Voter ID bill would make Minnesota laws most restrictive in the nation
Wednesday, February 04, 2009 at 7:21 pm
- 12 Comments
House Republicans are urging passage of a bill to require every Minnesotan to have a government-issued photo identification in order to vote in the state. The bill (HF 57) introduced by Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Delano, would make Minnesota’s voting laws among the most restrictive in the nation.
“Some people have mistakenly decided that this is a partisan issue,” said Emmer at a press conference last week. That perception may come from the fact that the bill has exclusively one-party backing. Twenty-five Republicans have signed on, but the bill has received zero support from DFLers.
Emmer says that “twenty-four other states require photo ID” — but that’s misleading. Four states require photo IDs, but also allow voters without one to sign a sworn affidavit in order to cast a regular ballot. Eighteen states require some form of identification for voters, but do not require a photo ID. Two states, Kansas and Pennsylvania, require first-time voters to present identification, but in neither state is it required that that ID have a photo on it. In 23 states, including Minnesota, voters who register by mail and do not include ID with registration must show some form of identification at the polling place. The form of ID varies by state but none of these states requires a photo ID for either registration or voting.
If this bill passes, Minnesota would have the most restrictive voter requirements in the country, along with Georgia, Florida and Indiana, the only other states that require a photo ID in order to cast a regular ballot.
DFLers contend that more restrictive voting requirements will lead to lower voter turnout among the estimated 135,000 eligible voters in Minnesota who do not have government-sponsored photo identification, but there is conflicting research on that assertion.
A Rutgers University study in 2006 analyzed state-by-state data and found that low-education and low-income people tend to vote at lower rates when IDs are required:
Voters in states that required photo identification were 2.9 percent less likely to vote than voters in states where individuals had to give their names. In terms of the minimum requirement, voters in states that required an affidavit at minimum were 4 percent less likely to turn out than voters in states where they had to give their names.
The differences were more pronounced for those lower in education. Constraining the model to show predicted probabilities only for those with less than a high school diploma, the probability of voting was 5.1 percent lower in states that required photo identification as the maximum requirement and 7 percent lower in states that required an affidavit as the minimum requirement compared to states where stating one’s name was the maximum or minimum requirement. (Protecting the franchise, or restricting it? The effects of voter identification requirements on turnout. Timothy Vercellotti and David Anderson)
Research by the California Institute of Technology and Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2007 yielded similar results; additionally, their studies found that race and ethnicity did not play a factor.
First, we see that there is evidence to support the claim that the most restrictive forms of voter identification requirements do lead to lower levels of participation by registered voters. However, we find no evidence to support the hypothesis that this effect is more profound for nonwhite registered voters, controlling for other variables, especially income and education. Yet we find that these other socioeconomic status variables, especially education and income, do show a significant interactive effect with stricter identification requirements. In particular, we find that registered voters with low levels of educational attainment or lower levels of income are less likely to vote, the more restrictive the voter identification regime. (The Effect of Voter Identification Laws on Turnout. R. Michael Alvarez, Delia Bailey, and Jonathan Katz)
But other studies have not shown the same result. One study of Indiana’s photo ID law, on which Emmer says Minnesota’s proposed law is modeled, showed little difference in turnout rates.
“Previous studies have examined the effects of voter ID laws more generally, but none of these separately analyzes the effects of so called ‘mandatory photo ID’ on turnout in Indiana,” said Jeffrey Milyo, professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri. “I examined a variety of models on voter turnout. After controlling for several factors that influence county-wide turnout, there is no consistent or statistically significant evidence that the photo ID law depressed turnout in counties with greater percentages of minority, poor or elderly voters. Contrary to conventional wisdom, turnout in Democratic-leaning counties actually increased in the wake of the new photo ID requirements, all else constant.”
Former Secretary of State and current state Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer has been a leading voice in requiring photo IDs in order to vote. She proposed the idea in 2002 and she has been a vocal supporter of Emmer’s bill.
