signatures on rolls.
I hear of this, but nobody actually names a specific precinct where this occurs. In any event, this is an election judge issue, not one relating to ID. Those folks who voted without signing the rolls may or may not have been able to produce ID. And if this is a question of ballot stuffing, you don't ask a ballot stuffer to produce ID.
3. Postal card issues.
There is no reason to think people who didn't get postal cards couldn't have produced ID. I am sure most of them could have.
4. Residence
Voter ID has nothing to do with establishing residence. All that is required that the ID be government issued which means it could be issued by California or Canada for that matter, and that it have a photo. Such photo ID's aren't evidence of residence nor under the law do they need to be.
This is the problem with Republican ID proposals. They have raised a number of issues, but their proposed remedies respond to none of them. DFL counter proposals including an electronic poll book, do in one way or another respond to all of the issues, J. Ewing has raised.
--Hiram
An interesting thought/question.
Can these amendments be over turned just like prohibition when the public's sentiment changes?
"Can these amendments be over turned just like prohibition when the public's sentiment changes?"
They can be found unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by state and federal courts. To the extent they fall within the enumerated powers of the federal government, Congress could overturn them by statute. And if enacted, they could be repealed by another constitutional amendment.
--Hiram
hiram, I can never tell whether you are being deliberately obtuse or just uninformed. I don't believe it is the latter, until you tell me things like you do about Voter ID.
1. Felon voting Felons have ID's. Voter ID is irrelevant to the issue of their voting. Yes, that is why electronic poll books are not a solution. Garbage in, Garbage out. But at least we would know the correct felon was trying to incorrectly vote.
2. More votes than signatures on rolls.
I hear of this, but nobody actually names a specific precinct where this occurs. Yet the information is known. It is just ignored by our hyperpartisan Secretary of State, and always seems to occur in DFL strongholds. Odd, yes?
3. Postal card issues.
There is no reason to think people who didn't get postal cards couldn't have produced ID. The point is the post office cannot find these people, either by name or by address. They are the infamous "vapor voters" and their ballots COUNT.
4. Residence
This is what the opponents of honest elections want to confuse you with. The Photo ID would INCLUDE your address, so you could only vote in that specific precinct (unless you had moved, had valid proof of residence, in which case you get a provisional ballot).
We've got enough issues with fixing the election system without a bunch of misinformation and disinformation being tossed into the mix.
Back to the topic: Legislators cannot shirk their responsibilities because they are elected to do what they do, whatever that is. If the voters see it differently, they get voted out.
J. Ewing
There is no requirement in the resolution that the I'd indicate residence. Many, many government issued Id's do not state an address.
With respect to felons, you wouldn't know they are felons dorm their I'D.
--hiram
A modest proposal:
There's a restaurant that sells a lot of liquor about 3 blocks from my house--same busy street as some restaurants, shops, pharmacies, salons. I strongly suspect there are people who leave that parking lot legally intoxicated and then drive on the streets of my town.
So I've come up with a common sense solution. It only makes sense that the police should stop each person who turns out of the parking lot of the restaurant and have them blow a breathalizer to prove that they're not drunk.
Driving is an important privilege--we should all be happy to show that we're legally qualified and competent to drive. I know I'd be perfectly happy to do so.
Before you ask, no, there aren't very many DWIs, but that's because nobody ever even tests these drunks. Just because they aren't swerving at that moment doesn't mean they're not over the limit. There is NOTHING to prevent people from drinking too much and driving out of that parking lot every.single.day. They do--it's clear to any reasonable person.
I say we HAVE the evidence to warrant a change to the law. The fact that the cops cannot currently prove--from their cruisers--these guys aren't drunk is not evidence that they aren't, but rather that they MAY be, and just aren't being stopped. Besides, it is pointless to detect this AFTER the drunk wraps his car around a tree. It must be prevented, and that alone warrants a change to the law.
Prove to me that this isn't happening!
--Annie
The most frequently made argument about Voter ID made by Republicans is that it's popular, it polls well. To begin with, that's not an argument I understand in this context. I am a poll skeptic. I think poll numbers are often dependent on how, why, and often when polling is done. I think in scientific terms, poll numbers are often misunderstood, because they rarely offer a control group to compare them too. Also people and a lot of pros have misconceptions about margin of error, and when from news organization, they are paid for news, and very often the news organizations have a bias towards them. But I also have a deeper program. Since when are constitutional right defined and limited by popularity? The bill of rights isn't intended to protect the popular or the powerful. They can protect themselves. The bill of rights was intended and should protect, the unpopular, and the vulnerable, the very people voter ID targets.
==Hiram
In the case of Voter ID, the unpopularity of my position as suggested by the polls doesn't bother me at all because the issues are so demonstrably misunderstood. People think ID will prevent aliens from voting. It will not. People think Voter ID will prevent felons from voting. It will not. People think voter ID will prevent multiple voting by individuals. I will not. These misconceptions are widely held, I see some of them around here, and contribute to what I see as the very shallow popularity of voter ID. Once they are cleared up, I expect support for Voter ID, at least among those who don't support it because it suppresses voting, will disappear. That goes to the faith I have in the American voter.
