Topic: Voter ID
started by: Blackwell
Posted by Blackwell on Oct. 31 2012,7:50 am
Steele County says voter ID could cost it $100,000The Secretary of State’s office estimates that Steele County has 2,386 eligible voters without state-issued IDs or with invalid IDs. Steele County auditor Laura Ihrke has tallied the numbers and says the proposed Voted ID amendment could cost the county close to $100,000, writes Derek Sullivan of the Owatonna People's Press. The Secretary of State’s office estimates that Steele County has 2,386 eligible voters without state-issued IDs or with invalid IDs. “If (the Constitutional Amendment) passes, a lot of what will happen is unknown,” Ihrke said. “We don’t know who is going to pay for the additional poll books. Is it going to be the responsibility of the county?” A poll book allows election officials to review and process voter information during an election. Ihrke said poll books cost $2,000 to $4,500. Steele County has 26 voting precincts, so if one was placed at each precinct, the cost would be $52,000 to $117,000. Ihrke said that estimation may be conservative. “We will most likely have to have more than one at each precinct to avoid extremely long lines,” she said.
Posted by Funkadelic Zombie Hunter on Oct. 31 2012,8:17 am
The price of freedom to vote was paid in full with the blood, sweat and tears of the fallen to protect our rights the cost of voter I.D. is nothing compared to the cost of allowing voter fraud that equals the theft of freedom.
Posted by Blackwell on Oct. 31 2012,8:20 am
Is Voter ID really a Poll Tax?Poll taxes were taxes that had to be paid by registered voters. The courts decided it was illegal as the poorer people could not afford it and this prevented them from voting. Blacks could generally not afford the tax.The 24th Amendment forbids the imposition of "any poll tax or other tax" in federal elections. To obtain an acceptable substitute, they must travel to a driver licensing office and submit appropriate documents, along with their fingerprints, to establish their qualifications. If they don't have the required papers, they must pay $22 for a copy of their birth certificate. If they can't come up with the money for the qualifying documents, they can't vote. The 24th Amendment denies states the power to create such a financial barrier to the ballot box.
Posted by Funkadelic Zombie Hunter on Oct. 31 2012,9:22 am
Poll tax... not even a good argument it's not a tax Voter I.D. is legal tell me why you want it easy to cheat.
Posted by Moparman on Oct. 31 2012,11:54 am
Why would extra poll books be needed? I highly doubt there would be long lines at smaller polling places and the larger ones just need to break up the alphabet (last names) into more lines. Problem solved.
Posted by twingroves on Oct. 31 2012,12:00 pm
how much does it cost to feed all the illegals that are here
Posted by pepi-lapew on Oct. 31 2012,1:09 pm
Believe it or not but states with voter ID have a larger turn out of minorites. The big BS ers that says it hurts lower income people. These lower income people have to have a ID to buy the booze and smokes they like? So in my way of thinking passing the voter ID law will not cost no more than it does now.
Posted by Expatriate on Oct. 31 2012,2:08 pm
Just how much voter fraud is there in Minnesota? When we filled out our voter registration form it required enough information to verify US as legitimate citizens.
Whats with spending money needlessly!
Posted by MADDOG on Oct. 31 2012,2:54 pm
(Expatriate @ Oct. 31 2012,2:08 pm)
QUOTE
Just how much voter fraud is there in Minnesota?
What do you mean, how much?
That's like "I only cheated a little."
Posted by Expatriate on Oct. 31 2012,3:16 pm
(MADDOG @ Oct. 31 2012,2:54 pm)
QUOTE
(Expatriate @ Oct. 31 2012,2:08 pm)
QUOTE
Just how much voter fraud is there in Minnesota?
What do you mean, how much?
That's like "I only cheated a little."Much to do about nothing is what I’m saying, wasted money on a problem that doesn’t exist.
Don’t fix it unless it’s broken you should be listening to Arne Carlson.
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rVYU_6z8TI >
Posted by Chanel5 on Oct. 31 2012,3:44 pm
Can someone really explain to me what is involved in the voter id fraud? From my experience I have never gone to the polls and been told that someone by my name has already voted and I have never had any friends or relatives tell me it has happened to them. So who is engaging in voter fraud and is it some organized campaign by some group of people to screw up the elections? What is it? I am being serious.
