Post #3: Due Friday, October 12th
Nationally there is a discussion about voter identification and registration. Last week a Pennsylvania court ruled that their voter id law will not be fully in effect for this year's election but didn't strike it down. In Minnesota we are in the middle of a heated debate about whether to change the state constitution to require a voter id. To prepare for your upcoming elections essay we are going to discuss and debate one of the key questions on the ballot this fall should MN require a state photo identification in order to vote? In your post examine the arguments given in the media and by interest groups for and against requiring voter ids. Make an argument either for or against the question. Be sure to back up your argument with data, with a quote, or a story. Your post is due by class time on Friday October 12th. Your post should be a minimum of one paragraph long and should have a minimum of 3 sources. Sources can be interest group or political party websites - not just news stories. You do not have to limit your debate to Minnesota's constitutional amendment question because it's a national issue. I hope you'll enjoy this topic. Many of you will be voting in your first election and I want you to be prepared! (To respond to this click where it says "Comments:" in yellow below here.
posted by maby-keirstead @ 3:43 PM
39 Comments:
A strongly controversial issue will be present in this November’s ballot. That is, "Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to require all voters to present valid photo identification to vote and to require the state to provide free identification to eligible voters (1)?” I strongly support this amendment and according to a Star Tribune Poll that interviewed 800 Minnesotans with an error of “+/- 3.5 percentage points,” a majority or 52% of voters agree with me (1). My opinion is bolstered by three sources: the voteridformn advocacy page, the arguments in the Minnesota public radio website, and based off the analysis in the lawyerscommittee website.
The Voter ID for Minnesota which is a non-partisan organization advocates its position for the passing of the amendment by analyzing several myths. The first myth they take apart is “voting is a right, not a privilege (2).” I fully agree with the analysis when the organization says that voting is a “qualified right (2).” According to the Minnesota constitution, one has to be over 18, must have been in Minnesota for twenty days prior to the election, and must be competent to vote (2). The second myth is, “Poor people, old people and minorities won’t be able to afford a photo ID (2).” This again is false. The voter ID amendment provides free photo identification for anyone who cannot afford it (2). The truth is, to get access to many public services such as free meals or clothing, a person needs a photo identification. The third myth is, “If a voter loses their photo ID or forgets it at home, they will not be allowed to vote (2).” This again is not true. A person who does not have an ID on hand can vote using a provisional ballot (2). This ballot will be held “6-10 days,” and will “allow the voter to return with their photo ID to have the ballot counted into the county voter system (2).” The last and major myth is that, “voter fraud does not exist (2).” On the contrary, Minnesota has evidence of fraud occurring and prosecuted people for doing so accordingly. In fact a study shows that there has been, “2,800 ineligible felons believed to have unlawfully voted in Minnesota’s 2008 general election (3).” Minnesota leads the nation in voter fraud (3).
Bill Pentelovitch, a Minnesota lawyer of the American Civil Liberties Union states to the courts, that the question of the amendment “makes no mention of the creation of a new provisional balloting system (4).” He claims that this will bring Minnesota into an entirely separate sphere of voting other than the in person or absentee vote (4). I however, agree with Thomas Boyd, a Minnesota State Legislature lawyer, who states that “the effects of the amendment, including provisional balloting, won't be known until lawmakers pass the enabling legislation for the new system (4).” The article bolsters his point by saying, “courts have previously given legislators wide latitude in the presentation of constitutional amendments (4).” Boyd continued by saying, “there have been more than 200 crafted in the state's 150-year history (4).” I believe that the phrasing of the amendment should be able to be vague until the new system is created and debated upon.
Lawyerscommittee.org, gives unique reasoning as to why the Voter ID amendment should be passed. First of all, it would “protect voters from deceptive practices, such as “robo calls” giving people incorrect information about the election date or telling them that they need not vote, because the election has already been decided (5).” I am unfamiliar with this argument, but in a way it makes sense since politicians will and do engage in unfair practice. The more practical reasoning is that the Electoral College will gain more credibility since voters know that fraud is reduced (5).
1.http://www.startribune.com/politics/170565636.html?refer=y
2.http://www.voteridformn.com/Home_Page.html
3.http://www.minnesotamajority.org/Home/tabid/112/EntryID/375/Default.aspx
4.http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/07/17/politics/voter-id-amendment-rewrite/
5.http://www.lawyerscommittee.org/newsroom/clips?id=0603
The entire nation is in a sticky situation of polarized partisan politics. Minnesotans are in an even stickier situation. Congressional races are tight and voters must decide on two constitutional issues – the definition of marriage and the requirement of voter IDs. Putting holy matrimony aside, the voter ID amendment proposes “mandatory government-issued photographic identification with a current address in order to vote” (1).
Minnesotans must vote down this amendment. It creates a solution in search of a problem. It is a blank check for the legislature to create the law and its restrictions to its discretion. It is an expensive new measure void of any new funding (1). Also, absentee voting will be eliminated, so don’t take that trip to… anywhere (1). It will only prevent voter impersonation in terms of fraud, of which there are no cases in Minnesota elections (2). All allegations of fraud usually end up as miscalculations or misunderstandings (2). In the recount of the 2008 senatorial election, only 38 of Hennepin County’s 450 convict-voting were supported with enough evidence (3). That ends up being less than .01% of Hennepin County’s electorate (3). In that same election all 12 election judges, split evenly in party identification, accepted the recount outcome (3). Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty stated that there’s "no actual evidence that there's been any fraud or problems," and Coleman's attorney agreed that "there's no voter fraud, there's no election fraud" (3). Voting experts are unanimous in asserting that “voter impersonation is not a factor in our elections” (2).
If the requirement of voter ID doesn’t prevent impersonation fraud, what will it do? It will disenfranchise many minorities, veterans, students, and senior citizens as well as rural and poor populations (1). 15% of lower-income voters do not have a photo ID (2). 18% of young adults do not have a government-issued ID with their current address and name (2). 10% of disabled voters do not have a photo ID because it may be physically impossible for them to obtain one (2). 25% of African-American citizens of voting age do not have a current, government-issued ID (2). 18% of elderly citizens do not have a government-issued photo ID (2). These people would have to drive miles and miles with all necessary documentation (birth certificates, wedding certificates, etc.) to obtain a photo ID (3). Sometimes, it’s daunting and sometimes impossible. For example, Ruthelle Frank of Wisconsin is a U.S. citizen who has voted in every election since 1948 (3). Under new Wisconsin law, she must spend $200 to fix her state documentation that misspells her maiden name because such documentation is necessary to obtain an ID (3). Others aren’t even as lucky as Ruthelle since the states they were born in wouldn’t even have their birth certificates.
Must Minnesota fix a well-oiled machine at the expense of the poor, the elderly, and minorities? We have the Office of the Secretary of State to fulfill the purpose of election integrity. Our state had the highest turnout in 2008 of any state (4). We have a long history of such participation, so let us not hinder future voters. Vote no.
1. http://www.takeactionminnesota.org/stop_photo_id/91
2. http://www.lwvmn.org/page.aspx?pid=734#hurdles
3. http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/171416011.html
4. http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
During the election season, many major issues come forward that are important to Americans. One of the biggest national issues right now that has different solutions in every state is whether or not voter id should be required when voting. I believe this shouldn’t even be an issue. I think people should just be able to vote and not have to worry about having a picture id with them.
Minnesota should not make this into an amendment. All the articles I found point fingers at the Republicans for this problem. In a NY Times article, it says that, “The real aim of the voter ID requirements is to cut down on turnout, and to do it in a way that affects Democrats more than Republicans (1).” This is one reason why we should not require voter ID for voting and why we should not make an amendment out of this. Republicans want to cut down on voters thereby giving themselves an up on voting and voting numbers. Andrew Rosenthal in another NY Times article said that the measure “discriminates against the elderly, minorities, rural populations and poorer, and less educated voters (2).” This is a huge group of Americans who would possibly lose the right or the will to vote. This would further decreases voter turnout and would skew the number of voters to more Republicans than Democrats because “many of these groups vote Democratic (2).” The Minnesota ACLU has offered a $1,000 award for anyone who can prove of a case of voter impersonation (2). How many people have received money? None. There have been zero examples of voter fraud found and/or reported. The only information about fraud I found was by the Minnesota Majority that found during the Franken and Coleman race that 1,099 felons voted when they were ineligible (4). This is the only serious case, in Minnesota, if it is even considered to be serious. This is one case that found many ineligible voters but only less than 200 of them were convicted or charged (4). This is a weak argument, if an argument at all, for the Voter ID amendment.
