On March 4, 2011, ALEC hosted an educational event in Bandana Square in St. Paul. In attendance were state lawmakers including ALEC state chair Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer (R-Big Lake) and an ALEC task force director, who traveled there for the meeting.

The event likely violated guidelines set in a 1995 opinion (below) offered by the Ethical Practices Board, now the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board. Under the ruling, which was brought on by a similar event organized by the group at that time, ALEC was directed to register a lobbyist with Minnesota if “the issues forum and any written materials distributed include information that communicates with or urges others to communicate with officials in attempts to advocate a particular position to an official about legislative or administrative action.”

ALEC spokesperson Raegan Weber told the Minnesota Independent that ALEC wasn’t aware of the requirement in the board’s 1995 decision. She denied the group engaged in lobbying.

“Our task force director was asked to give an educational seminar about the publication,” Weber said. “That’s what it was — it was an educational seminar.”

Weber said the purpose of the March event was to provide information on ALEC’s State Government Reform Toolkit, which includes what the group’s press release described as 20 “recommendations” to state lawmakers dealing with fiscal crises. The guide argues for legislative reforms in areas ranging from pensions to the establishment of a privatization and efficiency council. Many of the recommendations include citations to ALEC model legislation, which is sometimes written and introduced to the group by corporate ALEC members who pay between $7,000 and $25,000 to be involved in ALEC.

Hamline University School of Business professor David Schultz told the Minnesota Independent that the board’s decision likely was applied to ALEC’s forums because of the group’s unique organizational structure.

“Oftentimes, a lot of organizations, if they’re going to sponsor issue forums, don’t have to [register a lobbyist],” Schultz said. “Because the legislative exchange council is seeking to try to influence legislation and legislators, that’s why the issue forums would require them to be registered.”

Schultz weighed in on the possible outcomes of ALEC not registering a lobbyist with the state: “It looks like any event they’re going to be sponsoring in the future is going to require them to continue to  be considered a lobbyist.” He added, “It could affect issues like their tax status.”

Opinions from the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board are interpretations of Minnesota statutes, in this case the one governing the state’s lobbyist disclosure requirements. Board investigations of statutory violations are generally triggered by public complaints. If a violation of statute is found by the board, it could lead to a civil penalty.

ALEC counts some 2,000 legislative officials nationwide among its members. In Minnesota, that includes about 30 members — all Republicans, according to state chair Kiffmeyer – in the state House and Senate and at least one federal member, Rep. Erik Paulsen. The group has drawn criticism from some who say it allows corporations to lobby lawmakers and write legislation without disclosure.

Common Cause Minnesota connected the group to legislation recently introduced in Minnesota, including bills that would undermine greenhouse gas restrictions and shield large food companies from consumer lawsuits.

ALEC is sometimes viewed as secretive because it doesn’t disclose its membership, although leaked ALEC files and individual confirmations by the Minnesota Independent have provided a partial picture of some Minnesota lawmakers that are involved.

Are you a member of the legislature or legislative staff with knowledge of ALEC’s work in Minnesota? Send us an email: jcollins@minnesotaindependent.com.

Campaign Finance Decision

“About 30″ Minnesota legislators are members of a controversial nonprofit that critics say allows corporate members to lobby lawmakers and write bills without disclosure, according to the group’s state chair.

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) includes around 2,000 legislative members nationwide. It’s sometimes viewed as secretive because it does not disclose its membership, although leaked ALEC files have provided a partial picture of some Minnesota lawmakers that are involved (see chart below), and the Minnesota Independent is attempting to confirm lawmakers’ involvement with the group.

ALEC’s Minnesota chair, state Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer, hasn’t yet responded to a Minnesota Independent request to release members’ names. The Big Lake Republican, who is currently attending the ALEC conference in New Orleans, told the Minnesota Independent Thursday that all 30 Minnesota members are Republicans. She said she invited Democrats to join the organization, which she describes as “Jeffersonian,” but none took her up on it.

“If you’re believing in socialism and want more government control and don’t want limited government, you might not be so interested in ALEC,” Kiffmeyer said. “So we understand that some Democrats like [Sen.] Linda Berglin might not have found this an agreeable organization to pay with her money, or her campaign money, because she doesn’t see the world in Jeffersonian principals.”

