“As far as we can tell, this is the largest number of voter fraud convictions arising from a single election in the past 75 years,” said Minnesota Majority president Jeff Davis, “Prosecutions are still underway and so there will likely be even more convictions.”

Minnesota Majority says that there have been 113 convictions due to felons voting in the 2008 elections. Their statistics come out of the 2.9 million Minnesota voters who voted in 2008, or about 0.004 percent of the 2008 voting population.

The group said that its findings show the need to eliminate same-day registration.

“The problem rests largely on our current Election Day registration system,” said Davis. “Most of the fraudulent votes cast in 2008 could have been prevented by using the normal registration and verification processes. But since the Election Day registration process does not include eligibility verifications, it simply leaves the door open to these kinds of abuses.”

Minnesota Majority claims credit for getting those felons prosecuted. It sent a list of thousands of names to county attorneys in order to get the 113 convictions.

“While this number may seem a small percentage of the 2,803 suspected ineligible voters originally submitted to county prosecutors for investigation, there is a wide gap between voting while ineligible and voting while knowingly ineligible,” the group’s report said.

Because Minnesota law says that a felon can’t be charged with voter fraud if they didn’t know they were committing a crime when they voted. And at least one progressive group is asking Minnesota Majority to abandon its efforts to restrict voting through voter ID and an end to same-day registration, instead asking them to support legislation that would educate felons about their voter status.

“Based on this report, Minnesota Majority should be at the head of the line advocating for passage of Rep. Bobby Champion’s felon notification bill when the 2012 legislative session convenes,” Take Action Minnesota said in a statement. “Had Governor Pawlenty not vetoed this bill, which passed with strong bi-partisan support in 2010, this would not be a problem.”

The group continued, “The reality is that Minnesota Majority’s report was issued as a vehicle for making sure their myth of voter fraud remains alive, when in reality Minnesota has the best elections system in the country. The only thing this report shows, is that many felons don’t know the status of their voting rights. And this is best corrected by passing the felon notification bill next session, not blowing up Minnesota’s excellent elections system.”

Legalizing same-sex marriage

Same-sex marriage is already illegal in Minnesota. In 1971, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that Minnesota marriage laws, though not explicitly barring same-sex marriage, could be interpreted as limiting marriage to one man and one woman. In 1997, the DFL-controlled Minnesota Legislature passed the Defense of Marriage Act which said “lawful marriage may be contracted only between persons of the opposite sex” and explicitly bans “marriage between persons of the same sex.” Republican Gov. Arne Carlson signed it into law.

There have been efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in Minnesota, but they haven’t gone anywhere. Three same-sex couple sued the state in 2010, but a district court judge dismissed the case. The couples filed an appeal in May and that case is still pending. Several DFLers have offered legislation to repeal the state Defense of Marriage act and allow same-sex couples to marry, but those efforts were stymied, even when Democrats has control of the Legislature, and are dead-on-arrival in a Republican-controlled House and Senate.

The anti–gay marriage ballot question would not change current Minnesota law. If the majority of voters vote “no” and it is defeated in 2012, same-sex marriage will remain illegal as the Minnesota Supreme Court decision in Baker v. Nelson still stands. Further, it’s extremely unlikely a GOP-controlled Legislature would pass a bill allowing same-sex couples to wed.

If the voters approve the amendment, the Minnesota Constitution in addition to the Minnesota courts and Minnesota statutes will all ban same-sex marriage.

Majority rules: Unmarked ballots count as “no” votes

Minnesota’s ballot initiative law says that if a voter casts a ballot but does not vote for the specific ballot question, it counts as a “no” vote. The amendment must receive a majority of all votes cast in order for it to pass. In other words, even if the amendment garners more “yes” votes than “no” votes it still may fail if a large number voters skip the question on the ballot but still vote for president, U.S. Senate or local representatives. As Minnesota Public Radio notes, since 1898 when that law took effect, 62 amendments have failed even though they received more “yes” votes than “no” votes.

But, in recent history, voters have still approved nine out of every 10 amendments that have been on the ballot.