--Hiram
Here is an example of subjectivity of how we understand poll results. In an op-ed piece in today's Strib, John Rash noted that "only" 44 percent of those polled have heard of the etch a sketch remark. Here was a statement made by an obscure campaign aide, on a network, CNN hardly anyone watches, yet 44 percent of poll answerers had heard of it. I find that remarkably high.
--Hiram
Annie,
Probably not a great analogy since the possible drunks did have to prove who they were and that they had been granted the privelage of drinking alcohol. Unless they are getting older like me.
The reality is that since we are not carding, we really don't know if there is a problem or not.
Hiram,
Now why wouldn't requiring a valid ID make it significantly harder for illegal aliens to vote?
Illegal aliens often have government supplied ID. A driver license is not evidence of citizenship or legality of residence.
--hiram
Hopefully they were on a legal visa when they got it... Or can anyone just walk in and get one?
If so, it looks like we have another improvement to implement...
An illegal alien may very well have entered this country legally. Or he may be, for example, participating in some sort of government sponsored activity where status is not checked. A high school kid, whose residence status might be very iffy, could present his school ID. A janitor in a government building who has an ID could use that. Bear in mind also, that the ID must be issued by a government. It doesn't matter which government. A foreign passport satisfies the requirement as well.
--Hiram
If so, it looks like we have another improvement to implement.
Are you suggesting that everyone should have to prove their citizenship before they vote next? A driver license isn't evidence of citizenship.
--Hiram
Drivers licenses are issued to alien residents, but not illegals, so a voter ID law WOULD prevent illegal aliens from voting. Those who overstay their visas should ALSO be prevented from voting because, since the Pawlenty admin, their license carries their visa expiration date.
J. Ewing
Annie, at first I thought you were serious about your "modest proposal" and was starting to fret that we were on the verge of agreement. I have long believed that those who came out of a bar (not a restaurant) alone in a car should be presumed to have cleared the "probable cause" hurdle but that common sense idea has been stricken down by the courts. In fact, it is possible for people to sit in a bar and not get above the legal limit to drive so additional "evidence" is needed. And following them down the street is entrapment, so there you are. And I don't think you were serious, anyway. I think you were trying to draw a derisive analogy to voter ID.
Where that analogy breaks down is that you have to prove you are 16 to be allowed to drive, and that you have to have ID to prove you are 18 (or is it 21, I wouldn't know) to buy a drink. If you don't pass these rules you can't participate in this "right." So why should you be allowed to vote without this common, simple requirement? Is there anybody who wants to have wine with dinner who is denied it for lack of ID?
J. Ewing
What does one have to prove to pass my step 1? Get their name on the list of approved voters. I assume this is where proof of citizenship, checks for felonies, ensure they are18, etc is supposed to get done. What does prevent Juan the illegal alien from voting today?
I mean the 17 million illegals would definitely want to vote for someone friendly to their cause.
Remember that all the ID is supposed to do is prove that the voter really is who they say they are. Nothing more, Nothing less.....
John--clearly my clever satire was lost on you ;-). (the "modest proposal" part should have been your clue--see Johnathan Swift). The analogy isn't about ID, it's about intrusion and disenfranchisement.
My point is this--me suspecting that there are rampant drunks doesn't mean it's true, and doesn't mean we should change the law (or the constution) to address my own private freakout. You don't have to blow a breathalizer in order to drive. You don't have to present an ID in order to drive.
Are there possible upsides to each new law (voter ID, and my Sober Driver Assurance Amendment? Sure. But for every one offender there will be hundreds of thousands of innocents. The voting situation is arguable MORE intrusive, and here's why: if you're drunk, you can't legally drive, so getting "caught" proves illegality. But having or not having ID has nothing to do with one's citizenship or elibility to vote.
--Annie
With respect to checking ID's at liquor stores, they are in fact checking for age, not identity. And that's not what voter ID is checking for. And the reason we do check driver licenses is roughly the same reason Republicans favor voter ID, they want to limit access to something they think will use incorrectly, in the case of voting that they will use it to vote for Democrats.
--Hiram
Annie, now I'm not even following your argument. "But having or not having ID has nothing to do with one's citizenship or elibility to vote."
Having a government-issued ID, like a drivers license, requires that you prove your age, name, address and photo and now, citizenship status. To be an eligible voter, you must prove you are a resident of the precinct, over 18, a citizen, and the person on the official voter rolls. Which of these legal requirements already in place do you not think it important to prove prior to voting? Or should we just continue to ignore them, like we do DWI?
J. Ewing
"Having a government-issued ID, like a drivers license, requires that you prove your age, name, address and photo and now, citizenship status."
Actually, no. A government issued student ID, perfectly acceptable under the proposal does prove your age, address, or citizenship. And there is literally nothing, in the proposal that requires them to have any of those things. Voter ID is popular, but it's popularity is based on fundamental misunderstandings of what it will do. And that's a reason why I am fairly optimistic that it will fail. Once people understand that it responds to hardly any of the goals it's supporters set for it, once it becomes clear that it's supporters have no idea what their proposal consists of and what it will do, I think voter ID collapses of it's own weight.
