Foxes: “Relax, Hens”

According to the Strib, Voter ID is just not needed

…according to a survey of people who’d have to work harder if it were implemented…

…conducted by two groups that benefit from inflated vote counts.

Minnesota does not need a law requiring photo identification at the polls because there have been relatively few cases of ineligible voting, two advocacy groups said Monday.

Citing data collected from county attorneys from the 2008 election, the two groups said that there were 26 convictions statewide of felons voting illegally – a figure representing 0.0009 percent of voters that year.

It’s a figure that also represents investigations in Ramsey, and only Ramsey, County.  The only county for which the Minnesota has done the County Attorneys’ jobs by doing all the investigating for them.

Allegations of felons voting represented 77 percent of voter fraud investigations, the groups said. The other 23 percent of the investigations from the 2008 election – which did not lead to any convictions – involved charges of non-citizens voting, double voting, voting outside of jurisdiction and impersonating a voter, the groups said.

Right.  That’s because under Minnesota law, pleading ignorance of the law is enough to get you acquitted.  Only paroled felons have to sign a form stating they know they’re not supposed to vote.

The study was conducted by Citizens for Election Integrity Minnesota and the Minnesota Unitarian Universalist Social Justice Alliance. The groups said the study was based on responses from 71 of the state’s 87 counties.

The “Center for Election Integrity of Minnesota“?  Sure sounds like an important group!

The Strib doesn’t see fit to mention that “CEIMN” is an offshoot of “non-partisan” liberal pressure group “Common Cause MN” (check out CC of MN’s and CEIMN’s addresses), whose motto is “Holding Power Accountable”, and which spent the 2010 election demanding accountability of conservative groups while ignoring the rafts of liberal special interest money.  They favor rationing speech to regular Americans, but exaggerating the influence of unions and liberal special interests.

One wonders if Strib reporter Mike Kaszuba didn’t feel this was relevant, or if he just didn’t know.

31 thoughts on “Foxes: “Relax, Hens”

  1. I recently received an invitation to take the Strib at a highly discounted introductory rate. This means I can buy my dishonesty at a preferred rate!

  2. In fact, why bother with voting at all? Think of the money we could save if we just let the DFL appoint everyone to office.

  3. Better yet, Kermit, we’ll establish a “commission.” We can call it the “Fairness and Equity Board” and stack it with a lot of law professors and maybe a token Christian – just to show their ‘fairness.’ They will be charged with finding candidates who are best suited to do our thinking for us – as well as providing character assassination for their opponents. Kind of like the Humphrey Institute – but with more funding.

  4. Wonderful circular logic that opponents of voter ID use. Since Minnesota has the best voting system in the country, all of those reports of illegal voting must have just been innocent mistakes, which is proven by the fact that hardly any of them were prosecuted.

    Of all the things the new GOP legislature needs to do, I can’t see how anything will be more important that passing Voter ID and making sure that our elections are legitimate in the future.

  5. That’s what they do in Iran. They have a council that chooses who will and will not run for Parliament. Those fools thought they could impeach Achmadinejad. Hah! Supreme Leader Grand Ayahtollah nipped that in the bud.

  6. Better yet, Kermit, we’ll establish a “commission.” We can call it the “Fairness and Equity Board”

    Alternatively, we could call it the “Met Council.”

  7. Dave Thul said:

    “Wonderful circular logic that opponents of voter ID use”

    Excellent point. Either voting is important or it is not. If the franchise is important enough to scream and cry about when it is ‘endangered’, it is important enough to protect. And you do endanger it by not protecting it.

  8. “I can’t see how anything will be more important that passing Voter ID ”

    House and Senate pass Voter ID, Governor then vetoes. Then what? What are you willing to compromise to get Voter ID? A tax increase? Increased spending? Not me.

    If you asked everyday Minnesotan’s what are their 5 most pressing priorities, I don’t think election reform even registers.

  9. Governor then vetoes. Then what?
    Make a huge pile of political hay out of Mark Dayton (presumptive) not wanting to protect the rights of Minnesota voters. Start talking impeachment (just for fun).

  10. MON-
    you are forgetting that the governor’s race has not yet been decided.

    If Emmer wins, this is a non issue because it wont be a question of IF voter ID will pass, but rather how stringent the rules will be. If on the other hand, Dayton wins (and I freely admits he currently has the advantage) then he will be inaugurated only after an lengthy election lawsuit in which the state analyzes every wart and mole in our election system, with the media forced to cover each wart and explain it to their readers/viewers.

    SOS Ritchie could afford to non-nonchalantly admit that thousands more ballots were cast in 2008 than voters were registered because he knew there would be no consequences. The media ignored it, and the DFL legislature had no desire to address the issue. But the GOP legislature puts things in a completely different light.

    Now Voter ID will come to a vote of the full house and senate, rather than dying in committee, and every moderate DFL’er will have to justify voting against a law that 7 in 10 voters want to see passed.

    Even if we have Governor Dayton, I don’t think this is a dead issue.

  11. Make a huge pile of political hay out of Mark Dayton (presumptive) not wanting to protect the rights of Minnesota voters. Start talking impeachment (just for fun).