If the voter ID amendment is passed than 700,000 Minnesotans will lose the right to vote which was reported by the Saint Paul Pioneer Press (3). Even if voters try to become eligible to vote there will still be about 140,000 Minnesotans that won’t become eligible when they were eligible in 2010 (3). These voters who do not have voter IDs use Election Day registration and so the amendment would not allow for Minnesotans to use that method, anymore (3). It was found that 11% of voters do not even have government-issued IDs which the Brennan Center for Justice discovered (3). That number also increases when talking about students, the elderly, and those with disabilities (3). Why is this necessary? Researchers have also found that it will cost from $30 to $50 million just to create the program to check and distribute voter IDs and about $10 million in annual costs during elections (3). Voter ID in Minnesota would only hurt our state. Too many voters would be taken out of the picture. It is also reported that, “Minnesota has one of the strongest records of high voter participation and clean elections in our nation (3).” With that statement, why do we need voter IDs? If we have one of the best turnouts in the nation, why change that? Vote no to the Voter ID Amendment in Minnesota and across the nation.
1) http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/voter-suppression-again-in-minnesota-this-time/
2) http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/all-quiet-on-the-voter-fraud-front/
3) http://blog-takeactionminnesota.org/
4) http://washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1099-felons-vote-in-race-won-by-312-ballots/article/2504163
Yeah I am enjoying this discussion. These are good posts - passionate & well researched. Thanks Trevor, Noah and Sara for starting us off right!
M
Lately, there has been much discussion about whether or not the presentation of a valid ID should be a prerequisite to vote in Minnesota. This proposed amendment will defeat fraud that is allegedly occurring in elections. People have been deliberating over this topic for the past couple of months, and the time to vote yes or no on the amendment is drawing nearer. Due to the current prominence of this issue, it is important to examine both arguments before making an informed decision.
Those against the amendment attack it from several different angles. Firstly, they argue that students, service members, and others will be denied a vote if an ID is required (1). For students, this is because they lack the permanent address required to attain state identification (1). Similarly, the opponents state that the amendment would eliminate the use of absentee ballots; therefore, active service members would be denied a vote (1). Additionally, some would argue that fraudulent voting simply does not exist (2). They say that the number of those caught improperly voting would be completely outweighed by those who become ineligible due to their lack of identification (2).
On the other hand, those in favor of the amendment declare that the above statements are false and carry little weight. They argue that the above groups would not be denied vote for several reasons. In dealing with students who don’t have a proper address, simple and non-time consuming paperwork is available that can be used to get a state ID (3). As for service members, the amendment as written currently still allows military absentees (3). Even if it didn’t contain this necessary provision, state voting laws regarding the military are overridden by several federal acts such as the UOCAVA, HAVA, and MOVE (3). As for the argument that voting fraud does not exist, those in favor of s amendment often cite the Franken v. Coleman election which was won by an extremely thin margin. In this example, 1,099 ineligible felons were granted votes (4). This number is three times the margin of victory for Franken (4). Whether the voter ID amendment would have changed the outcome of this particular election or not is unclear, but at the very least it would have been left up to those who had the constitutional and qualified right to have their vote counted.
1. http://www.takeactionminnesota.org/stop_photo_id/91
2. http://www.marshallindependent.com/page/content.detail/id/536183/Vote--no--on-voter-ID-amendment.html
3. http://www.protectmyvote.com/?page_id=875
4. http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/09/18/politics/voter-id-amendment-voter-fraud/
The Voter I.D laws springing up around the country are dangerous proposals based on political gamesmanship. Voter I.D laws are simple: require everyone at coming to the polls to show government issued identification in order to vote. What proponents of these laws fail to understand, or choose to ignore, is that in-person voter fraud is incredibly rare. Since the year 2000, the cases of confirmed in-person voter fraud in the United States total 10 (1). Other cases of voter fraud are far more numerous (1), but these cases of fraudulence come from absentee ballots and voter registration drives, and would not be addressed by requiring photo I.D at the polls (1). Furthermore, the cases of absentee and voter registration fraud in the past 10 years come to less than 1000, a total that pales in comparison to the billions of ballots cast during that period (1). Other mistakes, like letting convicted felons stripped of suffrage vote, would not have been solved by Voter I.D. Amendments either. Use of these arguments in the debate is logically unsound.
Furthermore, proponents of voter I.D in the claim that implementing voter I.D laws will only cost mere millions per state (2). This is a classic case of government fixing what isn’t broken. According to Hamline professor David Schultz, a respected public policy expert, “There is absolutely no evidence that (voter impersonation fraud) has affected the outcome of any election in the United States, at least any recent election in the United States.”
Proponents of voter I.D also ignore the fact that, just in the state of Pennsylvania, 758,000 eligible voters do not have a photo I.D (1). Nationwide, if voter I.D laws are enacted in all 50 states, eleven million voters (5), including the elderly, the poor, and the young, will be disenfranchised. What, then, is the motivation for these laws? As stated by Pennsylvania House Leader Mike Turzai (3), “Voter I.D will help Governor Romney win the state of Pennsylvania.” Voter I.D is just a ploy by roughly 30 Republican controlled state legislatures (6) to sway election results by disenfranchising swaths of the electorate that tend to vote Democratic. Not only is this reprehensible, it is unconstitutional. The 24th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says that states are prohibited from conditioning the right to vote in Federal elections on payment of any sort of tax (4). While proponents of voter I.D claim that government I.D’s would be free (2), there are hidden costs. In order to obtain I.D, persons must present copies of valid personal documents, like birth certificates. These copies cost money. Furthermore, complaints abound of excessive lines in government I.D offices (6). The adage states that time is money, and for many poor people working hourly jobs, this wait amounts to significant amounts of lost income. These costs effectively amount to a poll tax.
There is absolutely no reason to vote for any Voter I.D law in their current iterations. They are disastrous, partisan, and logically indefensible, unless one is a Republican strategist.
1. http://votingrights.news21.com/article/election-fraud/
2. http://www.protectmyvote.com/?page_id=1568
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
5. http://www.propublica.org/article/everything-youve-ever-wanted-to-know-about-voter-id-laws
6. http://www.carolinalive.com/news/story.aspx?id=807963#.UHYayy7A_Vs
This is no doubt a big election year for the nation with the presidential election but also for Minnesota. We have the routine congressional races as well as two very important decisions to make for the Minnesota Constitution. I am very involved and up to date about on the marriage amendment. When this assignment asked about the voter ID amendment I first was disappointed because I know so much about the marriage amendment. Then I was curious to get to know more about the voter ID amendment.
Here are some things I found out. I went to the main website for the Vote Yes camp. They made several arguments that seemed fair, including that most things you do, like open a bank account, requires a photo ID (1). They also had a short clip on the main page of the website with an old guy talking about how it is a right we need to preserve and that many people have fought to protect (1). We cannot just let fraudulent voting run rampant! They also listed several well-known people who support the amendment, including former president Jimmy Carter (1). They also addressed the claim that a photo ID is the equivalent to a poll tax. They cite a Supreme Court Case, Crawford v. Marion County, to support the fact that it is not a poll tax (4). Several times it is said that the IDs people will receive if they do not have one will be free of charge (4) The opposition states the cost for many of the kinds of ID on their website, and I have seen no concrete evidence of a free voter ID card that can be offered to people. Overall, their main argument is that we use our IDs for many things already, so why can we not just use them for voting as well?
Next I headed over to the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota for a perspective on the Vote No side. Their main argument was that yes, fraudulent voting is not a good thing, but first, the amendment is poorly written and will have too many unintended consequences, and two, that there are bigger problems to face, like actually getting people to come vote that we should focus on (2). They gave the statistic that in the 2010 primary, there was a .006% fraudulent error. There were also 45% of eligible voters that did not vote (2). This made the problem look not even worth investigating. The barriers presented would be insurmountable for low-income families, people who live in assisted living centers, people with disabilities, active duty military personnel, and minorities. An article by the Pioneer Press quoted a Hamline professor that said, “even photo ID supporters should vote no in November.” (3) She says this because the amendment is so unclear and ambiguous that no one really knows what it means exactly for Minnesota’s voters.
In my opinion, the amendment is still too unclear to make any decision on. My sister is living in Washington right now. How can she send her absentee ballot when she needs to also send an ID card? It would also set a barrier to people who have trouble making it to the polls already. As mentioned earlier in the argument by the Vote No group, isn’t the bigger problem actually getting voter turn out up? If I fought for this country, or to protect this right to vote, I would be much more enraged to know that half the voting population chooses not to vote, even when eligible. It would hurt minorities who do not always have an ID because of their recently moved situation. It also poses problems for absentee voters and voters in the military. While reading the amendment, I was unclear about many things (4). They set up a provisional ballot system where if you do not have an ID, you can still cast your vote, it just won’t count until you can show ID. This seems complicated. How will we know who has won the election if we have thousands of provisional ballots that might count but might not? Also, it seems like a lot of work getting more people to work at the polling institutions just to check IDs. Overall, I am not in favor of the amendment because it seems to exclude people, there is a larger problem to be solved, and it seems too ambiguous for me to get a concrete idea about what would actually happen.
