Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer
Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer

Voter ID could disenfranchise voters, groups tell committee

By Andy Birkey
Friday, February 04, 2011 at 11:15 am

A bill requiring voter identification cards, electronic rosters and a slew of other changes to election laws was heard in the House Government Operations and Election committee Thursday. A large number of groups testified that the bill would disenfranchise voters, especially students, the elderly and the disabled, while several testified that the bill is needed to prevent voter fraud. A presentation by Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer on the technological improvements her bill would make to the voting process was derailed when the hearing room technology failed.

“You need a photo ID to buy alcohol, cigarettes, drive a car to the polling place,” said Rep. Mike Benson, a Republican from Rochester. Benson is the author of one of two bill introduced in the Minnesota House that would require photo identification for voting. Benson said his bill is intended to prevent voter fraud.

“It is very easy to impersonate someone if you don’t have to show identification,” he said. “More and more you hear questions about the real integrity of the system.”

Former Secretary of State and current Republican Rep. Kiffmeyer offered another more expansive photo identification bill that would include an electronic system that scans IDs at the polling place.

She said it was simple technology “that will help take some of the burden off of election workers.”

But, a technological glitch prevented a short video that Kiffmeyer has planned to show. “It’s something with the House technology here. We will save the video for Tuesday, Madame Chair,” Kiffmeyer said. The committee will be continuing testimony on the bill on Tuesday.

Fraud prevention?

Dan MacGrath, executive director of Minnesota Majority, a group that pushed for the Kiffmeyer bill and was led by Kiffmeyer several years ago, said that Minnesota’s election system is “concerning.”

“I hope that other states do not adopt our system,” he said.

He decried the state’s same-day registration because he says it requires less information than what’s needed to register prior to election day.

“It’s an injustice to grant preferential treatment and trust to some voters just because they decide to register at the last minute,” he said.

Dale Erickson of Blaine, who was a recount observer for the campaign of Sen. Norm Coleman, said, “It’s been in the last 10 or 15 years that the integrity of the system has been called into question.”

He said the bill would prevent non-citizens from voting. “Previous speakers have been talking about residency as if it were the same thing as citizenship. We have to know if you are eligible to vote because you are a citizen.”

Laura Norlander, an election judge who has Republican ties, said, “This was my first time to be an election judge in 2010. It was an eye opener to receive the training and realize how many opportunities for voter fraud in our system.”

But that voter fraud doesn’t seem to have materialized. Last fall, the Minnesota County Attorneys Association called allegations of voter fraud in Minnesota “frivolous” and that only 26 people had been convicted of voting as a felon in the last two years.

Teresa Nelson, legal counsel for the ACLU of Minnesota told the committee that two close elections, in 2008 and 2010, “have not led to a single conviction for voter impersonation fraud — the only type of voter fraud that photo ID requirements could possibly address.”

“Moreover,” she added, “there were only 26 felon voting convictions out of 2.9 million voters. Contrast that miniscule number with the thousands of voters who may be disenfranchised because of a new photo ID requirement.”

She said the bill would appear to violate the Constitution.

“Supporters of Jim Crow justified their voter suppresion laws as equal treatment of all voters,” she told the committee. “Vote no on this voter suppression bill.”

Too costly?

Mike Dean, executive director of Common Cause Minnesota, said that the bill would prevent people from voting.

“This does not make sense when we could have improved our system by implementing the registration modernization bill that Gov. Pawlenty vetoed last year,” he said.

He pointed out that Utah, a very Republican state, recently enacted a similar system to the one vetoed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty and did it with support of both Democrats and Republicans. Minnesota should follow the lead of Utah’s system, Dean said, instead of “wasting time playing partisan politics.”

Dean also said the bill would cost the state too much money at a time of a massive budget deficit.