Other states, including Hawaii, Tennessee and Utah, have similar rules for constitutional amendments.

Language makes a difference

Proponents of the anti–gay marriage amendment have claimed that such amendments have passed in every state that has had it on the ballot. For instance, Minnesota Majority recently claimed, “In every state in which the question of marriage has been put to a vote of the people, voters have moved to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

But that’s only half true.

Anti–gay marriage amendments have passed in most states that have offered them on the ballot. One exception is Arizona, where voters narrowly rejected the amendment 51 percent to 49 percent in 2006.

That ballot question read:

“To preserve and protect marriage in this state, only a union of one man and of one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage by this state or its political subdivisions and no legal status for unmarried persons shall be created or recognized by this state or its political subdivisions that is similar to marriage.”

The language has the effect of outlawing civil unions or domestic partnerships for same-sex couples and heterosexual couples, something Arizona seniors — many of whom live in domestic partnership arrangements — found problematic.

Arizona approved a different marriage amendment in 2008 that did not include ban on a “legal status for unmarried persons.”

A ban on civil unions and domestic partnerships in addition to gay marriage has been the standard offering of religious conservatives in the Minnesota Legislature since U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, then a state senator, first offered it in 2004. In every legislative session, the amendment has stated:

“Only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota. Any other relationship shall not be recognized as a marriage or its legal equivalent.”

But, the current amendment that will go to the Minnesota voters omits that last line, and in theory, would not prohibit civil unions or domestic partnerships.

“31 states have protected marriage”

Eighteen states have passed amendments with language that bars not only gay marriage, but either civil unions, domestic partnerships or both: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Eleven states have passed the language similar to that being proposed in Minnesota which, in theory, addresses marriage but not civil unions or domestic partnerships: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Tennessee.

Proponents of the amendment have often made the claim that 31 states have passed marriage amendments. For instance, Minnesota Majority says, “31 states have amended their constitutions to protect the definition of marriage.”

And an ad last fall by NOM and the Minnesota Family Council stated that 31 states have “voted to protect marriage,” a claim repeated in an April press conference by GOP state Sen. Warren Limmer, R-Maple Grove, the lead author of the anti–gay marriage amendment.

In an email to supporters by NOM’s president Brian Brown, “In 2012, we hope, pray and expect that the people of Minnesota, after a dignified and civil debate, will join 31 other states in voting to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

But that’s not quite accurate.

In Hawaii, the voters voted to allow the legislature to ban same-sex marriage. The amendment read, “The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.”

Even including Hawaii in the states where voters have passed some form of anti-gay marriage amendment, only 30 have passed such amendments. Arizona voted on the measure twice, but only once did the amendment pass. Nevada voters had to approve a constitutional amendment in two consecutive elections, 2000 and 2002, which may account for a double vote by amendment proponents.

Only 29 states have passed an amendment similar to what is being proposed in Minnesota, not the 31 touted by amendment supporters.

Bolstering turnout?

One of the more minor complaints the DFL had when the GOP was pushing the marriage amendment was that it would be used to increase voter turnout among social conservatives. Bush White House strategist Karl Rove is often credited with the strategy of putting gay marriage bans before voters in 2004 and 2006, and conventional wisdom has said the amendments increased turnout and helped Republicans, especially Bush in 2004.

But research shows a different story.

Jeffrey Makin of the Initiative and Referendum Institute of the University of Southern California summarized the research on voter turnout and anti-gay marriage amendments:

However, research based on actual election returns, rather than opinion surveys, again casts doubt on the idea that marriage amendments influenced votes for candidates in 2004. Assessing Bush’s vote totals in 2000 and 2004, Abramowitz notes that Bush had consistent gains across almost all states, and in particular, gains were not larger in states with a marriage amendment. Bush gained an average of 2.5 percentage points in states with a marriage amendment and an average of 2.7 percentage points in states without a marriage amendment. A study by Professors Stephen Ansolabehere and Charles Stewart corroborates Abramowitz’s findings. Comparing Bush’s vote totals in 2004 and 2000, they found that Bush lost vote share in states with a marriage amendment (from 49.7 percent in 2000 to 49.6 percent in 2004). In contrast, Bush gained an average of one percentage point in battleground states without a marriage amendment. Thus, because Bush had consistent gains across almost all states, and because Bush lost vote share in states with a marriage amendment, the amendments do not appear to have been an important influence on voting decisions for president in 2004.