Interestingly, during her stint as SOS she was frequently accused of voter suppression when courts twice overruled her decision to exclude some college students and Native Americans from voting.
“When you increase public confidence, you increase voter turnout,” Kiffmeyer said.
Progressive groups are coming out against the bill. Take Action Minnesota fielded voting-related complaints during Election Day 2008. Of the 1,200 complaints they received, the majority were from people confused by the process of registering to vote, not people reporting voter fraud.
“Democracy is strengthened when citizens are empowered to participate,” said Take Action Minnesota’s Dan McGrath. “There are countless older voters, no longer able to drive, who don’t have drivers’ licenses. There are thousands of eligible voters in our state without government-issued IDs. Minnesota should continue to look for ways to remove barriers to voting, not make it harder for its citizens to vote.”
Follow Andy Birkey on Twitter12 Comments
Comment posted February 4, 2009 @ 10:58 pm
Yup, Kiffmeyer reeeeally wants more people voting.
Her whole body of actions as SOS shows she is trying to supress the vote.
Comment posted February 5, 2009 @ 11:41 am
So the one study saying there’s no suppression of turnout comes from Indiana? Besides the obvious flaw — that’s just one state — that study included just the 2006 general election, and I can’t tell from the link what it was compared to. Indiana is also a low-turnout state, though I suspect that wasn’t true last year. Presumably increased turnout means increased turnout by the groups identified in the other studies as adversely affected by these laws, so looking at last year’s election would be necessary to get a better idea of the effect.
Besides, it appears this study is an outlier, and the Republicans are picking the one study that might support them. And nothing yet presented gets them past the utter lack of evidence for voter fraud. Considering the Bush DOJ devoted eight years to hunting for it and found none, it appears voter fraud exists only in conservative paranoid fantasies.
Comment posted February 5, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
There are several good and bad things to requiring an ID. As an election judge, I think we should be moving in this direction as long as it is done right. However, we should start out with a voluntary system that if you have your ID and show it they could get through the lines faster and or easier, but still maintain the current system for those who may not have an id or just happen to not have it on them at the time and see how things go. There would/should be an eduction period so people can understand that this is to ensure only people who are eligible to vote can vote, and not trying to see or check on who people are voting for.
Good
1. requiring an ID would help increase the speed, accuracy and accountability of who has voted and where they voted. (while still preserving the anonymous nature of who they voted for).
2. proof positive of who can and can not vote. Minnesota ID’s already have a bar code stripe on the back. This could be linked to a computer system to allow several new things. Like the ability to vote at additional locations, have information showing who can and can not vote (like those who will turn 18 around election time, felons who have lost the right to vote for a time and also when they have regained their rights, people who have lost all rights due to a mental problems, etc)
Bad things
1. more restrictive, people who may have lost their ID’s or just moved to Minnesota would face a new hurdle.
2. Can be abused, by those in power and not allowed to vote without your ID.
Pingback posted February 5, 2009 @ 6:28 pm
[...] MN: Voter ID bill would make Minnesota laws most restictive in the nation http://minnesotaindepend…restictive-in-the-nation [...]
Comment posted February 6, 2009 @ 2:55 am
Isn’t it curious that the states pushing the most for voter ID are the red, or at least, purple states. This seems like the dying throes of a party increasingly disconnected from “real” America. As the country becomes more and more urbanized (last year was the first time more than half of us lived in the cities), it will inevitably become more sophisticated, which generally means more Democratic and open to the party of change – whichever party that is. Expect the Grand OLD Party to cling to its voters like it clings to its guns and religion and to try to disenfranchise everyone else.
Comment posted February 6, 2009 @ 1:05 pm
James Eckard said:
“system that if you have your ID and show it they could get through the lines faster and or easier”
But this would defeat the purpose of this law, which is to add another step in the voting process, slowing it down some more, making the lines longer, and thus discouraging voting, especially from working people who don’t have time to wait in long lines.