1) http://www.voteridformn.com/Just_Facts.html
2) http://www.aclu-mn.org/issues/votingrights/protecttherighttovote/whattosaytofightvoterid/
3) http://www.twincities.com/ci_21736345/vote-2012-if-minnesota-voter-id-amendment-passes
4) http://www.protectmyvote.com/?page_id=875
One of the biggest debates in Minnesota during this election year is whether or not a valid photo ID should be presented in order to vote. This issue has divided the state and both sides have valid claims and arguments. Those in favor of the amendment state “Minnesota has the most lax election system in the nation,” and “Minnesota leads the nation in voter fraud convictions” (1). The ID would only be used to verify the elector’s identity, and because there are many options that can be used, such as a driver’s license (both expired and active qualify), a U.S. passport, or even just a state ID card, there should be no problem with obtaining a photo ID. Thus, because of the numerous choices, there would not even be a drastic change in the number of registered voters (1). Meanwhile, opponents argue that there is no need for said amendment. They state that “Minnesota’s election system is recognized nationally as the best” (2). Opponents argue “Why should a system be fixed if it is not broken?” Thus, the proposed amendment would cost millions of dollars to fix something that does not need to be fixed. The money could be put to better use (2).
In my opinion, voters should approve the voter ID amendment. I do not believe that it is an extra burden to present an ID when voting because, in this day and age, it does not seem to be a dilemma to present one piece of evidence that visually shows who you are. In addition, if someone does not have an ID, then one can be provided for free (3). Students in colleges also are not hindered by this “burden” because schools send rosters to county auditors already. They only have to present a school ID to vote (3). Meanwhile, if someone forgets their ID at home, they still can vote with a provisional ballot as long as they return with the ID in 6-10 days (3). Because it has been proven that even in Minnesota voter fraud does exist, the benefit of protecting the elections’ integrity clearly outweighs the cost of having to show one photo ID. In addition, national polling data supports the claim that states should have this amendment added to their constitution. In a CBS/New York Times poll from September, 70% of those polled (1,170 registered voters) support the efforts to require voters to show a photo identification card in order to vote (4). This is substantially greater than those who stated they oppose the amendment, a mere 28% (4). Meanwhile, a recent Minnesota poll from the Star Tribune (conducted by Public Policy Polling in the first week of October) demonstrates the fact that the number of Minnesotans who support the amendment are leading with 51% while only 43% oppose it (5). These stats show that, currently, the amendment is widely supported nationally, and it has a slight lead in the state itself.
1. http://www.protectmyvote.com/
2. http://www.ourvoteourfuture.org/
3. http://www.voteridformn.com/Home_Page.html
4. http://pollingreport.com/politics.htm
5. http://www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/173192111.html
As election time approaches this November, Minnesotans will have to make an important decision regarding future voting procedures in Minnesota. The voter I.D. amendment which will be on the ballot this upcoming election will be an issue on which voters must decide upon. There are those who are in support of a voter I.D. amendment being added to the state constitution. They will argue that it is necessary to complete a more precise and efficient election in elections. According a column supporting the amendment, they acknowledge that it will cost money, however it is argued that to do things right it will cost money, just like anything that should be done right (1). Supporters of the amendment point out to many other things that require the use of an I.D. such as buying cigarettes and getting Medicare benefits from your doctor. They don’t see why voting ,our biggest civil duty, should not be required to the same rules. They argue that the money it will cost will not be spent in vain but on protecting our ballots. That under the proposed amendment those who don’t have I.D.s would be provided one by the government therefore rebutting the argument that some people would not be able to afford them. In the column, it also points out that the voter I.D. amendment would not prevent anyone who can vote from voting because of the I.D.’s that would have to be provided but it would only prevent people like immigrants, felons,and individuals who voted twice from getting a vote. People who they are argue aren’t allowed to vote in the first place (1). There are also arguments made that even though voter fraud may not be present, why should the government not protect the right to vote.
However, there are also many arguments made that the voter I.D. would be ineffective. It is argued that voter participation would be reduced as a result of the new amendment. That those without enough resources or the paperwork to prove they are eligible to vote would suffer. It is seen as a step backwards, where in a country where people died to expand voting privileges we are trying to restrict them instead of trying to expand the franchise (2). The free I.D. stance is also rebutted by those against the amendment, they point out that even getting the free I.D. would not be free because you have to go the nearest location where I.D.’s are given out and not everyone has those resources to obtain them. Another argument made is that voter fraud is almost non-existent because in most cases it is felons who try to vote early that causes problems. Another argument is that there would be 215,000 lost votes because that is how many eligible voters do not have I.D.’s (3). However, a big argument against the voter I.D. amendment is the fact that it would not prevent felons and immigrants from voting, a big part in the argument for a voter I.D. amendment. It is pointed out that an I.D. does not show immigration status and felon status so there would be no real way to screen those who are not eligible voters.
Being able to vote for the first time this upcoming November I think that I will be vote against a voter I.D. amendment. Not only do I believe that it will be ineffective, I also believe it is a waste of money. It will cost money to give everyone I.D.’s and also to maintain a system to check these I.D.’s are valid, which in this economy I think would be another struggle to contend with. I also don’t know how absentee ballots
would work out in this proposed amendments. Would voters have to mail in their I.D.’s just so they can vote? What about elders, how will they cope, do they have enough resources to obtain I.D.’s? And another question is, how would Minnesotan soldiers serving overseas be able to vote with this new amendment in place? If these issues were made clear in the amendment then I might consider a possibility of a voter I.D. amendment being created. However as of right now the amendment is not clear in addressing these issues, so I will be voting against the proposed voter I.D. amendment with the knowledge I have.
http://sailor.mnsun.com/2012/10/st-louis-park-columnist-vote-yes-on-voter-id-amendment-proposal/
http://prospect.org/article/you-cant-beat-voter-id-just-facts
http://www.aclu-mn.org/issues/votingrights/protecttherighttovote/whattosaytofightvoterid/
It’s easy to see why some people would be concerned about voter fraud occurring in the United States – our nation has long rested upon a pride of equality and democracy driven by a fair voting system, which would be tarnished by the existence of voter fraud – but the truth of the matter is that it does not occur enough to warrant any preventative measures that also have negative side-effects. Voter ID laws attempt to block any would-be fraudulent voters, but instead block many would-be legitimate voters whose opinions and votes are important to the communal democratic process. Although almost half of people in a poll were found to believe that voter fraud is “major problem” in presidential elections, and another third see it as a “minor problem” (1), in reality it is a much less frequent occurrence. In one investigation, the number of total voter impersonation cases in the United States since 2000 was found to be only 10, out of a nearly 150 million registered voters (2). While the prevalence of other types of voter fraud, such as absentee ballot impersonation and felons voting, is slightly higher (2), the voter ID laws would not help to stop these from continuing. Besides the impracticality of the proposed voter ID amendments, there is also the risk of discouraging voters and even outright barring some people from the voting process. In Minnesota, specifically, there are as many as 84,000 people that lack state identification, and an additional 131,000 that lack identification that is sufficient enough for voting purposes (3). Because they lack these requirements, they would not have access to democratic participation through voting under the Voter ID amendment. Besides directly barring some citizens from voting, the new law would also discourage voters from showing up to vote because of the added work that would be expected of them; in a nation where the presidential election already only sees about 55% of eligible voters actually vote, it is a poor choice to further increase the difficulty of voting. In states that already require voters to have identification, voter turnout has been negatively affected by up to 3%, and even more so in the case of minorities (4). In the case of Minnesota, where many people utilize the election-day registration option, voter turnout would likely be affected even more due to the amendment doing away with any immediate registration (5). Overall, the Voter ID amendment is trying to solve a problem that barely exists, with many more downsides than any possible upside, which is why I think it should be voted down.
(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-concerns-about-voter-fraud-spur-broad-support-for-voter-id-laws/2012/08/11/40db3aba-e2fb-11e1-ae7f-d2a13e249eb2_story.html
(2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/election-day-impersonation-an-impetus-for-voter-id-laws-a-rarity-data-show/2012/08/11/7002911e-df20-11e1-a19c-fcfa365396c8_story.html
(3) http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/169055996.html
(4) http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/us/21voting.html?scp=4&sq=voter+id&st=nyt
(5) http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/170770256.html
The Voter ID issue is a polarizing one. Many assert that these drastic measures are needed to combat voter fraud. However, in my opinion these fears are hardly quantifiable. Thirty states have now enacted Voter ID in some form (1). Many of these laws require documents in order to acquire an id. These documents are not free. One article estimates that a birth certificate can cost at least $25 (1). That might not seem like much, but to a low income worker that is more than the price of a meal. Given the choice, I know I would rather have a full belly than a birth certificate. These laws overwhelmingly disenfranchise the poor,the elderly and the college age students(2). Many of these groups vote Democratic. The discrimination that these laws can cause can also be racial (2). In one landmark Texas case, Senate Bill 14 was struck down when it was found to be racially discriminatory(2).