State Sen. Linda Runbeck (R-Circle Pines) told the Minnesota Independent via email that she paid $100 for a two-year membership to the organization, and she says she’s never used ALEC’s “model legislation,” bills that are sometimes written by corporate members of the group and that pop up in state capitols across the country.

ALEC has been connected to a host of recent bills in Minnesota, including legislation that undermines greenhouse gas limits and shields food corporations from consumer lawsuits. It’s currently unclear how many ALEC-linked bills have been passed into law.

State Sen. Roger Chamberlain (R-Lino Lakes) was identified in leaked documents as a member of the ALEC Public Safety and Elections Task Force, but he told the Minnesota Independent in an email that he only receives ALEC informational materials. He hasn’t worked with ALEC to draft bills, he wrote, or encountered the group in meetings.

ALEC took its current form in the early 1980s. But former Sen. Roger Moe told the Minnesota Independent that it didn’t get on his radar until the late 1980s and early 1990s. As Senate Majority Leader, Moe said he never signed off on any state-funded travel expenses to ALEC conferences for members, which is now prohibited, because of concerns that there was no firewall between business interests and lawmakers in the group.

Common Cause Minnesota Executive Director Mike Dean told the Minnesota Independent that the public has a right to know which of their elected representatives belongs to the organization, and what special interests are behind the ALEC legislation lawmakers introduce in state capitols across the country.

“For decades ALEC has operated behind closed doors to avoid public scrutiny of their work,” Dean said. “ALEC would be less effective if the public knew that corporate lobbyists were the ones behind so much legislation. That is why ALEC members rarely admit that they are a part of this secret organization.”

Kiffmeyer has not yet provided the Minnesota Independent with a list of the state’s approximately 30 ALEC members, but Common Cause Minnesota put together a list of 19 members based on ALEC documents leaked to Madison’s Center for Media and Democracy. The Minnesota Independent has inquired with each listed lawmaker in an attempt to confirm their membership status and will publish legislator responses.

ALEC members in Minnesota (updated: 9/13/2011)

Original list compiled by Common Cause Minnesota based on leaked documents published by the Center for Media and Democracy. Each member was contacted by the Minnesota Independent to confirm their membership status and offer comments. *Indicates lawmakers added to the original list.

Are you a member of the legislature or legislative staff with knowledge of ALEC’s work in Minnesota? Send us an email: jcollins@minnesotaindependent.com.

Two Minnesota lawmakers are attending a conference hosted by a controversial corporate nonprofit that critics say allows corporations unrestricted access to state lawmakers, as well as the ability to draft bills without public disclosure.

State Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer (R-Big Lake) is the state co-chair of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in Minnesota. She and state Rep. Ron Shimanski (R-Silver Lake) are attending the six day conference in New Orleans.

Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer

Kiffmeyer told the Minnesota Independent that it’s mostly an opportunity to meet and learn from other state legislators across the country. But critics say that the organization is more like a corporate “bill mill,” which allows corporations to write legislation that is then funneled to state capitols across the country without the public knowing that companies that would benefit had a hand in writing the bills. Some of the bills traced to the group in Minnesota include legislation to loosen greenhouse gas goals and laws that shield food companies from consumer lawsuits.

“Corporations are full members of the organization,” said Mary Bottari of the Center for Media and Democracy, which is based in Madison, Wis., and recently published more than 800 leaked ALEC model bills. “The only two people who can be members of this organization — not citizens — are corporations, corporate representatives, mostly lobbyists, and legislators.”

Corporate ALEC members pay dues ranging from $7,000 to $25,000 annually, as well as a fee to sit as members on the task forces that vote to approve the model legislation, according to documents leaked to the Center for Media and Democracy. Each task force, according to the ALEC website, includes a private sector chair, as well as a legislator as a public sector chair.

Bottari said the level of corporate influence in each task force varies, according to reports from inside ALEC conferences, but that each task force includes corporate representatives.

“They discuss model legislation, which is often presented by the corporations, then they vote on whether to make it an ALEC model bill,” Bottari told the Minnesota Independent. “So the corporations and the legislators have a vote on this legislation before it’s ever introduced into the public arena via the state legislature.”

Kiffmeyer said that hasn’t been her experience at ALEC. She said the conference included many more nonprofits than companies, and said she hasn’t seen any Minnesota companies present.

Rep. Ron Shimanski

“You can get an idea as a legislator, work up a draft, get some others to join with you, find which of the task forces might be willing to take it or where it fits, then approach the chairs of these task forces,” Kiffmeyer said of the ALEC process. “Sometimes you have a separate workgroup before you get that far, but it’s legislative driven.”

