Category: Voting

by Dave Mindeman

The new legislature may take up some changes to voting laws. Fortunately, they are not required to ram Photo ID down our throats because voters rejected that.

But the electronic poll book has surfaced again. Here is where elections have consequences. Mark Ritchie brought the electronic poll book idea forward as a compromise when the legislature was ramming its Photo ID amendment forward. Republicans insisted that it was not good enough. The election apparently changed that perception:

Photo ID's chief lobbyist, Dan McGrath of the Minnesota Majority, supports the electronic poll book idea as a way of ensuring that voters are who they say they are. "We want poll books -- it's pretty much universal," he said. "It's not ideal, but it's better than what we're doing now."

McGrath could have had the poll book passed in a bipartisan way and without bypassing the governor. Instead, McGrath was hellbent on a ridiculous campaign to change all of it and push a partisan agenda on restricting voter access.

Guess he has seen the light (i.e. the election) and now he "wants" poll books.

I think a lot of Minnesotans are OK with poll books, but let's keep thinking about this in methods that allow ease of access to voting and not obstacles.

Early voting is a good idea and will help people with busy schedules and time conflicts. And a better access point for getting a list of felons not allowed to vote will help election judges.

There are still ways to improve voting regulations -- but at least we can discuss this in a way not intended to ramrod one party's ideas into the Constitution.

Democrats are willing to discuss the ideas. Last year's Republicans weren't willing to discuss anything.

Category: Voting

by Dave Mindeman

Republicans continue to criticize voting procedures and also continue to try to make voting more difficult.

Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin's current project is to discredit same day registration. (Which Minnesota also uses)....

"States across the country that have same-day registration have real problems because the vast majority of their states have poll workers who are wonderful volunteers, who work 13-hour days and who in most cases are retirees. It's difficult for them to handle the volume of people who come at the last minute. It'd be much better if registration was done in advance of Election Day. It'd be easier for our clerks to handle that. All that needs to be done."

Wisconsin, a high-turnout state that has allowed citizens to register to vote on Election Day since 1976. I have not heard any complain about this process....or poll workers staing it was unmanageable.

But having this process has made Wisconsin a high turnout state (Minnesota doing even better). The article noted....

In 2008, roughly 460,000 people registered on Election Day, amounting to 15.33 percent of the overall electorate. That includes people who were changing their name or address.

I am sure it would be no small coincidence that a lot of those same day registrants are probably students and low income people who have to change addresses frequently. In other words, a high probability of Democratic votes.

As is usually the case in these Republican criticisms, there is NO actual evidence of problems....

The Government Accountability Board told CBS News that it "did not receive reports of unusual problems with Election Day Registration for the November 6, 2012 election. "There are always lines if polling places are not properly organized, but at this point we cannot attribute the length of lines to the existence of Election Day Registration," said a spokesman, who said the Board is currently studying the fiscal and administrative impact of eliminating same-day registration.
So there are no documented problems and voter participation increases by 15%.

Sounds like another solution in search of a problem.

Category: Voting

by Dave Mindeman

When I was a kid, the idea of "crying wolf" meant that a person was complaining and fearing something that was not real. And if that complaint or fear was registered too often, then the problem would be that no one would pay attention to even the possibility that it was true.

In a Strib commentary, former Senator Norm Coleman came to the defense of Photo ID Amendment by saying this:

Opponents of Minnesota's constitutional amendment to require a valid photo ID prior to voting are increasingly crying wolf rather than focusing on the facts.

We, as opponents of the Voter Restriction Amendment, are crying wolf? It is us? We are the ones with the imaginary fears?

Norm needs to reexamine that one because he has turned that around 180 degrees.

Norm cried wolf during the 2008 Senate election. He told everybody that he actually won and that because the final vote total said he did not get more votes, Norm told us the election was wrong.

Wolf!

So, he challenged the votes and had it all reviewed.

Wolf!

And then he issued a court challenge where he felt he would get to the bottom of what is wrong.

Wolf!

And now, because the system has been examined and proven to be effective twice, Norm wants to fix this imaginary problem by adding a new restrictive addition to voting procedures.

Wolf!

Really, isn't Norm and his cohorts the ones who are really crying wolf here. How many times does a system have to justify itself? How many imaginary problems do we have to "prevent"? How much will this "crying wolf" cost the taxpayers of Minnesota?

Norm scolds amendment opponents for our "trust" in the system and lack of "wolf sightings"....

The developing logic around their opposition suggests that they are of the opinion that some level of voter fraud is acceptable in Minnesota and that a photo ID is an impediment to voting.

No, Norm, we do not accept voter fraud. If we find any, we will certainly fix it. But don't fabricate the problem...otherwise a real voting issue could arise which we might ignore.

Changing the Constitution to fix something that isn't there....especially when we have to work so hard and spend so much money to find it...is not acceptable either.

The real issue here is that we will not accept the idea of putting a Constitutional amendment on the books to theoretically remedy these "imaginary wolf sightings".

Norm Coleman, of all people, should know he has this one wrong.