The cost issue is one that other states are grappling with as Republicans move to implement the same system outside Minnesota as well. The Institute for Southern Studies released a report this week on a similar initiative in North Carolina and found that the state simply couldn’t afford it. The costs associated with a voter ID program would include a massive publicity campaign to ensure all citizens know about the new law, training programs for elected officials and the cost to the state to create voter ID cards for residents who cannot afford to pay for them.

All told, North Carolina would pay out $18 to $25 million over the next three years if the bill passed. The institute found costs associated with a similar plan in Missouri to be close to $20 million. “Lawmakers routinely failed to include at least one basic expense needed to implement a voter ID law in their cost estimates, such as voter education,” ISS reported.

Disenfranchised voters

Advocates for students, battered women, the elderly and the disabled told the committee that the bill would have significant impacts on those populations as well.

Mary Lou Hill, a 94-year old member of the League of Women Voters, was concerned about the effect of the bill on seniors. She said she was born four years before the 19th amendment gave women the right to vote.

“I believe the right to vote is among our most important rights,” she said. “Whatever the authors’ intentions, the effect of the bills would be to take the vote away from United States citizens.”

She said the bill’s requirement that all voters obtain a photo ID from the Department of Public Safety would be an obstacle to older voters.

“It is easy for one of you to run down to the government center and to update your drivers license. Senior citizens may have a number of problems with this simple activity. They might not drive and might not have anyone to take them.”

“There’s no question these bills will disenfranchise thousands of senior citizens.”

Dierdre Keyes, of the Battered Women’s Legal Advocacy Project, said the bill, which would do away with Minnesota’s vouching system, would have a profound impact on women who have been victims of domestic violence.

“Women who stay at our shelters are required to make no contact with their former residence and it is not likely that they will want to be anywhere near their old polling place for fear of being seen,” she said. “These women are able to vote because of the vouching system. The staff of the shelter goes with the women to the shelter’s precinct and vouches for them as a resident of the shelter.”

She added, “They are interested in voting, yet on election day they were residents of the battered women’s shelter with ID’s stating the address of the of the residence they just fled. With the current vouching system in place we are able to assist them to vote and be safe.”

If the bill becomes law, “these women would choose safety over voting and their voice would not be heard at the polling place,” she said.

Several students recounted their experiences voting and how the law change might affect them.

Matt Butler, co-chair of the Macalester College chapter of MPIRG, said the bill would put a “burden on college students’ ability to vote,” and Peter Randall, a University of Minnesota student and also a member of MPIRG, said that he’s changed his residency five times in the last three years.

“There’s no need for more barriers to Minnesota’s nation leading youth vote turnout,” Randall said.

St. Paul City Councilmember Melvin Carter represented the City Council and Mayor Chris Coleman at the hearing and recounted how he was turned away from the polls in Florida during the 2000 election.

“I’m here today because I am confused by these efforts. We heard testimony today that you need a photo ID to buy alcohol or take the ACT or write a check at CVS as though those things are anywhere in comparison to the fundamental right to vote,” he said. “We should always agree that every eligible American should be welcomed at the polls.”

Justin Page, an attorney with the Minnesota Disability Law Center, said the bill would create unnecessary barriers for people with disabilities.

“An individual is entitled to have personal assistance by someone of his or her own choosing,” he said, regarding a provision in the bill that bans health care workers from assisting disabled voters. “That is what federal law requires.”

He said he has been assured by the bill’s authors that the language is going to be changed.

The bill would also prohibit people under guardianship from voting, he said. “It’s hard for me to believe that you can talk about the civic duty to vote while at the same time disenfranchising a whole group of people.”

An extension of the hearing will be held on Tuesday.

Follow Andy Birkey on Twitter


Comments

27 Comments

Dennis
Comment posted February 4, 2011 @ 11:19 am

I know, let’s put the idea of voter ID on the ballot.


Concerned
Comment posted February 4, 2011 @ 11:32 am

Right next to raising taxes for the wealthy and an assault weapons ban Dennis. Both of those share overwhelming public support.