    Yep — that’s the ticket. If we want people to start caring about election reform, we need to make the case that it matters. And the legislature can do a lot of things to bring the issue to forefront.

    Beyond that, there’s a political case to be made for it. After what’s happened in this cycle, the Republicans shouldn’t hesitate to make Dayton’s life miserable. This Marquess of Queensbury stuff has to end now. Dayton and his arms-length minions ran a low, dirty campaign and he needs to have his nose rubbed in it.

  12. we need to make the case that it matters
    Or compare it to entering a sweepstakes or playing the lottery. Your vote might count, but good luck.
    Tell people they are losing something and they start to pay attention.

  13. ” and every moderate DFL’er will have to justify voting against a law that 7 in 10 voters want to see passed.”

    That’s the best that we’re going to be able to get out of this. But I don’t think moderate DFL’ers are going to have much trouble voting against it. It’s not the poison pill you think it is, and can easily be spun as a costly solution to a non-existant problem if not outright voter suppression.

    If the Franken/Coleman recount didn’t reveal “every wart and mole”, I don’t think this recount will accomplish much more. Ritchie won re-election against a guy who was championing Voter ID. I think that says something about the lack of public interest in this issue.

    Now, if the recount does actually reveal massive voter fraud then all bets are off. I’m not holding my breath.

  14. It is correctly pointed out in the study, which confirms many other studies and court cases, that people voting as someone else is not a problem, and that no form of ID currently includes all of the information – such as legal status – to aid in determining if someone is a qualified voter anyway.

    So, no, photo ID doesn’t accomplish the intended task.

    The study also correctly notes that we have minute instances of any other kind of improper voting, and most of that had to do with minor technical issues relating to the dates that former felons were re-enfranchised.

    And that has been addressed by new ways of updating data bases electronically daily, where before it was done every other month with paper copies. A better solution to the problem.

    I suggest you look at the finding of the SCOTUS in the Indiana case where they threw out photo ID requirements because no one was able to demonstrate that phot ID corrected an actual problem.

    And oh yea…….none of you who are insisting that this voter fraud is taking place have been able to demonstrate that it is.

    So even in the unlikely event that the incoming republican legislature tried to pass this legislation, requiriing photo ID for a non-existent problem…….it is not likely to survive a court challenge.

    I would remind you that in 2008 the Supreme Court of MN found no evidence of voter fraud affecting the outcome of the election of Sen. Franken – and Coleman and his attorneys had no evidence of any to present either.

    Repeating your lie won’t make it any more true, and no one else is going to believe it without proof except those of you who can’t accept it when your candidate loses.

  15. From NY Times

    “WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter-identification law on Monday, declaring that a requirement to produce photo identification is not unconstitutional and that the state has a “valid interest” in improving election procedures as well as deterring fraud.”

    From Indiana’s sos website

    “Public Law 109-2005 requires Indiana residents to present a government-issued photo ID before casting a ballot at the polls on Election Day.

    Your photo ID must meet 4 criteria to be acceptable for voting purposes. It Must:

    1. Display your photo

    2. Display your name, and the name must conform to your voter registration record. ”

    Voter ID with photograph is constitutional, and it’s the law in 8 states.

  16. Dog said “And oh yea…….none of you who are insisting that this voter fraud is taking place have been able to demonstrate that it is.”

    Well duh, Einstein. We have a secret ballot, and that fact being is exploite3d to great effect by groups like ACORN (and the DFL, pardon the redundancy).

    Here’s the problem, I don’t trust our system. I am not alone. People of your stripe are sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “there is no problem”.

    The very perception of a problem is what discredits the system you are struggling to defend.

  17. DG,

    Let’s start with this graf here:

    Repeating your lie won’t make it any more true, and no one else is going to believe it without proof except those of you who can’t accept it when your candidate loses.

    It’s not a “lie”. It’s an allegation. A thesis, if you will. An argument. To call it a “lie” is, rhetorically, going all-in; to not only call your opponent’s argument, but your opponent himself, untruthful. It really is the rhetorical nuclear option; it really leaves your opponent only two options; walk away, or duke out the emotionally-stacked “You are/are not a liar” argument, which is a diversion – a cynical one, under normal circumstances – from the actual discussion at hand.

    And it is cynical; the DFL (and those who parrot their line) are trying, with full calculation, to brand all dissent, all questioning, all discussion about the fairness, accuracy and honesty of our election system, as something ethically (“Voter Intimidation”) or morally (“Lies!”) depraved.

    It’s much,. much worse than intellectually dishonest; it’s not merely “pay no attention to the things you see with your own eyes”, it’s “because if do, you are not just wrong, you are morally repugnant”.

    And to be perfectly honest, DG, one of the reasons I so rarely visit Penigma (the blog) is because it is so very, very prone to such “argument”. “Avalance of violence?” “Conservatism is overwhelmingly racist?” To confront either required an investment of time and emotional energy that, in those cases, is just not worth it.

    Our election system deserves a much, much better discussion than you – singlularly and plurally – seem willing (or able?) to give it.