It is incredible to me that, at a time of low voter participation we would restrict the pool of prospective voters. The downward voter turnout trend is well documented (3). It is important to reverse the trend and make our country more democratic in its decision making(3). At a time when many are seemingly disillusioned with politics in general, I cannot stress how important it is to not decrease voter efficacy more.
1. http://www.propublica.org/article/everything-youve-ever-wanted-to-know-about-voter-id-laws
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/us/court-blocks-tough-voter-id-law-in-texas.html
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2010/11/05/historical-trends-in-voter-turnout/
Voter ID is a hot topic around the nation, but even more debatable in Minnesota. Minnesota currently is the top state with the most voter turnout (1). This is due to the ease of voting in Minnesota. In Minnesota a person may register to vote until election day. The other seven states that have election day registration rules also have very high voter turnout, with the exception of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming (who have 63.6%, 66.3%, and 62.8% voter turnout respectively) (1)(2). However, only two of these states REQUIRE voter ID; Wyoming and Montana (3). Of the top ten states with the highest voter turnout only three require Voter ID, and only one in the top five require an ID to vote (4). Colorado is the only state with over 70% turnout and requires voter ID, it is fifth among the states that have the highest voter turnout (4). As one can see, 7 out of the top 10 states do not require voter ID and only 1 out of the top 5 do. Many who oppose to Voter ID turn to this as proof that Voter ID does not increase turnout. Minnesota is attributed to having some of the highest turnout because of the ease of voting. Inhibiting it in anyway will affect turnout most likely for the worst.
Supporters of Voter ID say that it will combat fraud (5). Of 500,000 election day registrants, 23,000 were flagged as fraudulent (5). Though it is not known if these ballots were proven fraudulent or misinterpreted due to human error (think of Florida, Bush vs Gore). Many people who oppose voter ID say that voter ID will cost too much. Unfortunately this is not true because under the twenty-fourth amendment, charging for voter ID would be considered a poll tax which is illegal in the United States (6). Supporters also that Voter ID will prevent illegal immigrants from voting. This is true, but illegal aliens voting is NOT a problem. 49 our of the 50 states require one to register before they are eligible to vote, only in North Dakota is one able to vote without registering. In order to register to vote, one must provide one of two things: a valid drivers license number and/or a social security number. In order to obtain either of these one MUST be a LEGAL resident of their state. Voter ID solves a problem that is not a problem (7). One more point that supporters say is that Voter ID does not disenfranchise, if one is able to fill out a drivers license form, one is able to fill out a state ID form (6). This too is untrue, under the Voter ID laws, College students that live in a different state than their home are disenfranchised and not able to vote. In order to vote they must be a legal permanent resident of their current state. Being a student, they are must either A, not vote, or B, return home (no matter the distance) just to vote (7).
Voter ID may be a good idea on paper, but in practice is a very bad decision for Minnesota. Minnesota already has the highest voter turnout (1) because of the ease of voting. Any way to decrease voter political efficacy in any way will affect voter turnout negatively. Voter fraud does happen, but statiscally speaking it is insignificant and has no bearing on the results of the entire election (7). The bill is targeted at Democratic voter base by disenfranchising them and making it more difficult to vote (7).
1. http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Day_Registration
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_Laws_in_the_United_States
4. http://michiganradio.org/post/top-10-states-voter-turnout
5. http://www.wewantvoterid.com/track-bill-status/
6. http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2012/01/constitution-check-is-it-unconstitutional-to-require-voters-to-have-a-photo-id/
7. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-daily-nebraskan/problems-with-voter-id-requirements_b_1391224.html
One of the most contested items that will be appearing on the ballot in November is the Voter ID amendment proposed to the Minnesota Constitution. Both sides have fiercely argued this amendment and have provided valid points and evidence to support their cause. This bill was authored by Sen Scott Newman (a member of the Republican Party) (1), and he is supported by the rest of his party and by Political Action Committees like Protect My Vote (2). Opponents to the bill include the Democratic Party, American Association of Retired Persons, League of Women Voters of Minnesota, Minnesota Common Cause & American Civil Liberties Union (1). Before diving into the arguments for and against, it is vital that we understand exactly what the amendment would do (not just what the wording on the ballot is). The question that will be posed on the ballot will be worded as follows, “Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to require all voters to present valid photo identification to vote and to require the state to provide free identification to eligible voters, effective July 1, 2013?” (2). The actual text of the amendment is a little more detailed, so let’s highlight some of the more important elements not present (or not emphasized) in the question that will appear on the ballot: if the voter cannot provide valid photo ID at the time of voting, they may cast a provisional ballot and then, after providing the correct certification of citizenship & eligibility, the vote will be counted; the amendment also states that voters not voting in person must undergo “substantially equivalent identity and eligibility verification.” (2)
Support for the Voter ID Amendment has come from a wide variety of places. One of the primary arguments for this Amendment is that it prevents substantial voter fraud and protects the integrity of every vote that is cast. (3) Supporters argue that voter fraud is a problem (4) in the state and that it can be effectively reduced or eliminated with this amendment. (6) They also argue that the mere existence of a comprehensive ID plan like this, which improves the integrity of the system, increases confidence in government and will therefore increase voter turnout and involvement in government. (6) They also state that in every state that has passed Voter ID voter turnout has risen. (3) Some cite the Supreme Court case Buckley v Valeo where the decision included this statement about the effects of trust and corruption in a system, “Of almost equal concern...is the impact of the appearance of corruption stemming from public awareness of the opportunities for abuse” (7). Finally, they often refute arguments against the Amendment by pointing out that no one who is eligible to vote and has voted in previous elections will be turned away.
There are also many valid points and a fair amount of evidence for the other side, against the amendment. One of the most influential and widespread arguments made is that there is no voter fraud in Minnesota. (8) Another common argument is that Voter ID would disenfranchise or prevent many people from voting (9, 11). Opponents argue that the Amendment will decrease turnout among senior citizens, married women, students, minorities and the poor because these groups of people have substantially higher levels of people without ID. They also argue that it will come at a large cost to the state and will end same-day registration. (10) They point out that a massive number of people do not update their voter registration, like a change in address or name (often due to marriage) until the day they go to vote. Under this system though, they would only be able to cast a provisional ballot on the day they vote, and then they must make another trip verifying their identity or wait for all the paperwork to clear the hurdles in the system (12)
(continued in next post)
(continued from previous post)
Now it’s time for the paragraph you’ve all been waiting for—my decision. Well, I don’t have one...yet. First let’s examine the claims of each side. One of the first arguments each side offers is whether this amendment will limit voter participation, or whether it will disenfranchise voters. One of the easiest ways we can look at this element of the issue is by looking at studies of states who have passed similar Voter ID amendments or laws. In fact, the pro-amendment side often states that after Voter ID is passed, voting turnout rises. (3) However, I found no independent evidence supporting this claim (they very helpfully did not cite their sources—Mr. Wills would tear them to shreds), and found a very detailed article in the New York Times providing evidence that not only does voter turnout drop after Voter ID, but it shifts substantially (I think so at least, for a bill or amendment that claims to not discriminate) towards Republicans. (13) If, as supporters claim, the bill only prevents ineligible voters from voting, and these numbers (which are very accurate and widely supported) are true, then we must conclude that between 0.4% and 1.2% of all people currently voting are liberal ineligibles, a claim no one would even attempt to support. Since this claim is so untenable, one of our assumptions must be incorrect. Since it is clearly not the studies of changes in voter turnout, then we must conclude that our assumption that this bill does not disenfranchise some voters more than others (more specifically, Democrats more than Republicans, students more than others (14)) is false. Another point of contention is whether or not voters not present (absentee voting) in-person on the day of voting will be able to vote. The text of the amendment says that voters not voting in person must undergo “substantially equivalent identity and eligibility verification,” (2) but this leaves a lot of discretion up to the people who interpret the law, in this case the bureaucrats (a practical, not negative, term for someone who works in the government but is not elected to that position). To me it seems that the specifics of the regulations would be largely determined by these bureaucrats, and not by the text of the amendment, and so arguing that these prevent many groups, or few groups, of voters from absentee voting is pointless. However, I do believe that our soldiers would be able to vote, because a military ID is accepted, and that most absentee voting would still work. Another claim is whether or not voter fraud is a significant issue. Your definition of voter fraud—is it people who are purposefully and with intent breaking the law, people who didn’t know the law or people who made a mistake in the technicalities of the laws?—largely determines the scope of the problem. If you include voter registrations where the facts didn’t match up, the numbers are astronomical, if you only include proven cases where people were trying to deceive the system, there are no convictions in recent Minnesota history. The other problem with proving fraud is that it can be widespread and prevalent but entirely avoiding detection. Proponents of this ID argue that because there is no system for confirming eligibility we could have immense quantities of people voting illegally but we would never know because our system is so flawed.
