With yesterday’s passage of the Minnesota Voter ID Amendment in the State Senate, Minnesota voters will finally get the chance to vote on the issue in November. A ballot question committee in support of the Voter ID amendment has been formed. ProtectMyVote.com is chaired by Dan McGrath of Minnesota Majority.

“We thank Senator Newman, Representative Kiffmeyer and everyone who worked so hard to write and pass this crucial election integrity measure,” said Dan McGrath.

Since polling consistently shows public support for Voter ID in the 80% range, the ballot committee will focus on countering the misinformation expected from opposition groups rather than putting an emphasis on building support for the amendment.

“We’re confident that if voters have all the facts about how the Voter ID amendment will improve Minnesota’s election system, it will be ratified with overwhelming support in November,” said McGrath.

ProtectMyVote.com plans television and radio ads, a statewide speaking tour and other events to support passage of the Voter ID amendment. The committee’s website has just gone live and contains a wealth of information about election integrity issues and the Voter ID amendment.

When the House and Senate both passed the Voter ID constitutional amendment bill, WeWantVoterID.com’s mission was accomplished. We thank everyone who subscribed and helped make passage of the amendment bill possible.

WeWantVoterID.com will cease publishing in one week. Traffic will then be redirected to the new ProtectMyVote.com ballot committee website. You can find all the information that has been available here and much more at the new site. Check it out now! www.ProtectMyVote.com.

Be sure to “like” the new page on facebook.

In an hour-long conference committee meeting of 5 House Republicans and 5 Senate Republicans, differences between the House and Senate versions of the Voter ID amendment were worked out and a combined bill agreed to. House chief author and former secretary of state Mary Kiffmeyer chaired the committee.

Representative Simon (DFL), Beth Fraser from the Office of the Secretary of State and Sherri Knuth with the League of Women Voters testified before the committee in opposition to the bill.

After hearing Beth Fraser’s criticisms of certain provisions in the bill, Rep. Kiffmeyer asked if there was any way a voter ID amendment could be written to earn Fraser’s support.

“I would not support a Voter ID constitutional amendment,” she replied.

No matter how the amendment was written or what provisions it contained, it appears Ms. Fraser and other opponents of voter ID would find a rationale to object to it.

The conference committee report unifying the bills with the new compromise language passed unanimously and is being sent back to each chamber for a final vote on the measure. The amendment bill is expected to easily pass in both chambers and will then be placed on the November ballot for the voters to ratify. The governor has no authority to veto or sign constitutional amendments.

Once passed by the legislature, the question posed to the voters will be, “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?”

Numerous public opinion polls have shown an average of 80% support for Voter ID in Minnesota, but national interest groups are preparing to pour tens of millions of dollars into defeating Voter ID initiatives around the country. A large portion of that money is expected to be spent in an effort to erode public support in Minnesota.

A battle of the airwaves for Voter ID will likely soon be underway.

Coalition of Voter ID supporters refutes Mark Ritchie’s false statements about constitutional amendment, calls on him to start being honest

Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie isn’t being honest with the public when it comes to the voter ID amendment. That’s what a coalition of organizations in support of Voter ID said at a press conference held across from Ritchie’s office this morning.

“It’s remarkable that the secretary of state, the man we’ve entrusted to safeguard our election process is making such wildly misleading statements about an election matter and deceiving voters,” said We Want Voter ID spokesman Lucky Rosenbloom.

The coalition has taken issue with recent claims by Secretary Ritchie, including his statement that the Voter ID amendment would end Election Day registration.

“Absolutely not true,” said Randy Liebo with the North Star Tea Party. “We believe it’s a cynical, hyper-partisan political ploy to pit a popular feature of Minnesota’s election system against a popular reform to the system. Ritchie is trying to create the impression that voters will have to choose between Election Day registration and Voter ID, but it’s a false dilemma.

“The pollbook technology the secretary of state is suddenly gung ho for is a prime example of how voters can be verified as eligible on Election Day using database matching processes,” Liebo went on to say. “The 21st Century Voter ID bill passed last year shows exactly how voters can be instantly verified in the polling place. There’s no reason to believe that Election Day registration is in any kind of jeopardy. Our antiquated vouching law will be eliminated, but people with proper ID will be able to register and vote on Election Day just like they always have.” 

The coalition also took issue with the secretary’s claims that 500,000 to 600,000 provisional ballots can be expected to delay reporting of election results, increase local property taxes by tens of millions of dollars and result in up to 200,000 ballots not being counted, threatening the state’s high voter turn out rate. All of this is a completely unfounded fabrication and looks like nothing but scare tactics to me.

“Utter nonsense and baseless scare tactics,” said Dan McGrath of Minnesota Majority. “Indiana has a strict Voter ID law, a similar voting population to Minnesota and in the last election, they had only about 7,000 provisional ballots cast. Apply that to Minnesota’s roughly 4,000 precincts and it averages out to less than 2 provisional ballots per precinct. I don’t know how Secretary Ritchie can keep a straight face while he’s saying some of this.”

“It appears to us that the secretary of state is abusing is office to advance a hyper-partisan political agenda with misleading statements and misinformation,” said Rosenbloom. “The secretary doesn’t have to like Voter ID, but he is obligated to conduct his duties with integrity. The people of Minnesota deserve an unbiased and honest chief election official.”