Louisiana state Rep. Noble Ellington, who serves as national chair of ALEC, admitted there’s much corporate influence in ALEC when he told NPR in late July that ”[bills] may start out in the corporation,” although he denied that corporate members vote on final approval of a model bill in task forces.

The corporate influence extends to the state level. As a nonprofit, ALEC must file organizational papers with the government. In its 990 form, ALEC describes a system in which state public sector chairs — in this case Kiffmeyer — are joined by a private sector chair. Minnesota’s private sector co-chair is John Gibbs of Comcast, according to the Center for Media and Democracy.

Kiffmeyer bristles at questions about corporate influence on model bills at ALEC. She said it’s her constitutional right to associate with whomever she wants, and said it would be “anti-American” to exclude any one party.

“You mean I actually talk to people in other states who are legislators. Oh my gosh, what a shock,” she said. “How terrible that I’m serving my district by getting more educated and informed, using my time to do so, and having it portrayed as somehow that’s abnormal.”

Kiffmeyer said she was mostly spending the conference attending forums and meeting other state legislators.

But critics are concerned that ALEC’s structure undermines lobbyist guidelines in states across the country.

“They’ve created this sort of front group to launder traditional lobbying activities,” Battori said. “They say ALEC themselves don’t lobby, but their corporate governing board, 20 of 24 [members] are lobbyists.”

Kiffmeyer said the corporate involvement in ALEC isn’t any different than at other legislative organizations like the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).

But NCSL doesn’t allow corporate members and receives the vast majority of its financing from government appropriations. NCSL also doesn’t write legislation. And NCSL’s leadership includes lawmakers from both parties. In the Center for Media and Democracy’s survey of ALEC public sector leadership, there was only one Democrat included among 104 legislators.

The secrecy around the cozy relationship between corporations and lobbyists at ALEC has raised hackles at organizations from Common Cause, which has asked the IRS investigate the group for under-reporting lobbying, to media, like investigative non-profit Pro Publica and the Los Angeles Times.

“It raises a whole bunch of legitimate questions about the role of legislators going behind closed doors with lobbyists to pound out this type of legislation,” Bottari said. “When we have cookie-cutter tax breaks for big corporations like tobacco and pharma. … Minnesotans have a right to know the origins.”

Are you a member of the legislature or legislative staff with knowledge of ALEC’s doings in Minnesota? Send us an email: jcollins@minnesotaindependent.com.

Republicans in the Minnesota House introduced three bills on Thursday that would put a ban on same-sex marriage into the Minnesota Constitution. The bill is a companion to the bills offered in the Minnesota Senate on Tuesday. Rep. Steve Gottwalt, R-St. Cloud, liked the idea so much, he’s offered two additional identical bills of his own.

HF1613 would ask the voters in 2012, “Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?”

It was introduced by lead author Rep. Gottwalt and Reps. Torrey Westrom of Elbow Lake, Kurt Daudt of Crown, Mike Benson of Rochester, Mary Kiffmeyer of Big Lake, Matt Dean of Dellwood, Kurt Zellers of Maple Grove, Mary Franson of Alexandria, Glen Gruenhagen of Glencoe, Kathy Lohmer of Lake Elmo, Steve Drazkowski of Mazeppa, Debra Kiel of Crookston, Peggy Scott of Andover, Bruce Anderson of Buffalo Township, Sondra Erickson of Princeton, Chris Swedzinski of Ghent, Bruce Vogel of Willmar and Ron Shimanski of Silver Lake.

Gottwalt also introduced two bills that were identical to the first, and he is the only sponsor of those two bills, HF1614 and HF1615.

Last week, Republican Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer of Big Lake said that if she couldn’t get her bill to require photo identification at the voting booth passed into law, she would seek a constitutional amendment. She made good on that promise Wednesday when she and 33 other Republicans introduced a measure that if passed would put the issue on the ballot in 2012.

Under the bill, HF1597, the ballot question would read, “Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to require that all voters present an approved form of photographic identification prior to voting; all voters be subject to identical eligibility verification standards regardless of the time of their registration; and the state provide at no charge an approved photographic identification to eligible voters?”