(continued in next post)
Currently the topic of requiring voters to present a photo ID to cast their ballots is being debated in Minnesota. I looked at both the pros and the cons to passing this amendment. After looking at both sides of the argument I decided that I was against the amendment.
There are many arguments for passing the amendment. The first of which is to combat voter fraud. When polled by the Washington Post it was discovered that forty-eight percent of Americans believe that voter fraud is a major problem and thirty-three percent believe that it is a minor problem (4). Seventy-four percent of Americans believe that photo identification should be required at elections because of voter fraud. Two-thirds of republicans feel that fraud is a larger issue than voter suppression (5). Another argument for the amendment is that photo IDs are needed for several other purposes, such as, applying for and receiving welfare, renting a car or hotel room, purchasing alcohol and cigarettes, boarding a plane, and several other daily tasks as well (1). The pro voter ID camp says that you can get a free ID or variance from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (1). If you do not have you photo ID with you on election day you can use a provisional ballot and it will not be counted on the day of the election (1).
After I looked at the pro side I looked at the against side. I found that although most Americans do believe that voter fraud is a major problem statistics point the other direction (3). In 2011 there were only 160 cases of voter fraud. Of the 160 only 140 were convicted, all of the convicted were felons voting before it was legal (3). As for obtaining a free ID from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety the ID itself is free but the pro voter ID side neglected to mention the documents necessary to receive that ID. You need some sort of identification to prove it is you, commonly a birth certificate or marriage document (3). A copy of a birth certificate is $26 and a marriage document is $9 (3).
If the amendment is passed 215,000 voters do not currently have the necessary identification to cast their ballots (3). Seventy-five percent of senior citizens and sixty-six percent of non whites to not have to required identification (5). Individuals with an income of $50,000 or less would also be directly affected by this law (5). This information causes questions about the intentions of those for the amendment (5). With the voters that will be inconvenienced by the amendment being mainly minorities, who are generally democrats, it causes voters to question whether the amendment’s intent is actually combat fraud or to limit votes (5). Rev. Jerry McAfee from Minneapolis says that the voter Id amendment is a “direct threat to democracy,” and a “step backward for people of color” (2).
After analyzing both sides I came to the conclusion that I do not support the voter ID amendment. The main argument for the amendment is to protect against voter fraud. Because voter fraud is such a rare occurrence this amendment should not be passed because it limits to freedom to vote for many citizens.
1.http://www.voteridformn.com/Just_Facts.html
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/09/22/politics/voter-id/
http://www.aclu-mn.org/issues/votingrights/protecttherighttovote/whattosaytofightvoterid/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/washington-post-poll-nearly-75-of-americans-support-voter-id-laws/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-concerns-about-voter-fraud-spur-broad-support-for-voter-id-laws/2012/08/11/40db3aba-e2fb-11e1-ae7f-d2a13e249eb2_story.html
The voter I.D. law that is being proposed this November is one of the hottest issues being debated at the moment. It would be a harmful law to put into effect from the perspective of voters. It is a very simple law by which you are required to show a government issued I.D. every time you vote. It would add an unnecessary layer to the government that would waste more taxpayer dollars. This money could be put to almost any other use and be more useful than it would be there. It would also allow the government to have more say in whether you vote or not, which I don’t think anyone wants. The parties would both try and influence it in their favor after it was passed. This would create another battlefield in politics that we really don’t need right now as we are having enough trouble dealing with the economy and uprisings in the middle east. It could easily be used to discriminate against minorities and other groups that have enough trouble as it is. This is just another attempt for the government to try and influence the way we can vote and even whether we can.
www.ourvoteourfuture.com
www.startribune.com
www.takeaction.org
www.protectmyvote.com
The creation of a voter ID amendment in our state Constitution is an issue that has received a lot of attention in recent months. There is no doubt that this is a very important issue for the state of Minnesota. The Voter ID amendment is vitally important to keeping these elections fair for all voters. Minnesota has some of the weakest voting identification laws in the country. For example, Minnesota is one of only two states in the US to allow vouching, and the only one where a single registered voter can vouch for 15 others (1). In vouching, all that is needed is one person who is a registered voter, who can then “vouch” for many people and say that they live in the district and are a citizen. The person is then allowed to vote. Many of the people who oppose this law naively think that voting fraud would never happen in Minnesota. However, they are proven totally wrong by the facts. In fact, Minnesota has more voter fraud convictions than any other state (1). Other deceptive arguments wrongly try to propose that people would have to pay for state IDs, which would be hard to do if they are poor. They then get all indignant and cry “discrimination”!!! However, it would appear that they have forgotten to read the text of the question that will be presented on election day. It says "Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to require all voters to present valid photo identification to vote and to require the state to provide free identification to eligible voters, effective July 1, 2013?" (2). This conclusively destroys their argument, as the Minnesota government would have to provide free IDs to anyone who is eligible to vote, but doesn’t have one. The majority of the population of Minnesota is still in favor of this amendment, with 51% supporting it and only 43% opposing it (3). This issue will likely remain heated until the amendment is voted on, but I still have faith that the people of Minnesota will do the right thing and pass this amendment.
1. http://www.voteridformn.com/Home_Page.html
2. http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Minnesota_Voter_Identification_Amendment_(2012)
3. http://www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/173192111.html
On November 6, 2012, the Minnesota Voter Identification Amendment will appear on the ballot. In 2003, the state of Alabama passed the first voter ID law. It was not very stringent and many types of ID were allowed, such as:Government-issued photo identifications, employee identification produced by the employer, photo identification card issued by Alabama college or university, utility bill of voter with voter's name and address, bank statement with voter's name and address, etc.(3) In America today, 15 states require photo ID and 35 states have non-photo requirements. And yet this topic remains hotly debated.(1) People who remain opposed to voter ID laws claim that these laws disproportionately affect elderly, minority and low-income groups. They also claim that obtaining photo ID can be costly and burdensome, with even free state ID, requiring documents like a birth certificate that can cost up to $25 in some places.
It is my opinion that voter ID laws are necessary to ensuring fair elections and are not discriminatory toward any group, except maybe illegal aliens. (4) A citizen needs a photo ID to complete very simple tasks such as: boarding an airplane, writing a check, cashing a check, using a credit card, driving a motor vehicle, applying for a business license, applying for permission to hold a protest or rally, securing employment, purchasing a house or real estate, receiving prescription medicine, serving on jury duty, getting a bank account, etc. It is almost guaranteed that a good, legal citizen will have a photo or military ID. (2)If, by some reason, a citizen does not have a photo ID, then the state of minnesota is required to supply them with one at no cost to them. And if they are able to get to the voting place, I am confident they are able to get a free, non-expiring photo ID as well. Even though there has only been a small percentage of voter fraud, this counter measure seems so simple that no logical reason exists to not implement this Amendment. I'm voting Yes.
http://www.propublica.org/article/everything-youve-ever-wanted-to-know-about-voter-id-laws
http://www.protectmyvote.com/
http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/State_by_State_Voter_ID_Laws
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/212534-list-of-things-that-require-photo-identification.html
This debate is getting much more complicated with each passing day. When you don't look too deep at it, Voter ID looks like a common-sense idea. The text of the amendment (1) simply states that a) All voters voting in person must present valid gov't issued identification, b) The state must provide ID to anyone who does not have it free of charge, and c) A provisional ballot will be submitted instead if the voter lacks ID, which will then only be counted if the voter certifies their identity as the law specifies. Simple, but not specific. And that's where the debate comes in. Opponents say that passing this bill would provide a "blank check" to the legislature, due to the lack of specifics within the amendment itself (2). It is true that if the amendment were passed, legislation would need to be put in place to enforce it. However, any legislation passed would need to be specific to the amendment. Another argument against this amendment is that it would take Minnesota's election system (one of the best in the country) and make it harder to use by disenfranchising voters who don't already have an ID, or would find it difficult to obtain one(3). The first part of this argument simply lacks logic, as the text of the amendment states that the government is required to provide free ID to anyone who needs it. The second part of the argument is much more convincing, but the number of people who would actually have trouble getting an ID is still anybody's guess and hard to calculate (4). The argument that needing ID will reduce voter turnout because it's another hurdle to jump through (especially for minorities) is countered by the fact that turnout in Indiana and Georgia actually increased in the elections following their adoptions of similar amendments (5),(6). The final argument I'm going to assess comes from the vote yes side of the crowd. They claim that Minnesota is leading the nation in cases of voter fraud (4). Looking closer shows that this statement is made under the assumption that felons voting counts as voter fraud (7), but the amendment's proposed ID checking would not necessarily be able to determine whether or not a voting person was a felon. Which gets to the core of this debate. So many of the "facts" that both sides provide only hold true under an assumption of what the legislation would be if the amendment were to be passed. As long as the process to put this legislation in place is open and debated (as it should be), I would vote yes on Voter ID.