Posted by MADDOG on Oct. 31 2012,4:01 pm
So you're implying that there is no voter fraud.
Posted by Funkadelic Zombie Hunter on Oct. 31 2012,4:52 pm
Wendy Rosen, the Democratic challenger to Republican Rep. Andy Harris in the 1st Congressional District, withdrew from the race Monday amid allegations that she voted in elections in both Maryland and Florida in 2006 and 2008.It was unclear, however, whether she could remove her name from the ballot with the election less than two months away. Under state law, a candidate has until 70 days before an election to remove his or her name from the ballot. The deadline for the Nov. 6 election passed on Aug. 28.
Democratic leaders — who raised the allegations, urged Rosen to step aside and notified prosecutors — said they would gather Central Committee members this month to identify a write-in candidate for the district, which includes the Eastern Shore and parts of Harford, Carroll, Cecil and Baltimore counties.
Republicans, meanwhile, said the allegations prove that voter fraud is real
Another Democrat
The U.S. attorney's office has announced that four men, including Democratic state Rep. Hudson Hallum of Marion, pleaded guilty today to felony conspiracy to commit election fraud in Hallum's special election victory last year. The case charges paying for bundled absentee ballots.
All four appeared today in federal court and were released on their own recognizance. The others were Hallum's father, Kent Hallum, a car dealer; West Memphis police officer Sam Malone and West Memphis City Councilman Phillip Carter.
Yeah....Their is NO VOTER FRAUD nothing to see here move along move along
Posted by hymiebravo on Nov. 01 2012,8:14 am
If we put a bar-code on everyone we could solve lots of ID issues and makes lots of other transactions faster and smoother as well, too.
Posted by pepi-lapew on Nov. 01 2012,8:51 am
One good thing about voter ID. It keeps the dead from rising on election day in the cemataries from voting!!! 
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 01 2012,9:28 am
(hymiebravo @ Nov. 01 2012,8:14 am)
QUOTE
If we put a bar-code on everyone we could solve lots of ID issues and makes lots of other transactions faster and smoother as well, too.
Yeah! It'd be like branding cattle! Good idea!
Posted by ControlledHyperness on Nov. 01 2012,9:34 am
How easy is it to commit voter fraud in Minnesota?? Easy. Just go to any polling place and have someone there vouch you just moved there. I'm talking Steele county...or the Twin Cities...or both. Based on this method alone, several votes can happen needlessly.As for voter books costing...have you looked at ANY of the books in Freeborn County?? Copied paper in either large binders or on binder rings. Last I checked, not that expensive to replace or duplicate if need arises.
Many people...low income...have some form of I'D on them. If they don't, there is a good reason, and $22 isn't it. Its fear mongering that has blown smoke in on this issue.
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 01 2012,9:43 am
Voter fraud in Minnesota??? Just get yourself a car with a big trunk so you can conveniently find a bunch of ballots in there ala Franken.
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 01 2012,9:44 am
^... or a bunch of felons.
Posted by ControlledHyperness on Nov. 01 2012,11:44 am
Al Franken's trunk is why/how we realized how easy it is to pull off fraud in Minnesota!
Posted by Chanel5 on Nov. 01 2012,2:34 pm
I am just trying to picture these 2 people going in to vote and both must be pretending to live in the district. One would be registered already and the other just needs the first person to verify that the second also lives in the area. They vote and then they continue on to another part of the state and somehow pull off the same scenario. Or bundles of names of deceased people are passed out by someone and given to people who have agreed to use these names to vote. Now they are running around the state voting. Are they getting paid by one political party or the other? Otherwise what is their motivation to spend a entire day doing this. This could be a made for TV movie.
Posted by Expatriate on Nov. 01 2012,3:09 pm
Can you say Unfunded Mandate, Costing US Millions to fix a problem that doesn't exist! Where does Freeborn County come up with money to implement this new Mandate? Property Taxes.
This mandate is estimated to cost local government over 50 million State wide to implement!