Kiffmeyer already has a bill, HF210, in the House that is on the move; it’s passed three committees and has the support of the vast majority of Republicans. A companion bill, SF509, is awaiting a vote on the Senate floor. Gov. Mark Dayton has not threatened to veto the bill yet, but said he’d like campaign finance reform to a part of any elections bill.

The constitutional amendment was introduced by Kiffmeyer along with Reps. Mike Benson of Rochester, Kurt Zellers of Maple Grove, Pat Garofalo of Farmington, Matt Dean of Dellwood, Kurt Daudt of Crown, Sondra Erickson of Princeton, Pam Myhra of Burnsville, Ron Shimanski of Silver Lake, Larry Howes of Walker, Steve Drazkowski of Mazeppa, Glenn Gruenhagen of Glencoe, Chris Swedzinski of Ghent, Kathy Lohmer of Lake Elmo, Bruce Anderson of Buffalo Township, Paul Torkelson of Nelson Township, Debra Kiel of Crookston, Pat Mazorol of Bloomington, Steve Gottwalt of St. Cloud, Keith Downey of Edina, Bruce Vogel of Willmar, Andrea Kieffer of Woodbury, Dan Fabian of Roseau, Roger Crawford of Mora, Kelby Woodard of Belle Plaine, Doug Wardlow of Eagan, Mike LeMieur of Little Falls, Tony Cornish of Good Thunder, Ernie Leidiger of Mayer, Duane Quam of Byron, Connie Doepke of Orono, Bob Barrett of Shafer, Paul Anderson of Starbuck, and Greg Davids of Preston.

Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer, R-Big Lake, told Minnesota Public Radio on Thursday that if Gov. Mark Dayton vetoes a controversial voter ID bill, she will seek to put it on the ballot in 2012. The bill, which is currently winding its way through the Legislature, would require photo ID of all voters. Dayton hasn’t indicated whether he’ll veto such a measure, but election integrity advocates say the proposal could run into constitutional problems.

“We’re going to keep working with Gov. Dayton and continue to do that but if we have to at the end, that is probably a back-up option because this is something that the voters do want,” Kiffmeyer told MPR. “So if we need to, we’ll take it to the voters.”

Pro-voter ID groups had already threatened to advance a constitutional amendment last November following the defeat of Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, a strong supporter of the measure.

But, Minnesota Common Cause noted that the current bill would not spend enough on voter education to ensure that all voters know they need an ID at the polls:

A revised estimate of the costs, savings, revenue gains, and losses projected for Minnesota’s voter ID bill, SF509, fails to adequately account for the costs of the legislation required by the courts. If the legislation is to be constitutional, the estimate–called a fiscal note–must include additional costs for public education and providing the free ID to individuals.

The courts have repeatedly required that states adopt expensive measures to mitigate the burdensome effects that voter ID mandates have on seniors, students and the poor. If legislators fail to account for these costs, this legislation will be held unconstitutional by the courts.

Common Cause estimates that voter education will cost $19.48 million, while Kiffmeyer estimates $2.7 million.

Is the right to vote the same as the right to buy beer, cigarettes and airline tickets? That seemed to be the argument made by proponents of a bill seeking to mandate photo identification for voters that was heard Monday afternoon in the Senate Committee on Local Government and Elections.

The two-hour hearing touched on many aspects of the debate. Minnesota Majority and the Minnesota Voters Alliance — two conservative groups — stressed that voter fraud was a serious problem in Minnesota and implied that voter fraud tipped close elections in 2008 and 2010.

Andy Cilek of the Minnesota Voter Alliance — on whose board one of the bill’s authors, Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer, sits — held up 3,000 notarized petitions from St. Paul residents supporting voter ID.

“Clearly the public has no confidence, nor should they have, in our current election [system],” he told the committee.

On the other side of the debate, people with disabilities, students and homelessness and civil liberties advocates said the bills would disenfranchise legal voters at minimum and, at worse, would violate the Minnesota Constitution.

Simone Hall, a homeless Minnesotan who is working with People Serving People, said, “When people are homeless and they still show up to vote on election day, they are saying I’m working to make my life better, to make my situation better.”

She added, “Some people are simply too poor to afford a constant address. It is a blessing that Minnesota allows eligible people to vote regardless of their housing circumstance.”

Several Republicans and leaders of conservative groups likened the right to vote to that of buying cigarettes or alcohol, using a bank account or boarding an airplane.

Ben Hellerstein, a Carlton College student who relayed a story about how he assisted a friend by vouching for them in the last election, was grilled by committee chair Ray Vandeveer on vouching.