While the numbers mainly focused on presidential elections in 2000 and 2004, little data exists on how such amendments might impact local races. Anecdotal evidence, however, shows that anti–gay marriage amendment are actually becoming a liability for Republicans.

In Wisconsin in 2006, Democrats and Republicans credited the marriage amendment for a huge turnout among college students who overwhelmingly opposed the amendment. Though the amendment passed, local Republicans lost a large number of seats particularly in communities that had college campuses.

“The timing ended up backfiring,” Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in 2006. “I think the opposite worked out this time.”

Minnesota Majority has launched a “Battle of the Ads” campaign, allowing its website’s visitors to choose which anti-Gov. Mark Dayton advertisement will receive more air time on radio stations and cable television.

The two ads criticize Dayton’s budget plans and a potential government shutdown. One features male and female narrators detailing the negative consequences of the governor’s unwillingness to accept the state legislature’s proposed budget.

“The legislature has offered a balanced budget that includes more than 4 billion in new spending,” the narrator says. “But it’s apparently not enough for Mark Dayton. He wants more. More spending and more taxes. And he’s willing to shut down state government to get his way.”

The second ad shows Dayton’s head on a wind-up doll, repeating “more spending, more taxes,” responding to a Barbie doll, who asks questions about the budget.

Both ads also give  Dayton’s phone number. The ads will receive air time based on how much donation money each garners.

Meanwhile, another ad, titled “We Want to Work for Minnesota,” presents a different message. The ad, sponsored by AFSCME Council 5, the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees, the Inter Faculty Organization and the Middle Management Association, supports a tax increase for the state’s richest 2 percent as a way to protect against layoffs. It features a number of state employees, speaking about the necessity for their jobs.

The ad will air starting June 9 and will appear 11,500 times on statewide broadcast and local cable channels, according to an AFSCME release.

Minnesota Majority, Minnesota Voters Alliance and the North Star Tea Party Patriots lost a case in court on Friday when U.S. District Court Judge Joan Erickson dismissed the trio’s challenge to a state law that bans political apparel in the polling place. The groups had attempted a campaign to have their supporters bring “Please ID Me” buttons and tea party t-shirts into polling places, but elections officials said the items would not be allowed.

The groups requested a restraining order just days before the 2010 election to force elections officials to throw out the rules regarding political attire in polling places, but Erickson rejected that request.

The groups refiled the complaints following the election on the grounds that the rules that keep political buttons and t-shirts out of the polling place are unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs argued that elections officials violated their free speech rights by prohibiting the voter ID buttons and Tea Party t-shirts in the polling place. Erickson, however, said that the polling place is not a a public forum and that “the state has a well-established, legitimate interest in providing a safe, orderly, advocacy-free polling place.”

She noted that the advocacy that was being promoted by Minnesota Majority and the Tea Party could be perceived as intimidating to voters.

“The language on the button intimates that government-issued identification should be — or is — required in order to vote in Minnesota,” wrote Erickson. “This intimation could confuse voters and election officials and cause voters to refrain from voting because of increased delays or the misapprehension that identification is required.”

She added, “On this basis alone, the Court concludes that it was reasonable to ban the ‘Please I.D. Me’ buttons.”

Minnesota Majority and the tea party also argued that their buttons and t-shirts were not political but Judge Erickson wasn’t buying that argument.

“As the Court considers this case, there is a proposed legislation that would require voter identification pending in the Minnesota House of Representatives,” she wrote. “In July 2010 the U.S. House of Representatives recognized a Tea Party caucus consisting entirely of Republican members of Congress. Mobilizing public opinion on matters of fiscal or electoral policy, or on the proper reach of government, like persuading and organizing elected representation, is ‘political’ activity by any fair estimation.”