Chris
Comment posted February 4, 2011 @ 11:51 am

Let’s have a referendum on repealing the constitution completely and replacing it with a promise to give everyone a pony and a thousand dollars.


2AFL
Comment posted February 4, 2011 @ 12:08 pm

Pretty sure that if seniors have issues getting to a DMV a program can be made to bring the DMV to them (Welcome to The 21st Century). Think a little and minor logistics can be overcome.

Taxation for the wealthy… taxation in general isn’t limited to “wealthy” – why limit to raising just “to the wealthy” ? Flat tax *everyone* an equal percent. Sounds like someone is jealous of the haves and believe taking away from them automatically gives the have-nots a better life- already proven untrue. Taking more from one because they already have wealth doesn’t make the “less wealthy” wealthy, nor the already “wealthy” less wealthy(they just find loop holes to hide it), ya know what I mean, Vern?. This coming from someone just over the poverty level in hourly blue collar wage.

Assault weapon ban ? I think maybe the Right of Free Speech should be infringed as well as Freedom of Assembly and the 14th &15th Amendments be abolished…but that doesn’t make it right *for All*.


2AFL
Comment posted February 4, 2011 @ 12:12 pm

I’ll take yes on the pony referendum if you raise the ante to $1500 and a lollipop


Buck N Farack
Comment posted February 4, 2011 @ 2:03 pm

From the state that elected Al Franken and Jesse Ventura, tell me why you do not need ID again?


Ann Galloway
Comment posted February 4, 2011 @ 3:14 pm

Waste Waste Waste of tax dollars. Unbelieveable. Republican cut fund for women and children yet want to spend Millions of dollars on non-existant problems.

Shame on the polititicians that support this bill


2AFL
Comment posted February 4, 2011 @ 3:16 pm

Buck N …that would be to allow the possibility of voter fraud ;) , prison votes, forged SocSec #’s, dup’d votes and to make sure you can get a second pony/cash/lollipop.


2AFL
Comment posted February 4, 2011 @ 3:18 pm

Don’t forget cutting VA and disability benefits for those who’ve served the greedy desires of the government under the guise of Democracy and Freedom.


woodbuck
Comment posted February 4, 2011 @ 5:17 pm

Hey Dennis, how about a vote on single-payer national health care insurance run by the government for the benefit of the people, and, not the insurance executives?


Concerned
Comment posted February 4, 2011 @ 7:19 pm

If photo id counts, than a university id better count. I can’t believe all these so called conservatives getting in the business of big government interventions for a problem that doesn’t exist. It’s our right to vote, just like to bear arms, just like to assemble, just like to practice our religion. It’s our right. If you take away that right from one single law abiding American it’s wrong.


Michael Cavlan RN
Comment posted February 4, 2011 @ 9:04 pm

In Ohio 2004, as an Official Observer in the Re-Count.

So ……………. Just how much work does it take to carry water for those in power? Does it pay well?

Enquiring minds want to know.

What is that you say? Look, a Democracy Movement in Egypt?

Sounds intriguing.


Dennis
Comment posted February 5, 2011 @ 7:47 am

The democrats are right to fight this tooth and nail, I can understand.

If only legal, live citizens voting once, voted in our elections the democrats would never win another one.


Katie B.
Comment posted February 5, 2011 @ 8:25 am

Ann – This is a feature, not a bug for them – it means they have an excuse to gut even more programs that everyday people (not their billionaire donors) need.


Katie B.
Comment posted February 5, 2011 @ 9:00 am

Dennis – prove voter fraud exists in Minnesota, using verifiable means (not your brain-dead meanderings about fictional boxes of pre-marked ballots that have NEVER been shown to exist), or shut up.


Joe Smight
Comment posted February 5, 2011 @ 10:45 am

I believe, if you want to vote, you need to have a valid picture ID. In fact, I believe this country should require people to take a basic test before they get the privileged to vote. New citizens need to take a test, why not the people who want to vote? It would still be a right but we could at least guarantee that voters had common knowledge which is something we do not have today.