  18. OK, now on to the other stuff:

    The study also correctly notes that we have minute instances of any other kind of improper voting,

    The “Study” is a simple poll of 71 County Attorneys, DG. No more.

    Ask a County Prosectutor “Do you have a problem”, where “problem” counted in prosecutions, and there aren’t many prosecutions, they’ll say “no”. They may or may not say “but the law itself allows ignorance of the law as a defense”, or “there is no practical way to enforce aspects of the law” – both of which are true – but even if they did, “Common Cause” (and its sock puppet voting rights front group) isn’t going to let that through its’ “Study”.

    And there yoiu have a great example of “insert miracle here”. If the process itself is flawed, technology merely supercharges the flaws.

    I suggest you look at the finding of the SCOTUS in the Indiana case where they threw out photo ID requirements because no one was able to demonstrate that phot ID corrected an actual problem.

    MoN pretty well shut that one down.

    And oh yea…….none of you who are insisting that this voter fraud is taking place have been able to demonstrate that it is.

    Sure we have. Minnesota Majority has demonstrated hundreds of cases. Most of them – as the “study” obliquely noted – skated because the law allows ignorance as an excuse. There are dozens more cases – the U of M’s vouching fraud allegations, the Regions Hospital ballot fraud allegations, – that are out there but haven’t led to charges, much less convictions, not yet. And there were rampant irregularities – like 200 ballot machines broken on the morning of 11/2 (up from single digits and zero poll-station downtime when Republican adults ran the SoS office) combind with chain of custody and storage issues. You can choose to stick your fingers in your ears and claim that everyone bringing those claims is a Faux Republican Wingnut Voter-Intimidating Angry White Male, but it’s not actually true.

    So even in the unlikely event that the incoming republican legislature tried to pass this legislation, requiriing photo ID for a non-existent problem…….it is not likely to survive a court challenge.

    See MoN’s comment.

    I would remind you that in 2008 the Supreme Court of MN found no evidence of voter fraud affecting the outcome of the election of Sen. Franken – and Coleman and his attorneys had no evidence of any to present either.

    At least (I’ll be charitable) in part because Coleman took the high road and opted not to focus on it.

  19. “Protecting the votes of honest people from being diluted by those who have no respect for the franchise is the right thing to do”

    Yes it is.

  20. This is unbelievable. There are immense, direct financial benefits to politicians and their supporters should they rig an election. Literally hundreds of billions of dollars of government largesse, e.g. taxpayer money. According to Dog Gone, voter fraud just never happens! It is like magic!

  21. I respectfully hope that no one thinks my position on this issue is any where near agreement with DG’s foul rant.

    I believe that voter fraud exists ( I don’t know to what extent).

    I support Voter ID laws, and restrictions on same day registration, vouching etc. (but I don’t know how much good it will do)

    I just don’t think that this should be the top priority of our legislature, given the severity of our other financial problems. We’re going to have to be smart about how we spend political capital if we hope to maintain and expand our majorities in 2012.

  22. I just don’t think that this should be the top priority of our legislature, given the severity of our other financial problems.

    And there, I agree.

    As Hugh Hewitt said, if it’s not close, they can’t cheat. Nothing will ensure the DFL continues to get wholesomely whomped than success on the spending, taxation and (above all) jobs front.

    It’s worth addressing – but not at the sacrifice of jobs, the economy and jobs.

  23. “The Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter-identification law on Monday, declaring that a requirement to produce photo identification is not unconstitutional and that the state has a “valid interest” in improving election procedures as well as deterring fraud.”

    FACTCHECK smackdown on aisle 6!

  24. Pingback: Tweets that mention Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » Foxes: “Relax, Hens” -- Topsy.com

  25. I just don’t think that this should be the top priority of our legislature, given the severity of our other financial problems.

    Yep — I agree that financial issues come first. I suspect there’s time to address voter fraud, though. And it’s important that it happen.

  26. Dog Gone – people like you are exactly the reason why I’m leaving the DFL. You are hopelessly invested in an ideology destructive to our civil society. Voter ID is common sense stuff. It’s not that difficult.

  27. Last year I requested a new copy of my birth certificate from the MN department of health. They sent me an engraved pdf printout of some real information on my real birth certificate issued back in the (very late) 50’s.
    The new “birth certificate” has the wrong first name for my mother. It’s the equivalent of putting down “Borerta” for the correct “Roberta”. It is wrong. I paid $17 for it. It is legally “certified” so I can get a passport by presenting it. It is wrong. I have my original birth certificate. The new birth certificate has a clerical error. My mother is still alive. I know her first name.
    There was no information at all in the documents I received about who to contact if the information on the modern, computerized rendition of my original birth certificate is wrong. It is all correct, legally, until I win a case in front of the Minnesota Supreme Court, I guess.
    There are liberal idiots who believe that the State they worship never makes a mistake, never permits people who aren’t allowed to vote at all to vote several times, never permits people to vote in the wrong precinct, and never, ever, would intpret the rules of the ballot box in such a way as to promote the party that favors a larger, more powerful state.
    These people are called “democrats”.

Leave a Reply