“Maybe you can explain to me how we would know how many people were drinking underage if we never ID’d then,” Vandeveer said, noting that the same could be said about voting.

Hellerstein was a bit flabbergasted. “I’m sorry, I’m not sure I see the connection.”

In his testimony, Minnesota Majority’s Dan McGrath compared the voting process to banking. “How fast do you think your bank accounts would empty if someone could access your account on the say-so of a friend?” he said, deriding vouching.

MVA’s Cilek said voting with voter ID is the same as boarding an airplane. “I would argue this is no different than taking an airplane,” he said. “How many people would fly on an airplane if we didn’t make sure the people on that plane were who they said they were in the terminal at their destination?”

He added, “I don’t think the right to vote should be taken any less lightly than getting on an airplane.”

Committee chair Vandeveer stated to Katie Conlin of the Minnesota Catholic Conference: “You do need an ID to get cigarrettes and to cash a check.”

The Minnesota Catholic Conference, the policy arm of the Catholic Church in Minnesota, opposes voter ID.

“Voting is not privilege, it is a right,” said Conlin. “It’s really not comparable to buying cigarettes or getting on a plane or buying alcohol.”

The committee will continue its hearings on the bill on Wednesday.

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.

Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer of Big Lake and Sen. Warren Limmer of Maple Grove unveiled the Republican plan to overhaul the state’s voting system at a press conference on Wednesday. Among the proposed changes are the elimination of vouching, implementation of a photo identification system, a ban on health care workers assisting voters in the booth, and massive changes to the recount process. Most of the changes reflect complaints by the conservative group Minnesota Majority, which Kiffmeyer ran several years ago.

Kiffmeyer said that the new system unveiled today has stood up to court challenges.

“This is a concept, modeled on the Indiana voting system which has been ruled constitutional by the Indiana Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court,” she said. “This is a system that I think is good for Minnesotans.”

Limmer added that they are proposing the changes because Minnesotans increasingly don’t trust the voting system. “I am excited about being a part of this major revision of Minnesota election law,” he said. “We hear from citizens who are growing suspicious of our election process.”

Among the changes proposed in the bill include the requirement of photo identification for voters. Under the bill, an electronic registration system would be set up that would scan IDs at the polling place. Voters would then be required to sign a receipt that would be printed off.

“This is a receipt that has value and meaning,” Kiffmeyer said. “I think the court case that was in the news in regards to voter receipts… This addresses that concern that was well in the news and well talked about.”

Kiffmeyer was referring to a petition filed by the Republican Party to the Minnesota Supreme Court in the Minnesota gubernatorial recount which tried to force counties to count names on the voter roster instead of voter receipts. The court rejected the GOP case.

Kiffmeyer said that the costs of setting up an electronic voting system haven’t been determined yet, but that the the state of Minnesota would pick up the tab.

Low-income individuals could get the IDs for free at any Department of Public Safety office. When asked about people who are physically unable to get to a DPS office to get an ID, Kiffmeyer didn’t have an easy answer. “Those folks are in a very unique special circumstance,” she said adding that there are some details to work out. “We will be meeting with folks,” she said.

Should the measure pass, vouching would become a thing of the past in Minnesota, and same-day registration would require the same photo ID requirements as a registered voter.

The bill also spells out new ballot handling requirements.

Limmer said the bill was intended to fix the alleged problem of ballots discovered in the trunks of cars.

“When we, a few short years ago, were trying to validate the Franken-Coleman election, we find a box of ballots in the trunk of someone’s car,” he said. “That has not been corrected since that time. This would correct that.”

A reporter noted, however, that the incident never happened.

Limmer brushed that fact off and added, “There’s a history of discrepancies in balloting in certain precincts. It seems like it’s a constant that is highlighted by close elections.”

Other provisions in the bill would change Minnesota election law. If passed, the bill would prohibit voting assistance by “the voter’s court-appointed guardian or conservator” or “any paid individual providing health care or health-related personal assistance to the voter.”

That law change has been sought by Minnesota Majority, a group that has been touting an unsubstantiated claim that a health care worker in Crow Wing County voted for people with developmental disabilities and that people who did not have the mental capacity to vote cast ballots in the last election. An investigation found no evidence that those claims were true.