Voter IDs is an issue that isn’t at the top of my priority list. The anti-ID side seems to have a stronger argument; purely because more people will be prevented from voting then will be prevented from committing voter fraud (1). The amount of people unable to vote will be about 215,000 (3) while on the other hand you have a better chance of getting struck by lightning then getting convicted of voter fraud (2). Then again with a 67% voter turnout in Minnesota 215,000 people isn’t that much either. Right now, I’m of the mind of “If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.” We haven’t had any serious situations, unless I’m completely blind to them, which would require this kind of reform. It would require a seriously close election, which we did have in 2000, but also a very large amount of ballet stuffing. If you really think about it, a group of individuals who contribute enough votes to actually influence an election will probably get caught. When it comes to that person who voted twice, a) it has little influence on a grand scale and b) it statistically represents the opinion of another person who didn’t vote. Yes, it makes a difference, but in my opinion, not a difference obvious enough to justify changing our constitution.
http://www.propublica.org/article/everything-youve-ever-wanted-to-know-about-voter-id-laws
http://ideas.time.com/2012/08/06/how-to-solve-the-voter-id-debate/
http://www.twincities.com/ci_21736345/vote-2012-if-minnesota-voter-id-amendment-passes
This election season there are two controversial amendments on the ballot. One amendment is about gay marriage. The other is “Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to require all voters to present valid photo identification to vote and to require the state to provide free identification to eligible voters, effective July 1, 2013?"(1). There are strong opinions on both sides of this issue. This is the first election I will be able to participate in and I oppose this amendment. I believe it is unnecessary and will complicate the voting process.
Currently 52% of the state in a recent poll is for the amendment while 44% are against and 4% are undecided (1).While the over all details of the amendment are clear, “details on much of the rest -- what kind of ID, what happens if you don't have one, how much it would cost and who pays -- aren't clear”(2). What this means is that if the amendment passes legislators will still have work to do to finalize what they actually want this amendment to be. Mary Jane Morrison, Hamline University law professor said, “The amendment is so unclear and so much is yet undetermined, she said, that even photo ID supporters should vote no in November” (2). Do we really want to be voting on an amendment that is not even finalized or could be changed to something we did not vote for? I would not want to. Another major point for the amendment is that the ID would prevent voter fraud. The amendment is designed to prevent a specific kind of fraud, which “ several studies have found the kind of voter fraud the ID requirement is designed to prevent extremely rare”(3). Those who favor the amendment have been pressing the issue of voter fraud for years. Some opponents believe that the “amendment is more likely to disenfranchise voters than prevent voter fraud” (3). I believe this amendment should not be voted through or even on. Amendments should be completely finished when they reach voters.
1.http://www.startribune.com/politics/170565636.html?refer=y
2.http://www.twincities.com/elections/ci_21736345/vote-2012-if-minnesota-voter-id-amendment-passes?source=most_emailed
3.http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/09/18/politics/voter-id-amendment-voter-fraud/
This election season Minnesota has a decision to make, should voters have to present photo id to vote? Both vote yes and vote no campaigns are seen all over Minnesota through numerous signs in yards, billboards and booths at the state fair. So what is the argument for both sides? Personally I am strongly against this amendment because it places an obstacle in front of one of our most precious right.
So what are the arguments for the amendment? According to the vote yes campaign website the main issue is to make it equal for all voters and protect against fraud (1). The state would have to provide free id’s if the law is passed because they can’t charge if we need it to vote. This is good because everyone would be able to get an id for free. I found that there are much more arguments against the amendment. To begin Minnesota has the highest voter turnout in the whole country, so why would we want to reduce it? (2). The funny thing is that we have the highest turnout and no one in Minnesota has been convicted of voter fraud (3). So there really isn’t an argument for fraud because plain and simple it hasn’t happened. Voting yes discriminates because 25% of African Americans in Minnesota don’t have an id, 18% of ages 18-24 don’t have voter id, 15% of Minnesotan’s who make less than 35,000 dollars a year don’t have voter id (3). Having voter id required will decrease turnout because of the above percentages that don’t have id’s. The vote yes website estimates that the voter id will cost Minnesota 10-12 million dollars to start and in addition 2-3 million each election, in times where money is tight the cost is absolutely unnecessary. A poll on the Star tribune shows that 87% of republicans agree with the amendment and 22% of democrats agree, the poll shows that those voting for the amendment are republican, upper class, and over 50 years old (4).
I strongly disagree with the proposed amendment and would vote no.
1.http://www.protectmyvote.com/
2. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/11/01/ranking-states-with-best-and-worst-voter-turnout.html
3.http://www.takeactionminnesota.org/act/187.cfm?tdburl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedatabank.com%2Fdpg%2F256%2Fpersonal2.asp%3Fformid%3DDVRads_2percent
4. http://www.startribune.com/politics/170565636.html?refer=y
This election season Minnesota has a decision to make, should voters have to present photo id to vote? Both vote yes and vote no campaigns are seen all over Minnesota through numerous signs in yards, billboards and booths at the state fair. So what is the argument for both sides? Personally I am strongly against this amendment because it places an obstacle in front of one of our most precious right.
So what are the arguments for the amendment? According to the vote yes campaign website the main issue is to make it equal for all voters and protect against fraud (1). The state would have to provide free id’s if the law is passed because they can’t charge if we need it to vote. This is good because everyone would be able to get an id for free. I found that there are much more arguments against the amendment. To begin Minnesota has the highest voter turnout in the whole country, so why would we want to reduce it? (2). The funny thing is that we have the highest turnout and no one in Minnesota has been convicted of voter fraud (3). So there really isn’t an argument for fraud because plain and simple it hasn’t happened. Voting yes discriminates because 25% of African Americans in Minnesota don’t have an id, 18% of ages 18-24 don’t have voter id, 15% of Minnesotan’s who make less than 35,000 dollars a year don’t have voter id (3). Having voter id required will decrease turnout because of the above percentages that don’t have id’s. The vote yes website estimates that the voter id will cost Minnesota 10-12 million dollars to start and in addition 2-3 million each election, in times where money is tight the cost is absolutely unnecessary. A poll on the Star tribune shows that 87% of republicans agree with the amendment and 22% of democrats agree, the poll shows that those voting for the amendment are republican, upper class, and over 50 years old (4).
I strongly disagree with the proposed amendment and would vote no.
1.http://www.protectmyvote.com/
2. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/11/01/ranking-states-with-best-and-worst-voter-turnout.html
3.http://www.takeactionminnesota.org/act/187.cfm?tdburl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedatabank.com%2Fdpg%2F256%2Fpersonal2.asp%3Fformid%3DDVRads_2percent
4. http://www.startribune.com/politics/170565636.html?refer=y
While they may seem like good idea on the surface, voter identification laws are ultimately harmful to the democratic process and should not be implemented. The proposed amendment to the Minnesota Constitution is extremely strict, costly, harmful and ultimately completely unnecessary. The arguments in favor of the amendment are invalid and such an amendment can only do harm to the state of Minnesota.
If the proposed amendment is passed, Minnesota will have the most strict voter ID requirements in the country. Even Indiana and Georgia, currently the strictest states, have exemptions factored into their laws. For instance, absentee voters in both states are exempt from the ID requirement (1). By contrast, the proposed amendment in Minnesota specifically states that “every voter” must present ID (2). There are no exemptions and no guidelines for enforcement, which provides the potential for a massive loophole that could disenfranchise thousands of Minnesotans who file absentee ballots. This is especially detrimental to Minnesota students who choose to attend college outside their hometown, since there’s nothing stopping the MN legislature from creating unreasonably difficult legal requirements in order to comply with the amendment.