She concluded, “Minnesota’s strong interest in creating a neutral zone where individuals can vote free from external influence is reasonably furthered by restricting the expression of political views within the narrow confines of the polling place.”

House Speaker Kurt Zellers said that voting is not a right, but a privilege Wednesday evening, the Star Tribune reports. Zellers is not the first conservative to make that claim during the debate over voter ID which is heating up the Minnesota Legislature. Republicans and voter ID advocates have compared showing identification for voting to everything from cashing a check to boarding a plane to buying cigarettes.

“When you go to even a Burger King or a McDonalds and use your debit card, they’ll ask you to see your ID [to be] sure it’s you,” Zellers said on 95.9 FM’s “Late Debate.” “Should we have to do that when we vote, something that is one of the most sacred — I think it’s a privilege, it’s not a right. Everybody doesn’t get it because if you go to jail or if you commit some heinous crime your rights are taken away. This is a privilege.”

He backed off his statement a bit on Thursday evening: “I understand voting is a right in the Consitution,” Zellers said. “I misspoke. It’s not a privilege.”

Zellers statement mirrors one made by former Sen. Norm Coleman earlier this year at a tea party voter ID conference.

“Some places require an ID to cash a check at McDonald’s; if it’s good enough for McDonald’s it should be good enough for one of the greatest privileges that democracy affords, and that’s the right to vote,” said Coleman.

At the Minnesota Capitol, during hearing on voter ID last month, the right to vote has been compared to many things that are privileges.

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

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, referencing Minnesota system of allowing neighbors to vouch for voters who don’t have IDs.

The Minnesota Voters Alliance’s Andy 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 cigarettes 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 Katie Conlin. “It’s really not comparable to buying cigarettes or getting on a plane or buying alcohol.”

Here’s what the U.S. Constitution has to say about voting:

The 14th Amendment, Section 2:

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

The 15th Amendment, Section 1:

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

The 19th Amendment:

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

The 24th Amendment, Section 1:

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.”

The 26th Amendment, Section 1:

“The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”

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.

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.”

The Minnesota County Attorneys Association’s (MCAA) executive director John Kingrey says Minnesota Majority’s reports of massive voter fraud in the 2008 election were “widely overstated” and “frivolous,” adding that the conservative group’s demands of those investigating suspected voter fraud were draining county public safety resources.

MCAA was at a press conference last week where a report was released that showed voter fraud in Minnesota is extremely rare. The report’s authors, Citizens for Election Integrity Minnesota and the Minnesota Unitarian Universalist Social Justice Alliance (MUUSJA), said the report demonstrates that government-issued voter identification is unnecessary.

MCAA’s Kingrey said that Minnesota Majority sent county attorneys’ offices information last year alleging widespread fraud in the 2008 election. He said the “the drumbeat continued” when the Republican Party of Minnesota backed up Minnesota Majority’s claims and then counties were served with an order by KSTP-TV to retain absentee ballots from the 2008 election.

“County attorneys take voter fraud very seriously; there is no discretion for county attorneys in this manner,” Kingrey said. Minnesota Majority produced a list of more than 1,000 names of Minnesotans that they suspected of illegal voting.

“The list generated wildly overstated the number of felons that voted,” said Kingrey. “Many actually were legal voters; they were allowed to vote under Minnesota statute.”

He continued, “This matter has taken up considerable prosecutor and law enforcement involvement and resources at a time of dwindling budgets. It also impacts the strapped budgets of our public defenders and the courts as well.”

He added, “Our priority must remain public safety. The diversion of resources to investigate frivolous reports of voter fraud causes nothing to protect public safety.”

He said that several counties in the Twin Cities area had to hire new staff to deal with Minnesota Majority’s lists.

“It just was a lot of work given to a very poor list,” he said. “Very, very few have been prosecuted.”

Kingrey referred to a report released last week that surveyed Minnesota’s 97 county attorneys about voter fraud.

Jennifer Jewell Thomas of report co-author MUUSJA, said, “Voter fraud is not a problem in Minnesota and a photo identification requirement for voters is completely unnecessary.”

