Vote No On Disenfranchising Minnesotans (St. Paul, Raymond: school, tax, costs)

[Beenhere4ever]

If you agree with the multipartisan opposition to the constitutional amendment that would disenfranchise eligible votes, TakeAction Minnesota has lawn signs to put up. They are at Suite 100, 705 Raymond Ave, St Paul. Call before going to make sure they have a supply (though I think it is very likely they will through election day). (651) 641-6199

[flyonpa]

Hun??? Are you refering to the VoterID law?

Georgia Pass a VoterID law few years ago minority votes, when up after the law was passed.

[Thegonagle]

I would like to put up such a sign.

I know several people who help administer elections in this state. We already have a great system, with checks and balances at every step. Errors are caught because there are always at least two sets of eyes looking at everything. Anything that looks suspicious gets reported. So do discrepancies due to human error, even if they're later fixed. So do differences as small as a single missing ballot or signature. It would be next to impossible to commit fraud on any meaningful scale here. There are simply too many checks, audits, and paper trails that are seen by too many people.

This amendment (not voter ID in general, but THIS specific amendment) would require us to scrap and rewrite large portions of our laws and procedures. Our current laws and procedures have evolved over the decades through multi-partisan legislation.

We've had the flexibility to evolve with the times because specifics like "provisional ballots" (which we don't currently use in MN) aren't in the state constitution. This amendment would tie our hands, and result in huge costs and many court cases related to compliance with the amendment.

Go read the whole amendment, not just the question and title. It's too big a change in the system to make all at once. We could achieve photo verification without a constitutional amendment. The DFLers offered a pretty good compromise with voter photos kept on file in an electronic "poll book" database. On election day, "sign in next to your name and address" would become "sign in next to your picture," and everything else that doesn't need fixing would stay the same. It's nothing too radical, but it would prevent voter impersonation, and wouldn't disenfranchise grandma who doesn't drive or have a state ID.

By the way, voter impersonation, despite the theoretical possibility, is not a known problem. How many people have ever gotten to the polls and discovered that someone else has already forged their name? Anyone you know? If it was a regular occurrence, we'd know it (there would be dozens of incident reports), and I have no doubt that Minnesota would already be on the forefront in fixing it in a fair, logical, multi-partisan manner.

As it is, it's a small group of reckless partisans attempting to get Minnesotans to vote to throw out our baby with the bath water.

Please vote no for this madness.

[Thegonagle]

Originally Posted by flyonpa

Hun??? Are you refering to the VoterID law?

Georgia Pass a VoterID law few years ago minority votes, when up after the law was passed.

It's not a law. It's a constitutional amendment that covers more than just a photo ID required to vote. There's actually no law behind it. The actual laws would only be written after it passes.

(How's that for not knowing what you're voting for? In this instance, it's not just a figure of speech... It's literally true.)

Among other things, the amendment requires a provisional ballot system. Provisional ballots slow down the official results. Provisional ballots would possibly be the subject of court battles in close elections. The way we do it now, if it's in by election night, it's good. If not, no more ballots can be added later.

Heck, it could even be a ballot security issue. The way we do it now, we know exactly how many ballots were cast on election night. It's impossible to add more. People coming back to verify their provisional ballot would change the totals for several days following. I'm sure we'd figure out how to audit and secure it, but it just doesn't sound like the safest possible practice in the first place.

[Cruz Azul Guy]

I'm too lazy to drive all the way to St. Paul for a lawn sign, but as a voter who values fiscal responsibility I will be voting "no" on election day. As somone who isn't concerned about the current state of our election system (one of the cleanest and most accurate in the world already thank you very much), tax payer money can better be used elsewhere in my opinion.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Thegonagle

(How's that for not knowing what you're voting for? In this instance, it's not just a figure of speech... It's literally true.)