Ironically, the proponents of the proposed amendment are primarily conservatives who are fundamentally opposed to government spending (3). However, the issue of enforcement cost has not been raised to nearly the degree that one would expect, and there is very little information to be found on the subject. For instance, the pro-amendment group Protect My Vote claims on its website that the enforcement of the new requirements will cost between $10 and $12 million initially, and only about $4 million per election cycle afterwards (4). However, it’s unclear where those numbers came from- most counties are having trouble estimating the cost of implementing such requirements, and the Houston County Auditor pointed out that there is no plan in place to pay for such requirements (“I don’t know who’s going to pay for it, but it’s certainly not in my budget”) (5).
Of course, proponents of the amendment would argue that any cost -be it monetary or otherwise- is worth it if it prevents even a single instance of fraud. But would these new requirements actually prevent fraud? There are many who argue that such laws will not prevent any fraud at all (or at most, one or two instances per four-year election cycle) and the facts are on their side. There are many types of voter fraud- people who vote multiple times, felons/aliens/nonresidents voting and people impersonating each other in order to vote- but photo ID only prevents the last type of fraud (6). Which, by the way, IS VIRTUALLY NON-EXISTENT. In fact, I cannot find a SINGLE TIME in the history of Minnesota in which someone has voted under another person’s name. The same is true for other states, such as Pennsylvania, who are currently debating the same issue (7). In short, this amendment would cost the state money it doesn’t have in order to prevent a non-existent problem from occurring, all the while running the risk of disenfranchising voters. While voter ID laws are touted as the “common sense solution” by their proponents, the question remains- what problem are they solving? Is the benefit worth the cost? I say no, and I will vote no.
1. http://www.ceimn.org/sites/default/files/voter_photo_ID_laws_exemptions_updated%20June%204_0.pdf
2. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H2738.3.html&session=ls87
3. http://www.startribune.com/politics/170565636.html?refer=y
4. http://www.protectmyvote.com/?page_id=1568
5. http://www.ceimn.org/proposed-amendment
6. http://www.ceimn.org/files/Facts%20about%20Ineligible%20Voting%20and%20Voter%20Fraud%20in%20Minnesota_with%20appendix.pdf
7. http://votingrights.news21.com/article/election-fraud/
Voter ID is going to be addressed next month in a new amendment. The amendment requires that a voter must present a photo ID issued by the government (driver's license, passport, etc) in order to receive their ballot. Additionally, the state must provide an ID free of charge. If a person cannot provide an ID the day of the election, they will be able to fill out a provisional ballot that will be accepted if the person turns in their ID later (1). Currently, the main arguments are that the ID will reduce voter fraud; the opposing side argues that the amendment will solve a nonexistent problem and discourage people from voting (3). Generally, Republicans and those of higher income support the amendment. The main opposition comes from low income or Democratic voters. Overall support is split 52% in favor, 44% opposed (2).
My main case is that this amendment cannot do much harm. Even if voter fraud truly is a myth, at least Voter ID protects against the possibility that someone would try to break the law. I used to be of the opinion that this ID would be too much of a hassle and cost the state too much time and money. However, the amendment provides that ID is any government-issued photograph and name and that obtaining one will be free (1). The ID prevents both fraud and non-citizens from polluting the ballot pool. Voter ID not an infringement of rights because it is merely "qualifies" your right to vote (4). Those with the right to vote (i.e. people who are not felons or illegal immigrants) should have no reason to complain because many people carry a drivers license anyway or could get a single photo ID for that one day. The amendment does not require an ID that matches your current address, protecting new residents of the state (4). Finally, practice as shown that voter ID increases voter turnout by increasing their faith in the honesty of government (4). To conclude, carrying an ID to the polls is not that hard of a task for many of us, so what's the big deal?
(1) https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H2738.3.html&session=ls87
(2)http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/170857591.html
(3)http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/09/18/politics/voter-id-amendment-voter-fraud/
(4)http://www.protectmyvote.com/?page_id=875
One of the most hotly contested debates in Minnesota for the past year has remained this: should voter ID be required according to the state constitution, or not? Strong opinions have been voiced by both camps; facts have been thrown; ads have been broadcast. With the polls tighter than ever (according to a poll by the Star Tribune on 9/23, 52% would vote in favor, 44% against, and 4% undecided), these next few weeks will be telling in whether or not the amendment will pass on November sixth (1). Regardless the outcome, I will be voting no on this amendment, for myriad reasons.
First, and perhaps clearest, the issue of voter fraud, specifically in Minnesota, is “infinitesimal” and in-person impersonation is “virtually non-existent” (2). In an analysis released by News21, over 2000 alleged election fraud cases across the country were looked into—over the past 12 years. Of the 58.2 million who voted in the 2008 presidential election and the 41.8 million who voted in 2010 Congressional elections nationwide (according to the 2010 US Census), that is a truly trivial number with which to concern oneself (3). However, many pro-voter ID voters point out the race for US Senate between Al Franken and Norm Coleman of 2008, in which 1099 ineligible felons are suspected to have voted (2). This number is considerably greater than the margin with which Franken took the majority, causing some speculation of the accuracy of the vote (2). However, voter ID would not truly effectively deal with ineligible felon voting, therefore largely negating this argument (4).
Another point that would make sense is the cost to implement such a measure; however, the figures for this are so wildly varying that it’s hard to pinpoint. Citizens for Election Integrity Minnesota (an anti-amendment group) released a report including local and state costs, estimating a total of $33-67 million, with an additional $16-72 million to be spent by those needing to acquire documents to obtain an ID (4). On the other hand, the Center of the America Experiment (a pro-amendment group) estimated an initial cost of $2.9 million, which would decrease with successive elections. The same study claimed that the system could bring in just over $1 million per election after investments (4). Unfortunately, with a difference of up to $64.1 million of initial cost, cost to the government isn’t a very reliable grounds for deciding anything.
So, onto something better and perhaps more trustworthy: a look at those whose voices would be silenced. According to Take Action Minnesota, the amendment would hurt “students, people with housing instability, communities of color, people with disabilities, rural Minnesotans, older Minnesotans, active-duty service members, and veterans” and “eliminate absentee voting and same-day registration” (5). This includes about 215,389 people in Minnesota, using the definition of people without a MN driver’s license or an ID with an out of date address, who would become disenfranchised (8). In addition, same day registration, which Minnesota is one of eight states to offer, numbers on average 335,785 per general election and has been used at least once by 61% of voters (6, 7). The idea that anyone should be disenfranchised by an amendment which has been written to solve a “problem” that doesn’t truly have any potency in Minnesota is unacceptable. Yes, those who are banned from voting (i.e., Ineligible felons) should be barred from voting—this measure, though, would not effectively prevent their voting and would instead disenfranchise too many others for it to be worthwhile. So for these reasons, I will be voting a resounding no on this unfair and murky amendment.
1. http://www.startribune.com/politics/170565636.html
2. http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/09/18/politics/voter-id-amendment-voter-fraud/
3. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0399.pdf
4. http://www.twincities.com/ci_21736345/vote-2012-if-minnesota-voter-id-amendment-passes
5. http://www.takeactionminnesota.org/stop_photo_id/91
6. http://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/123582/1/Anhut_Voter%20Identification%20The%20True%20Costs%20An%20Analysis%20of%20Minnesotas%20Voter%20Identification%20Amendment.pdf
7. http://www.sos.state.mn.us/index.aspx?page=1732
8. http://www.sos.state.mn.us/index.aspx?page=1709
I am vehemently opposed to the proposed Voter ID amendment. I realize that this isn’t a very popular stance, but I honestly do not think that there is enough viable information about the current amendment, to satisfy the average voter. According to the pioneer press, the details for the bill will not be specified until after the vote, if it passes.[1] However the scant information available doesn’t seem like a good plan at all to me. The requiring a valid photo id, is going to slow down the process of voting for many old and young people. The elderly may not have a license, or a proper regulated ID essentially cutting them out of the process to vote [1.] Another problem with this amendment is that the government ID cards are going to require a lot of people to slow down the process of voter registration, a key element in Minnesota’s high voter turnout. Minnesota leads the states in the highest voter turn out, with almost 70% of eligible voters voting in presidential elections[3.] Why on earth would anyone want to risk changing a system that is already working? Yes there are allegations of fraud, but most of that data is tied to felons attempting to vote[1.] If someone wants to work that hard, to get to Minnesota to vote, so that they are willing to commit a federal felony, more power to them. But since those cited 113 convicted felons of voter fraud, were ineligible because they were already felons, I don’t see the need for this amendment.
Another problem that I have with the bill is the fact that it may make absentee ballots much more difficult. This is especially important for all people who intend on going to college out of state. Personally I do not believe that I will be able to come home from my college (wherever that ends up being) for the 2016 election, all the schools that I am looking at are between six and fourteen hours away, much too long to be driving home to vote. With the amendment, and the lack of information about it, it may become near impossible to apply for an absentee ballot [4.] This would make it nearly impossible for hundreds of Minnesota College students, Military officers, and others who retain their Minnesota addresses unable to vote. Putting these two complications together, I do not think that the current proposed amendment, should move on in legislation, and should return to the voters when there is a more apt description and more information available. But at this time, it seems to me that to vote yes, would sort of be like raising your hand to volunteer without knowing what the job to be done is.