Another subtle change appears to be geared toward Minnesota Majority. The ban on wearing political attire in polling plaes would only be banned “if it is designed to influence voting for or against a particular candidate, political party, or question on the ballot at the election.”

The previous law was more broad and prevented Minnesota Majority’s “Please ID Me” buttons and Tea Party regalia from being worn in the polling place.

Kiffmeyer was the executive director of Minnesota Majority as recently as 2008, and she was Secretary of State prior to DFLer Mark Ritchie.

In a statement on Wednesday, Ritchie criticized the bill.

“This omnibus bill contains a wide range of expansive and expensive election law changes,” he said. “Careful research and analysis of this bill will certainly be necessary to determine the exact cost and impact on local and state governments.”

He said that implementing an electronic voting system in Minnesota could cost as much as $20 million.

“The bill’s implications will also be analyzed by groups who would be affected including absentee and military voters, seniors, and voters with disabilities,” he said. “At a time when lawmakers are looking to streamline government and create efficiencies, HF 210 includes many proposals that would significantly increase the state’s budget deficit and create higher on-going costs for cities, counties and townships.”

The DFL offered its own press conference on Wednesday.

“This proposal is a risk that we cannot afford,” said Rep. Steve Simon of Hopkins. “There’s a very real prospect that tens of thousands of law-abiding Minnesotans will be fenced out of the voting process.”

He said that voter fraud in Minnesota is very low, and in the last election 100 percent of the convictions were for felons voting illegally.

“How will voter ID at the polls impact felons from voting when felons already have ID cards?” he asked.

Rep. Ryan Winkler of Golden Valley agreed. “This bill does nothing to address felon voting.”

“The real reason the Republicans are pushing a photo ID bill is because they think that’s the best and most effective way to block voters from the polls that they think are going to vote for Democrats,” he said. “This is a partisan ploy.”

More than a dozen Republicans introduced a bill in the Minnesota House Thursday aimed at authorizing the sale of “Choose Life” license plates in Minnesota, with sales revenue going to groups that oppose abortion. The bill is nearly identical to one passed in 2003 in Florida, one of 23 states that produces the plates. But as the Florida Independent found, tracking where funds raised through the license plate sales wasn’t an easy task.

The bill states that the plates “must include (1) a brightly colored, crayon-like image of children, and (2) the words ‘Choose Life.’” Funds from the sale of the plates will be distributed to counties that will then give the funds to nonprofit groups.

That money can only go to organizations that oppose abortion: “A county may not distribute funds to any agency that is directly or indirectly involved in or associated with abortion activities, including counseling for or referrals to abortion clinics, providing medical abortion-related procedures, or pro-abortion advertising.”

The attempt in Minnesota is part of a nationwide effort by Choose Life, Inc. and according to that group’s website, the plates are being pushed in Minnesota by Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life. Choose Life started the movement by getting the phrase added to specialty license plates in 1999.

So far, 23 states have implemented such a license plate program, although only nine restrict funds from going to organizations that provide women with the full range of reproductive options as the Minnesota bill would do.

Minnesota’s bill is strikingly similar to Florida’s law. In fact, the text of the bill is nearly identical to the one passed in Florida in 2003. The program in Florida has come under some scrutiny, as the funds have been difficult to track. The Florida Independent attempted to find out where the funding from the plates went in that state, but had little luck. That may get easier if Florida Republicans get their way: They’re hoping to change the law so that all of the funds raised by the plates go to Choose Life, Inc.

The bill has raised constitutional questions in several states where it has been proposed. New Jersey was wrapped up in a six-year lawsuit over the plates when the state finally relented. The Choose Life activists have sued state legislatures that failed to pass license plate legislation on the grounds that it violates their free speech rights.

Reproductive rights groups in Minnesota declined the Minnesota Independent’s request for comment on the bill, stating that they’d prefer to wait and see how far it advances.

The bill was introduced by Republican Reps. Larry Howes of Walker, Kurt Daudt of Crown, Mary Kiffmeyer of Big Lake, Bob Gunther of Fairmont, Steve Gottwalt of St. Cloud, Ron Shimanski of Silver Lake, Steve Drazkowski of Mazeppa, Bob Dettmer of Forest Lake, Bruce Anderson of Buffalo, David Hancock of Bemidji, Kelby Woodard of Belle Plaine, Dan Fabian of Roseau, Jim Abeler of Anoka, Mike Benson of Rochester, Bruce Vogel of Willmar.