Here are two responses to step one issues:
1. Voter registration - Ensure the right people show up on the right lists. And the wrong people show up on no list.
I have no problem at all with tightening up the registration process. But in practical terms perfection is impossible here. The voter rolls contain millions of names, and have to be prepared some time prior to elections. The names of people who are deceased, are removed, but no doubt some folks who die too late for their names to be stricken. Names of felons should be removed, but remember in Minnesota, a felon who has served his sentence has a right to vote without further judicial action. How is the SOS supposed to know whether a felon has served his sentence when it's no one's job to tell him? Concerning illegal aliens. I find the idea that there are a lot of illegal aliens out there determined to vote. Basically, the deal with illegal aliens is that if you stay out of trouble, avoid coming to the attention of authorities, no one will bother you. So why take the risk of voting fraudulently? For one thing, unlike being an illegal alien, fraudulent voting is a crime. For another, registration to vote always carries with it the risk that someone will actually check the alien's citizenship. That highly valued and hard for illegal aliens to get driver license, might suddenly come under scrutiny. I personally don't believe it happens. What I don know happens is that legal voters whose names are similar or the same as ineligible voters have been stripped from the rolls illegally, and in ways that damage the integrity of the system.
--Hiram
If you want to require that all persons wishing to vote must be registered 30 days prior to the election, and that the Secretary of State is REQUIRED to purge dead people, non-existent people and addresses, and felons from those rolls prior to the election (our current SOS ignores some of those) you would have a good start. THEN all you would need would be some unique voter ID proving that you are the unique "John Smith" who lives at 1957 Doo Wop Lane. We need both but only one is on the ballot this November.
J. Ewing
So in addition to proving identification, you feel that voters should also prove residence before voting? So you have any other tests you want to impose before people are allowed to exercise their constitutional rights?
--Hiram
Annie,
I got your point, I was just noting an easy side track... Though I do believe you are comparing grapes and watermelons.
All,
I am still fascinated that any legal citizen over 18 years of age does not have a government issued ID or drivers license. How do these people function in the modern USA?
I have to show my license a couple of times a week for some reason or another. Assuming the biggest issue is poor, are we really just writing them welfare checks with no proof who they are or if they are citizens? If so, no wonder welfare fraud would be a problem.
"So in addition to proving identification, you feel that voters should also prove residence before voting? So you have any other tests you want to impose before people are allowed to exercise their constitutional rights?"
Yes, I believe everyone should prove they
* will be at least 18-years-old on Election Day
* are a citizen of the United States
* will have resided in Minnesota for 20 days immediately preceding Election Day
* have any felony conviction record discharged, expired, or completed
* are not under court-ordered guardianship where a court has revoked your voting rights
* have not been ruled legally incompetent by a court of law
* reside in the precinct
In other words, follow the LAW. These things are not optional. The only question is whether we will verify them at the polling place or allow voter fraud to run rampant.
J. Ewing
Well, J. Ewing, that's not going to happen. Since the state is liable for election costs, what you are proposing would in all likelihood cost billions of dollars. I just don't see that happening. The fact is, elections are conducted based on trust. There really isn't a reasonable alternative.
--Hiram
I have to call BS. Voter ID coupled with a Secretary of State's office actually doing the job we pay him for, would cost a few million dollars, total. Election judge training to follow the law is equally free. We train election judges now but, again, the Secretary of State leaves out some of the essentials. Now, if you want to spend big bucks and put electronic poll books and instant ID verification into every precinct, you're looking at another $5-10 million in one-time costs. Compared to what just one stolen election costs us, that's negligible.
J. Ewing
Voter ID coupled with a Secretary of State's office actually doing the job we pay him for, would cost a few million dollars, total.
Checking out voter eligibility for millions of voters ever two years is a massive undertaking. And no one seems to be contemplating that. Or admitting it in public if they are. Bear in mind that all of the costs of those things have to be born by the state.
--Hiram
"Checking out voter eligibility for millions of voters ever two years is a massive undertaking."
Which is why the SOS office is huge, with lots of people and computers and a huge budget. And why they are required BY LAW to do it. That our current SOS doesn't borders on criminal misfeasance or perhaps malfeasance.
J. Ewing
The SOS's office may be huge, but it isn't that huge. To check the qualifications of 3 million people annually to vote would be a massive undertaking.
--Hiram
NO, it's not. That's what all the computers are for, and that's what the huge budget is for, so that the SOS can DO HIS JOB, as required by law. It's not optional, unless he simply ignores the law, which he has done. If tiny little election integrity groups can find thousands of invalid voters in their spare time, surely the vast SOS office can do it as a full-time job. It's just unreasonable to suggest that it can't be done because if it can't, we can't have any election at all.
J. Ewing
Section 201.021 of the Minnesota statutes charges the Secretary of State specifically with "maintaining" the permanent voter rolls. Sections 201.13 through 201.16 define how it is to be done. The law is quite specific.
J. Ewing
Post a Comment