She added, “We see frequent allegations of voter fraud in the press,” and those allegations have led to a push for voter ID, she said. “Like all Minnesotans, we take allegations of voter fraud seriously, so we set out to learn the facts to inform this debate.”

The report found that only 26 people had been convicted of voter fraud in the 2008 election (because the statute of limitations on voter fraud is two years, that number is not likely to change). That comes to 0.00089 percent of votes cast in 2008. And only two county attorneys, those in Polk and Mille Lacs expressed any concern about voter fraud.

Kathy Bonnifield of Citizens for Election Integrity Minnesota said that people were investigated even though they followed the law, especially those who were convicted of a gross misdemeanor or had completed the sentence of a felony conviction. “There are people being investigated as possible felons voting, when in fact they had every right to vote.”

The report reached several conclusions and provided lawmakers with some recommendations based on the data gathered on voter fraud.

“Not one single government-issued identification confirms all the requirements to vote,” the report’s authors wrote. “In fact, in reviewing all types of government-issued identification (i.e. passports, military IDs, driver’s licenses, state-issued IDs), the only type of election fraud a photo identification requirement would prevent is voter impersonation.”

That type of fraud did not happen in Minnesota in 2008. The report found that county attorneys investigated seven cases of potential voter impersonation, and no one was convicted of the crime.

The bulk of the report focuses on felons voting, an area that was also the thrust of the complaints by Minnesota Majority. From 2008, 26 people were convicted of voting before their civil rights had been restored. They were in the following counties: Ramsey (12 cases); Hennepin (3 cases); Beltrami (2); Blue Earth (2); Todd (1); Lake (1); Morrison (1); Martin (1); Mille Lacs (1); Red Lake (1): Polk (1).

One type of fraud that Minnesota Majority insisted was occurring in Minnesota was double voting. Last year, the group said, “We found evidence of nearly 100 cases in which voter registration and voter history records strongly indicate that a single voter may have voted more than once in a single election. We’ve identified thousands of additional voter records that merit additional investigation.”

But according to Minnesota’s county attorneys, there were 165 investigations of double voting in 2008 and no convictions. In Anoka County, for instance, the names investigated were actually voters who had the same name and birth date.

“They were different people,” said Bonnifield. “Double voting never occurred.”

Only nine voters were investigated for voting as a non-citizen; no one was convicted. Only one voter was investigated for voting as an under-age voter; that person was not convicted. Fifty-six voters were investigated for voting outside their jurisdiction; no one was convicted.

Felon voters were the entirety of those convicted of voter fraud, and a number of felons who did vote were not convicted because they were not notified that they had their civil rights revoked. That happens when a felon is released from incarceration but is still on probation and votes.

The report’s authors said that county attorneys identified that as a problem and a bill to provide more education to felons so that they don’t inadvertently break the law passed the Minnesota Legislature last year.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty vetoed that bill saying that Minnesota already has enough mandates and “has a process in place that informs offenders about their voting.”

The report’s authors chastised Pawlenty for vetoing the bill:

We respectfully disagree with the Governor’s reasons for vetoing the bill. The responses to our survey indicate the current process the Department of Corrections has of informing felons does not work. The most common suggestion from County Attorneys was to better educate felons. Furthermore, many investigations of ineligible voting by felons did not result in a conviction of voter fraud. As noted earlier, in order to commit fraud, a person must intentionally break the law. As such, if felons are not aware that they cannot vote, they cannot be convicted of fraud.

While the report said that voter fraud is rare, and county attorneys say that the group’s data is flawed, Minnesota Majority defends its work. In a statement to TPM, the group defended its work:

As to “frivolous” allegations, we have conclusively demonstrated that hundreds of ineligible voters voted in 2008. Some of our data included incorrect identity matches or the suspected fraudulent voter was off probation in some cases, but the majority of the names we’ve provided county attorneys are accurately flagged as ineligible voters. The problem is that county attorneys aren’t charging the ineligible voters if they don’t feel they can prove the ineligible voter KNEW he or she was ineligible. Simply sticking to the story, “I didn’t know” is a defense against prosecution, because our election law defines the crime as “ineligible voter KNOWINGLY votes.” This results in what I term, “limbo votes” – illegal ballots that were counted, that shouldn’t have been but with no attendant crime having been committed, technically.