Another idea would be to only allow those who pay taxes to vote. If you pay into the system, you get the right. After all, the politicians are playing with the money of those who PAY taxes. This would create an even playing field for voters vs special interest groups. Fair is fair, right?


Amuseinc
Comment posted February 5, 2011 @ 11:21 am

No kidding Katie… until they can prove the problem and show exactly how their expensive program solves it… no go. Sure seems like they are infavor of big government to me.

You do understand that your status of whether you can legally vote is found no where on a driver’s license. A person on parole, like the 26 charged last cycle, could still illegally vote with a DL under the GOP plan.


Marie
Comment posted February 5, 2011 @ 1:56 pm

if the republicans loose its due to voter fraud, when there is proof of voter fraud aka Florida, the republicans shout oh its nothing, not a big deal.


James Eckard
Comment posted February 5, 2011 @ 3:19 pm

As an election judge, I would support this if it was optional. I can see some ways it could help as an optional way to vote. It could possibly speed up the voting process if all you had to do is present your ID, election judge making sure the picture matches the face, then swipe the license as an electronic signature, get a voter receipt and vote.

That way the state could start slowly building up a system. Offering any voter the ability to vote at one of several locations instead of just in their district.

But the ability to vouch, same day registration, and those without an ID should continue to be able to vote as it is now.


Marie
Comment posted February 5, 2011 @ 11:48 pm

@ James Eckard, thank you for your voice.

its the freedom and right of the people to stand up and voice their vote, at any given moment without having to put a face on it, is what makes us great. to never have to be forced to stand in judgement.

to the people who need to brand everyone, to force papers, is the same mentality that the germans had. remember that.


Charles
Comment posted February 6, 2011 @ 11:33 pm

Part of the question is, if this passes, how will the Republicans explain losing elections in the future? Without, of course, admitting that the problem they’re fuming about isn’t real.


Randy
Comment posted February 7, 2011 @ 10:01 am

How, exactly, is photo ID going to make sure that only those eligible may vote? I’ve looked through the bills as proposed, and none of them would require putting either citizenship or status as a felon with no voting privileges on the ID.


Randy
Comment posted February 7, 2011 @ 10:07 am

Joe Smight: We used to do things that way. “Literacy” tests were used effectively to deny the franchise to African Americans for a century. Black would-be voters were told to write essays interpreting arcane constitutional provisions, while white voters were asked to spell the name of the town. Poll taxes, or any law that denied the right to vote for failure to pay a tax, were outlawed by the 24th Amendment.

I do think that the citizenship test is a good idea for elected officials. A few years back, a bill was proposed in a western state (I believe it was Montana) proposed requiring candidates to take a test on the state and federal constitutions. Candidates would not be required to pass the test, but their scores would be public information. Think of it–how would the average tea partier do if he couldn’t Google World Net Daily or Free Republic for the correct talking points?


Ginny
Comment posted February 7, 2011 @ 12:57 pm

Why are the Republicans always for voter suppression? This is purely a partisan attempt to keep legitimate, law-abiding citizens from voting. The more people who vote, the more people vote Democratic. Republicans don’t like that.


steve
Comment posted February 8, 2011 @ 1:01 am

all these bills will wind up in the garbage with veto on them and in two years they will be voted out and democrats will be in house and senate again


Zera Lee
Comment posted February 9, 2011 @ 5:05 am

I do not want my voting rights to depend on a specific piece of paper, revocable by anyone with sticky fingers.

Republicans have worked hard for years to corrupt the election process in their favor. They really don’t like democracy much, it interferes with their presumed “right” to rule.


Bill Hull
Comment posted February 14, 2011 @ 8:24 am

Law enforcement and check cashing already require a “valid government issued identification card” and it is also required in bars and clubs throughout the state. I see nothing wrong with requiring the same to verify the identify an elgible voter.


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.