< http://www.ourvoteourfuture.org/about-the-campaign/ >
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 01 2012,3:22 pm
Wow, the usual clowns (Mondale, Carlson etc) plus AARP and a bunch of union clubs. Makes me want to vote "no"
Posted by Expatriate on Nov. 01 2012,3:28 pm
^ bipartisan is the word you’re looking for SB
Posted by Funkadelic Zombie Hunter on Nov. 02 2012,8:42 am
A good read from Tony CornishBy Tony Cornish
VERNON CENTER, Minn. — Let’s look at various claims about Minnesota’s Voter ID amendment.
** There is no voter fraud! It’s a solution in search of a problem by those darned Republicans, who only want their own people to vote.
Earlier this week, Colorado discovered that 300 noncitizens had registered to vote, and the son of a Virginia congressman — his campaign’s field director — was caught on tape giving advice about how to commit voter fraud.
In Minnesota, 1,099 felons voted in the 2008 election; 200 have been convicted. The 2008 Senate recount found 25 precincts with more votes than registered voters.
In 2008 and 2010, more than 7,200 voter registration cards were returned to election officials because the name or address was unverifiable. In 2010, an election judge in Harris, Minn., tried to stop 12 people from using a coin-operated laundry’s address to register and vote.
Up to 500,000 people vote in Minnesota without any verification of their identity or address. That’s how people register from coin-op laundries and addresses that don’t exist.
Election Day registrants will continue to cast live ballots. Voters can prove their identity and residency by displaying their photo ID. If the address on the ID is not current, they can use a utility bill to show they live in the precinct.
If a voter forgets an ID at home, he or she can cast a provisional ballot and certify the ballot later. Provisional ballots are used in 44 states and represent a miniscule percentage of ballots cast in Voter ID states.
** But how are military members going to vote? And rural voters? And my grandmother?
Last I checked, a military ID is a government-issued ID, which is exactly what the amendment asks voters to present. Military members who have only military ID will be able to use that, along with a utility bill, if necessary, to vote on Election Day.
Military absentee balloting will see no changes.
Mail balloting continues. Mail voters and domestic absentee voters simply will list an ID number on their absentee envelope. Military absentee voters already have to do this.
Mail voters and domestic absentee voters will continue to have a witness sign their ballot envelope; military voters won’t.
The elderly won’t have problems voting. If they don’t have a photo ID, the amendment provides for free state ID cards. If they have trouble finding their birth certificate, the state already has a waiver process.
If they vote by mail or absentee, they’ll be able to use the last four digits of their Social Security number.
** Republicans don’t want students to vote.
Completely wrong. Students can use their driver’s license or state ID from Minnesota or another state (or another government-issued ID) to vote and a utility bill to show residence. Colleges will continue to provide student housing lists to local polling places. Absentee balloting still will be an option.
** Won’t Voter ID require enabling language from the next Legislature?
Yes, but we did this before with the 2006 transportation amendment and the 2008 Legacy Amendment, which had 38 pages of language and huge liberal support. So what? If the amendment is approved, we can use language that works — and it does work — in other states.
** But it’s way too expensive.
A 2011 Minnesota Management and Budget cost estimate on Voter ID legislation showed it’s inexpensive for local governments. Using that analysis, the amendment would only cost $47,000 at the first election for all of Blue Earth County. For Nicollet County, $23,000; Waseca County, $13,300, Watonwan County, $7,700.
That’s before any state contribution, and costs decrease rapidly for each succeeding election.
We know Voter I.D. is inexpensive, necessary and effective. We know no eligible voter will be disenfranchised. So, what are liberals so worked up about? Are they worried about non-citizens voting? About felons voting?
Stop trying to scare local governments with false information, and get out of the way of voter accountability.
State Rep. Cornish, a Republican, is chairman of the Minnesota House Public Safety Committee.
When the people with the propensity to cheat the system want you to vote NO you have to wonder what is going on beyond the curtain with such outstanding unions as and SSEIU and afsme.
Posted by Funkadelic Zombie Hunter on Nov. 02 2012,8:43 am
Even the Pioneer Press gets it!Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, writing about Indiana's voter ID law, said it was "amply justified by the valid interests in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.'" Stevens was a liberal justice writing on behalf of the Supreme Court, which found in favor of the law by a 6-3 margin. Stevens went on to say that "We cannot conclude that the statue imposes 'excessively burdensome requirements' on any class of voters."