Comment posted March 11, 2009 @ 7:08 am
You do not have your facts straight. This bill does not require that everyone carry a gov’t-issued voter identification, it only requires those who do not already have acceptable photo ID (and let’s be honest, who doesn’t have photo ID?) to apply for a voter ID card, so your opinion loses merit because your facts are incorrect to begin with.
Comment posted April 30, 2009 @ 11:12 am
“Who doesn’t have photo ID?” Well, according to the article, 135,000 eligible voters don’t. That is a very signigicant number, especially in a close election. Just ask Al Franken and Norm Coleman how important those votes are. If you have an ID that is only needed once every two years, what are the odds that it will get lost or forgotten on election day? It would be amazing if it didn’t get lost or forgotten. And how easy is it for those who don’t have one to get one? Not that easy if you’re working, don’t have a car, or are house bound. And just because you have acceptable photo ID, like a driver’s license, doesn’t mean you are eligible to vote. Lots of people have those who aren’t eligible so what good are they anyway? The whole ID thing is ridiculous.
Comment posted May 3, 2010 @ 6:37 am
If you notice that when you go to the polls there is a poster size list of what is and what is not acceptable as ID. Some things listed: Utility bill, bank statement, government check or paycheck; none of these have a photo ID.
Around 90+% of the voters – at the Prescient that I work in – give us their DL as their form of ID. But if someone comes in with a utility bill we have to accept it. No Picture is required.
Angie said: “And just because you have acceptable photo ID, like a driver’s license, doesn’t mean you are eligible to vote. Lots of people have those who aren’t eligible so what good are they anyway?”
Angie we have a list of registered voters that we have to check against the ID. When someone is not on the list we have to contact the courthouse to see if they are in the computer. (sometimes it is a person that has changed their last name and did not change their voter information or someone that has moved since the last election and they are at the wrong prescient. And lastly if there is no record of the person ever registering to vote we have to go through a process called procedural voting.
So yes at the polls we ID. Does the ID require a picture? Not in Alabama.
Tim said, “which is to add another step in the voting process, slowing it down some more, making the lines longer, and thus discouraging voting, especially from working people who don’t have time to wait in long lines.”
This wouldn’t add another step – we have to ID and check it against the voter registration book. A ‘required’ picture ID would allow us to make sure Mary Smith is Mary Smith and not Jane Doe voting in place of Mary Smith.
When I vote I show my DL. I would object to running my ID through a machine to go straight to a computer for collection of data. But showing a picture ID – imho it would keep the honest, honest and make it harder for the dishonest to cheat.
Comment posted November 15, 2010 @ 12:23 am
The GOP will die if it doesn’t stay in touch with real Americans and their wishes. The TEA party movement has shown that. Republicans didn’t trounce Democrats in this last election, conservatives trounced liberals.
The America I grew up in was built on pride and hard work, and responsible self-reliance. And when we cling to our religion, our constitutionally conservative beliefs and our guns it’s because we’re clinging to what this country was founded on.
And don’t forget, while we have to wait and see what party takes on the challenge of the Governor’s office, for the first time in more than a generation Minnesotans put conservatives back in control of both the house and senate, in St. Paul (without relying on the felon vote). The people are angry, and they have spoken. All over the country there was a gain of more than 600 Republicans, from state house to state house.
And as for a picture ID, what are you liberals afraid of, really? If it’s important enough for a person to get out on election day and vote, it ought to be important enough to go get a state ID.
Comment posted March 8, 2011 @ 1:51 pm
Republicans are scared! There are more independents and democrats then republicans. So the word is suppress the vote any way possible. As soon as they get into office they try to change the playing field because they can’t compeat on a level playing field. Where are the confirmed numbers of overwhelming voter fraud??????? Hmmmm??? Republicans are the cowards in the back of the room, who spread lies and inuendos so they can control each of us to do their bidding. I spit on these lowlife sub-humans who want all our money! The revolution is here and for those republicans who aren’t capable of figuring it out, just watch Wisconsin folks, they will show you what it takes to remove this scourge from the midst of our ranks!
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