[1]http://www.twincities.com/elections/ci_21736345/vote-2012-if-minnesota-voter-id-amendment-passes?source=most_emailed
[2]http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Minnesota_Voter_Identification_Amendment_(2012)
[3]http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/11/01/ranking-states-with-best-and-worst-voter-turnout.html
[4]http://mpirg.blogspot.com/2012/10/how-voter-restriction-would-impact-my.html
I must disagree with my fellow liberals when I say that voter fraud is a problem, though not nearly as large as the republicans make it out to be. Something should be done to prevent it, but I question the wisdom of voter identification. It may sound good in principle, but the fact is that it will cost money. More than the right will admit. Let’s look at one of the states republicans have been using as a model: Indiana. In the first four years, they spent $10 million on id cards alone (1). True, voter turnout has increased (2), but for a party that’s so bent on fiscal responsibility, I find it hard to take this amendment seriously. Republicans claim that the needed money will come from the general fund (2). They make it seem as if this happy little fund has all the money in the world. We must, however, look at what else the general fund pays for. It funds things like higher and lower education, Medicaid, and other social programs (3). If this amendment is passed, funding will go down for these things. Can we afford to lose them? I think not. Voting reform is needed, but the voter id amendment, at least in its current form, is not the answer.
1. http://assets.democrats.org/pdfs/photoid/Dems-report-real_cost_of_voting_ID.pdf
2. http://www.protectmyvote.com/?page_id=875
3. http://www.statehealthfacts.org/profileind.jsp?rgn=25&cat=1&ind=33
Thirty states already have made the controversial issue of requiring a voter ID a part of their State Constitutions (1). On the November ballot in Minnesota, people will have the option to vote for or against the state "to require all voters to present valid photo identification to vote and to require the state to provide free identification to eligible voters" (2).
After reviewing the websites to both sides of the issue, I am very strongly against the amendment (as in, I'll be voting no). First off, the Vote Yes website states a very strong and convincing argument that voter fraud is not a good thing. They believe, as well as I do, that in order to prevent voter fraud (such as voting multiple times under dead or fake names), something has to be done, and that the easiest way to prevent it would be to require some form of I.D. I find it interesting, however, that while some people are so strongly supporting the Vote Yes side, there is nothing about what type of photo ID would be required or the price that getting an official ID would cost. Getting a photo ID could potentially be very difficult for the elderly or for people living out of state who want to get an absentee ballot. Those in poverty who are allowed to vote now would have a difficult time paying for the ID (3). The Vote No side had a very strong argument as well. Truthfully, the Vote No party on this amendment had me more convinced than the Vote Yes party that voting no would be the right thing to do. Of course, fraudulent voting is not a good thing, and that is acknowledged on the Vote No website. However, it states that there is a very low percentage of voters that actually participate in fraudulent voting. Voting no on the amendment would allow for certain groups of people, such as those in poverty or those needing absentee ballots, to vote and have their voice's heard (4).
Voting yes to the Voted ID amendment will ultimately mean less voter turn out, which as a national trend, is going down overall. People in poverty whom are motivated by political efficacy will feel let down if the amendment were to pass. Wouldn't it make more sense to have less requirements for voting as a means encourage more people to vote? Voting No on the MN Voter ID Amendment makes much more sense to me than Voting Yes and limiting the freedoms of the people and repelling them from voting overall.
1. http://www.propublica.org/article/everything-youve-ever-wanted-to-know-about-voter-id-laws
2. http://www.startribune.com/politics/170565636.html?refer=y
3. http://www.voteridformn.com/Just_Facts.html
4. http://www.aclu-mn.org/issues/votingrights/protecttherighttovote/whattosaytofightvoterid/
For decades, millions of Americans have enjoyed the privilege of having their voice heard in national decisions. However, as with many other rights, such as the right to bear arms and the right to freedom of speech, the right to vote has been abused by those it was intended to propagate. That is why Gregg Abbott, Texas Attorney General, has called the Supreme Court’s decision to shoot down voter identification despite the evidence of “hundreds of dead people voting in the state’s recent primary” as “deeply disappointing” (1). Advocates for enforcing voter identification laws claim that this would save the national government millions of dollars per election through “reduced demand on staff time,” and “reduced costs to county attorney staff for prosecuting knowingly ineligible voters (2).” These facts were then supported by the Center of the American Experiment (4). And with the cost of implementing this plan decreasing from year to year, voter identification will eventually pay for itself through the increased efficiency of processing the votes (4).
On the other hand, the Democratic Farmer’s Labor Party claims that voter identification creates “major hurdles to vote for thousands (3).” However, I find this claim dubious because, as voter identification is implemented in Montana, a utility bill, photo id, bank statement, voter card, or other government document will be acceptable (4). Furthermore, it has been shown that of the 11% who do not have a government issued photo only 1% of them are certain that they will vote (5). With this same policy in question in Minnesota, it will be interesting to see whether Congress and the Governor will see the economic and moral benefits of voter identification or if the decisions will be swayed by the motions of party rhetoric. In the end however, I am certain that the people’s voice will be heard (6).*
* Over 80% of Minnesotans want a stricter voter id policy.
1. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/30/federal-court-rules-against-texas-voter-id-law/
2. http://www.protectmyvote.com/?p=2249
3. http://www.dfl.org/newsdetails.asp?artId=5E565F58
4. http://americanexperiment.org/sites/default/files/article_pdf/Voter%20ID%20Cost-Benefit.pdf
5. http://www.propublica.org/article/everything-youve-ever-wanted-to-know-about-voter-id-laws
6. http://www.wewantvoterid.com/benefits-of-voter-id/
The chief problem that makes people want to vote for the voter the identification bill is because of voter fraud. The fact that we live in america allows us to not worry about voter fraud as other nations would. People in the u.s generally just register before they vote if not registered already. The voter identification bill assumes that everyone has and carries their identification with them. Unfortunately this is not the case, many people in the united States don't have any form of identification let alone the right kind of Identification needed to vote if the bill were to pass.
If the voter identification bill were to be passed 15% of voters now will not be able to vote in the later important elections. The united states already has one of the worst voter turnout rate amongst all other democratic nations around the world. There are already multiple factors that account for the lose of voter turnout that the U.S experiences, the nation does not need another factor adding to the amount of people not voting in the U.S.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uexm4GpcJ4s&feature=relmfu
The argument for the voter ID amendment is that it will prevent voter fraud. The arguments against the voter ID amendment are that voter fraud is virtually nonexistence, and it would make it harder for certain people to vote, like seniors, lazy people, people who might not have enough time to do all that stuff or have the paper work and people over seas or using absentee ballots(4). I am against the amendment for many reasons. First, the republicans want to pass the amendment because most of the people who wouldn't be able to vote, are mainly Democrats(5). Second, the "voter fraud" that the Republicans are trying to stop, is virtually nonexistent(3)(2)(1). Finally, if voter fraud is a problem, don't you think that both sides would say this is a problem and come up with something together? Also the cost to issue ID's and to pass the bill would not be worth it for the tiny amount of voter fraud that exists(3).
1)http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/09/18/politics/voter-id-amendment-voter-fraud/
2)http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/173330651.html?refer=y
3)http://www.twincities.com/elections/ci_21736345/vote-2012-if-minnesota-voter-id-amendment-passes?source=most_emailed
4)http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2012/10/voting-amendment-debate-produces-familiar-questions-no-agreement-answers
5)http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/06/us/politics/in-face-of-voter-id-laws-democrats-push-to-expand-ballot-access.html?_r=0 (the bottom paragraph mainly)
Voter ID laws, such as that which is being voted on in Minnesota this year, are absurd. The costs accrued by implementing a system such as this are ridiculous (1). This should be particularly regarded in such a manner when the fact that no one in Minnesota state history has been convicted of voter impersonation (2). Claims that this is a non-partisan issue are ludicrous. Those targeted by the bill (young, diverse, infirmed, etc.) are strong adherents to the left. Unfortunately for now there is no clear-cut leader (3). For now we’ll just have to wait to see how this unnecessary imposition intended to preserve integrity and instead impairing the elective process will pan out.
1- http://www.aclu-mn.org/issues/votingrights/protecttherighttovote/whattosaytofightvoterid/
2- http://www.lwvmn.org/page.aspx?pid=734
3- http://www.twincities.com/ci_21727451/minnesota-poll-marriage-amendment-opposition-leads-voter-id
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home