A Minnesota District Court judge refused on Monday to issue a restraining order allowing tea partiers and vote-fraud monitors to wear “Please ID Me” buttons and t-shirts with tea party slogans in polling places on Tuesday. Election Integrity Watch requested the restraining order after Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman said the materials would not be allowed in polling places.

“You can’t wear campaign buttons in a polling place, state law says you can’t,” Freeman said last week. “And election judges can’t even wear, you know, ‘Stamp Out Election Fraud.’ So that’s going to be interesting in the next few days.”

Minnesota Majority, the lead organization in the Election Integrity Watch coalition, filed a restraining order on Friday. The group is handing out “Please ID Me” buttons and has announced a $500 bounty on cases of voter fraud.

The Northstar Tea Party Patriots also want to wear t-shirts that read, “Don’t tread on me,” “Liberty,” “We’ll Remember in November,” and “Fiscal Responsibility, Limited Government, Free Markets” along with the tea party logo.

Attorneys for the government said the buttons and shirts could be construed as partisan. The judge agreed and dismissed the case.

An email from Minnesota Majority to supporters following the court decision told members to wear their buttons despite the ruling:

“For now, we are recommending that you proceed with wearing your Election Integrity buttons or Tea Party apparel to the polls, knowing you are within your rights, but don’t allow yourself to be disenfranchised. If you are challenged by an election judge because of what you are wearing, you’ll have a decision to make. You can simply remove or cover the challenged item and you’ll be allowed to vote, or you can refuse and demand your right to vote and the election judge will allow you to vote, while also recording your name and you could be charged with a petty misdemeanor.”

Election Integrity Watch, a coalition of groups including Minnesota Majority and the North Star Tea Party Patriots, filed suit in district court on Thursday afternoon against the state of Minnesota to allow their members to wear “Please ID Me” buttons and tea party t-shirts at polling places throughout the state. EIW alleges that Minnesota has widespread voter fraud, though experts have disputed that claim. The group is offering a $500 bounty on reports of voter fraud that lead to prosecution.

“The statutory interpretations made and policies promulgated by County and State officials are violative of the freedom of speech, the freedom of association, and the freedom to vote as protected under the article 1 § 3 of the Minnesota Constitution and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution,” the complaint says.

Under Minnesota law, election judges and voters cannot wear political materials in a polling place.

A person may not display campaign material, post signs, ask, solicit, or in any manner try to induce or persuade a voter within a polling place ….on primary or election day to vote for or refrain from voting for a candidate or a ballot question … A political badge, political button, or other political insignia may not be worn at or about the polling place on primary or election day.

“Clearly, these buttons are not about any specific political candidate, party or ballot question,” said Jeff Davis, president of Minnesota Majority. “This ban is outside state law and a clear violation of our First Amendment rights under the United States Constitution.”

Aside from “Please ID Me” buttons, tea partiers want the right to wear shirts into polling places with phrases like “Don’t tread on me,” “Liberty,” “We’ll Remember in November,” and “Fiscal Responsibility, Limited Government, Free Markets” along with the tea party logo.

Randy Liebo of the North Star Tea Party Patriots said in a statement, “We have heard about the woman who was turned away from the polls in Arizona for simply wearing a Gadsden Flag pin. She was so upset that she left and never returned to vote. She was disenfranchised by a policy that’s just wrong.”

The lawsuit has already drawn criticism.

TakeAction Minnesota, a left-leaning group, released a statement on the lawsuit.

“Minnesota Majority’s latest attempt to intimidate voters as they head to the polls to vote on Tuesday is a punch in the face to U.S. democracy,” said president Dan McGrath. “These lawsuits, are designed to do one thing — draw media attention to their invented case of voter fraud in order to intimidate and scare voters away from the polls. It’s nothing more than an election year political stunt. There is no evidence whatsoever that Minnesotans are organizing to commit voter fraud, and reporting on this as serious news only helps them further their political agenda.”