Polls suggest that Minnesota's Voter ID amendment will pass, perhaps easily. If so, it is because on the surface it just seems to make so much sense. Virtually any activity of any consequence in this society requires a photo ID. Nobody accuses other institutions of suppression or worse when they require photo ID during the regular course of their activities.
Opponents of the Voter ID amendment raise any number of objections, none more frequent than this sound bite: "It's a solution in search of a problem." Clever, but perhaps too clever. Because of the nature of the process, it's very difficult to assess the current size of the problem, much less how large it might become.
Remember, in Minnesota anybody can simply show up at the polls and vote, whether they have previously registered or not. They "register" on the spot with as little documentation as an old ID and an invoice with an address on it. In 2008, roughly 500,000 people (!) showed up and voted after registering on the spot. That number of same-day
registrants represents nearly 20 percent of the votes cast. No one knows how many of these votes may have been ineligible. A recent video from the state of Virginia records the son of a politician explaining how to cast votes by using fake documents such as water bills. And what makes matters worse is that once a vote is cast it is counted, and cannot be un-counted, even if the voter is later found to have been ineligible.
Without an ID there is no way to verify even the most elementary things such as citizenship. Post-election, more than 6,000 of the addresses given by these same-day-registrant voters came back as undeliverable in a routine postal check. Even if the legwork was done to determine which if any of those votes were ineligible, the votes themselves could not be un-counted.
But the system is even more porous than that. The vouching process allows people to show up at the polls without a shred of evidence that they are eligible to vote, and cast a ballot on the say-so of someone who "vouches" that they are indeed eligible to vote. And the person who vouches is permitted to vouch for up to 15 people, all of whom have no documents that would qualify them to vote. We don't know a lot about the vouching process because records on vouched votes are scarce, seldom reported, and what records do exist are destroyed after 18 months. As with ineligible votes cast through the same-day registration process, ineligible vouched votes once cast cannot be un-counted.
Opponents of the amendment say that the vouching process is designed to help nursing home residents cast their ballots more easily, that over 70 percent of vouched votes share an address with the voucher (which may seem to contradict the first point), and that the number of voters a voucher can vouch for has been reduced from 30 to 15 in recent years (which suggests that vouching is half as dangerous as it once was).
Opponents of the amendment base their arguments on voter fraud -- or, more precisely, the lack thereof. But there's a lot of misdirection in that argument. Proponents are interested in protecting against ineligible votes in general, not just the presumably smaller subset of fraudulent votes. Fraud is very difficult to prove, and in a system as loose as Minnesota's would likely be a small fraction of the total number of ineligible votes. Even so, there have been 200 convictions of voter fraud since 2008 -- primarily felons who weren't eligible to vote -- and the total number of ineligible votes is arguably significantly higher. The focus by opponents on voter fraud is a means of avoiding the larger issue.
It is fair to say that the electoral process in Minnesota is much looser than opponents of this measure are willing to admit. And if we accept the claim that despite the points outlined above there really is not a problem, the counter argument would be that it's for sure a problem waiting to happen.
The other objections to the amendment are less central. Opponents say it will be expensive. To which the supporters note that the opponents are always eager to spend unless and until it comes time to tighten up the voting process. Not to mention that if the state is so backward that it cannot efficiently administer something as ordinary and universal as Photo ID verification, it's high time it upped its game.
Another issue raised is the handling of absentee ballots and the lack of clear provisions for how Photo IDs work in that circumstance, to which the supporters respond that the amendment allows for "substantially equivalent" verification standards. To the objection that this sort of thing shouldn't be handled as a constitutional amendment, the supporters point out that the state constitution has plenty to say about the voting process. To the objection that passage of the amendment will lead to a great deal of litigation, supporters answer that there will be plenty of litigation regardless, and that it's a bit ironic coming from opponents who regularly pursue their agendas through the courts. Opponents say that whatever else may be true, Photo ID will not fix all the problems, to which supporters argue that in a process as important as the vote we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
It may be worth remembering, in the fog of the debate, that generally speaking those who oppose the amendment would still oppose it even if it cost the state nothing and exempted absentee ballots. The arguments brought to bear by the opponents are simply tools -- incidentals -- used to defeat an amendment that they fundamentally oppose in all its forms. Plain and simple, they are against using Photo ID in the election process. Opponents are not saying that they are for it as implemented by some other state, just not as it has been drawn up in this particular amendment. They are against the very concept, regardless of the particulars.