Before you insult the man and start throwing the don't-know-what-you're-talking-abouts around, you might take a moment to notice that his location is the state of Georgia, so he will not be voting in the Minnesota election. Of course, under the current system, he could get someone to vouch for him, or pull a utility bill out of his neighbor's mail for "ID" and vote here if he wanted to.

So the amendment will require the passage of (gasp) new laws! Oh, the horror! We show photo ID all the time in this day and age. Even for some events where people gather to vilify voter ID laws!

TheBlaze Details ID Requirements at the Democrat National Convention | TheBlaze.com

[Cruz Azul Guy]

Chapin: Voter ID amendment has 'hidden costs' | Minnesota Public Radio News

ST PAUL, Minn. — The proposed constitutional amendment to require a photo ID upon voting currently making its way through the Minnesota Legislature could include higher "hidden costs" for the state, an election expert said Tuesday.

Minnesotans should look to the east to see what we could expect under a voter ID requirement, Humphrey School of Public Affairs elections expert Doug Chapin told MPR.

Wisconsin is the only state in the country that has both election-day registration and a photo ID requirement, although the photo ID requirement is being contested in Wisconsin state court.

"They're looking at lines at the polls that could take as long as one minute per voter to validate both new registrants and existing voters," Chapin said. "Given the participation levels in places like Minnesota and Wisconsin, that kind of time begins to add up."

Chapin said the costs of printing free IDs and lost revenue has so far received much of the focus.

"The bigger cost to look for is the need for additional poll workers at the polls to check IDs the need to recruit new poll workers, either because you need more or because your existing poll workers no longer want to be bothered with having to do the more difficult job," Chapin said.

The voter ID proposal also has direct fiscal costs associated with updating technology and election infrastructure. Minnesota Management and Budget has estimated the first-year local costs at between $8.3 million and $23.3 million.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Cruz Azul Guy

ST PAUL, Minn. — The proposed constitutional amendment to require a photo ID upon voting currently making its way through the Minnesota Legislature could include higher "hidden costs" for the state, an election expert said Tuesday.

Minnesotans should look to the east to see what we could expect under a voter ID requirement, Humphrey School of Public Affairs elections expert Doug Chapin told MPR.

Wisconsin is the only state in the country that has both election-day registration and a photo ID requirement, although the photo ID requirement is being contested in Wisconsin state court.

"They're looking at lines at the polls that could take as long as one minute per voter to validate both new registrants and existing voters," Chapin said. "Given the participation levels in places like Minnesota and Wisconsin, that kind of time begins to add up."

Chapin said the costs of printing free IDs and lost revenue has so far received much of the focus.

"The bigger cost to look for is the need for additional poll workers at the polls to check IDs the need to recruit new poll workers, either because you need more or because your existing poll workers no longer want to be bothered with having to do the more difficult job," Chapin said.

The voter ID proposal also has direct fiscal costs associated with updating technology and election infrastructure. Minnesota Management and Budget has estimated the first-year local costs at between $8.3 million and $23.3 million.

Chapin: Voter ID amendment has 'hidden costs' | Minnesota Public Radio News

Hah! I don't see preventing voter fraud as too expensive. And I doubt that cost is really your concern, frankly. If, however, you are such a fiscal conservative now, I am sure we can agree on lots of ways to save money to pay for these so called "hidden costs."

[Glenfield]

Someone suggested reading the entire amendment. Good idea. Here it is.

Article VII, Section I
(b) All voters voting in person must present valid government-issued photographic identification before receiving a ballot. The state must issue photographic identification at no charge to an eligible voter who does not have a form of identification meeting the requirements of this section. A voter unable to present government-issued photographic identification must be permitted to submit a provisional ballot. A provisional ballot must only be counted if the voter certifies the provisional ballot in the manner provided by law.

(c) All voters, including those not voting in person must be subject to substantially equivalent identity and eligibility verification prior to a ballot being cast or counted.

[Cruz Azul Guy]

Again, why waste millions towards correcting a problem that doesn't exist?

In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud - New York Times