Opponents fear that higher standards will suppress their vote. While this concern is understandable, they offer no evidence that this indeed has happened in states that implemented Voter ID. If there were evidence that Photo ID suppressed the vote in other states that practice it, you can be certain that this would be Exhibit A in the case made against it. Opponents talk of hundreds of thousands of eligible voters who might potentially be denied the franchise, but they have brought no evidence that such measures have indeed repressed the vote in other states.
The bottom line is less complicated than the debate itself. The existence of same day registration and vouching make the Minnesota system pretty loose. Photo ID would help tighten it up. Both sides agree that voting is a cherished institution for which thousands have fought and died. The U.S. Supreme Court has found that Voter ID is constitutional elsewhere. Committed, informed, reasonable people strongly differ on what standards are appropriate to "protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process." Now it's your turn to cast your lot with one view or the other. Either way, don't neglect to vote.
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 02 2012,10:51 am
(Expatriate @ Nov. 01 2012,3:28 pm)
QUOTE
^ bipartisan is the word you’re looking for SB
Assclown is the word I want when I read your drivel.
I assume you consider Penny a republican, but he is most certainly not a conservative.
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 02 2012,1:09 pm
^ and neither is Carlson.
Posted by alcitizens on Nov. 02 2012,9:02 pm
Vote NO on Voter Restrictions..
Posted by Funkadelic Zombie Hunter on Nov. 02 2012,11:11 pm
(alcitizens @ Nov. 02 2012,9:02 pm)
QUOTE
Vote NO on Voter Restrictions..
Keith Ellison: Voter ID Is Like ‘The Devil’
Posted by Funkadelic Zombie Hunter on Nov. 02 2012,11:22 pm
Anti-ID Ad Found Misleading in KSTP’s Truth TestBy Dan on November 2, 2012 in Information
KSTP’s Tom Hauser reported yesterday that an ad featuring Governor Dayton and former governor Arne Carlson is “misleading right off the bat,” and characterized the anti-ID ad as “speculation” based on “worst-case scenarios and scare tactics.”
The 30 second TV ad was produced by Our Vote, Our Future, a ballot issue committee largely funded by out of state special interest groups including George Soros’ Open Society foundation.
Hauser said the ad’s claim that seniors would be kept from voting is “pure speculation,” and it’s “likely not true” that the Voter ID Amendment would make it harder for active duty military personnel to vote. “Military IDs are valid to vote now,” he noted, “and nothing in the amendment says that will change.”
The opposition has been persistent with this demonstrably false claim. Another of the opposition groups ads focuses solely on the claim that military IDs won’t be valid under the Voter ID Amendment. That other ad has landed Our Vote Our Future in the Office of Administrative Hearings for alleged violation of Minnesota’s Fair Campaign Practices law. An administrative law judge found a prima facie violation in the case this week and proceeded to a probable cause hearing. The case about that false political ad is still pending a final determination.
“It’s likely same-day voter registration will continue,” Hauser said in response to charges the Voter ID amendment would end Election Day registration.
See the Truth Test video from Channel 5 < http://kstp.com/article/stories/S2820684.shtml?cat=0 >
Liberals/Progressives would never LIE WOULD THEY?
Posted by grassman on Nov. 03 2012,6:07 am
It would be so simple to fix. Make it a felony for voter fraud. Another thing that REALLY bothers me is how all of these political ads can misleading and some down right lie. Why does the truth not matter anymore. Perhaps profits for advertisers?
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 03 2012,6:48 am
^ I thought voter fraud is a felony.
Posted by Funkadelic Zombie Hunter on Nov. 03 2012,8:31 am
(Self-Banished @ Nov. 03 2012,6:48 am)
QUOTE
^ I thought voter fraud is a felony.
It is unless you are a democrat then it's encouraged.