Read Secretary Ritchie’s statements in his own words here.

Are Voter ID Laws Racist?

Does the man on the street think people should show ID to vote? Do they think people of color have a harder time getting ID?

The ACLU and NAACP say voter ID laws are racially discriminatory. Find out if regular people in Washington DC agree in this short video, when MRCTV’s Dan Joseph hits the streets to interview citizens on Voter ID laws.

See this video and more at MRCTV.

The Minnesota House of Representatives will take up Representative Kiffmeyer’s Voter ID Constitutional amendment (HF2738) on the floor for a vote at 5:00 PM, Tuesday.

The companion bill in the Senate (SF1577), authored by Senator Newman is awaiting action by the Senate Rules committee before being sent to the Senate floor.

If the House bill is passed, it will be sent to the Senate where it may be accepted or rejected. The House and Senate bills are not identical, so if the Senate does reject the House language, there will be a conference committee to iron out differences between the two bills.

Anti-ID protestors are expected outside the House Chamber this evening.

Get involved: Attend the House Session wearing a “We Want Voter ID” button and/or carrying a sign supporting Voter ID. Signs are permitted in the Capitol provided they have no sticks. Signs are not allowed in the House gallery and visitors in the gallery must remain quiet.

There are three interdependent, but distinct concepts involved in voter verification. They are identity; eligibility; and residence. It isn’t as simple as proving one’s identity with a photo ID. Establishing a voter’s identity is only the first step.

Identity: You are who you say you are

Confirming a voter’s identity will prevent the use of false names, or stolen identities, which is one way a voter with criminal intent can obtain more than one ballot.

Voter fraud is committed in other ways, but by employing all three components of voter verification, all forms of voter fraud can be prevented.

Eligibility: You are a mentally competent adult citizen who is not a felon

The Constitution and statutes of the State of Minnesota lay out the qualifications for voting, including adulthood, citizenship, mental competence and a prohibition on individuals convicted of felonies or treason voting prior to the restoration of their civil rights. Verifying that a voter meets these qualifications is an essential part of maintaining election integrity. These eligibility verification checks can only take place once a voter’s identity has been established. They are performed by comparing the name and other identifying information of the voter with state and federal databases to check for, among other things, known non-citizens, convicted felons on probation and wards under guardianships in which they do not have the right to vote. Voting by individuals not entitled to vote is fraud. Identification alone doesn’t prevent this kind of fraud, so eligibility verification is needed.

Residence: You live where you say you live, in the precinct

Residence in the state and in the precinct voting in must also be established and verified. Voting outside one’s own precinct is a form of voter fraud that can be employed to add votes to the tally of local candidates who might be facing tight elections. Establishing residence can often be accomplished with a voter’s identification card, but in some circumstances, such as college students in temporary residences and recent movers, it’s necessary to employ an alternate means to verify residence in the precinct. This may include a student enrollment or residential housing list, fee statements, or recent mail delivered to the voter’s current address, among other things.

The Voter ID Constitutional Amendment establishes and strengthens all three voter verification requirements and ensures that the law will apply equally to all voters.

These three verification steps can be performed instantly in the polling place immediately prior to a voter casting a ballot. It may sound complicated, but it isn’t. The necessary database systems for eligibility verification are already in place and are used for voters who register more than 20 days ahead of an election. That technology, or a substantially equivalent process, will be extended into the polling place to preserve Election Day Registration while ensuring that all voters are subject to the same standards of verification before casting a ballot.

If the Voter ID Amendment is passed and ratified, Minnesota will have an election system of superior integrity that verifies a voter’s identity, eligibility and residence before voting. All forms of voter fraud will be prevented and Minnesotans can enjoy greater confidence in the outcome of our elections.

James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas team have done it again. A new video from the hidden-camera political filmmakers shot in Vermont demonstrates how ridiculously easy it is to commit voter fraud in states that don’t require photo ID to vote.

No doubt, the familiar cries from those who want to protect loose election systems will be shouted from the rooftops. “O’Keefe should be prosecuted for voter fraud,” they’ll wail. “How dare he expose our system’s glaring flaws to the public?!”

Of course, as before, O’Keefe and his team were careful not to commit actual voter fraud. They didn’t accept or cast the ballots that were offered to them in the names of other voters and deceased people. Indeed, they insisted on showing ID.

They’re treading on thin ice, though. Depending on the laws in Vermont, misrepresenting ones self may be enough for some kind of legal trouble. It takes courage of conviction to do what these brave people did to prove their point.

After exposing the ease of voter impersonation fraud, the Project Veritas team also deftly demonstrated the folly of calling Voter ID laws racially discriminatory in humorous interactions with a hotel clerk, a bartender and a city clerk as they attempted to file for a civil union without ID.

What the Veritas Team proved in this third installment of their “Voter Fraud in America” series applies equally to Minnesota as to Vermont. In fact, Minnesota’s election laws are even worse than Vermont’s in protecting against false identity voting because you don’t even need the name of a real registered voter to obtain a fraudulent ballot. With Election Day registration and vouching, voter identities can be invented on the spot in the polling place.

Kudos to Project Veritas. Looking forward to their next installment.

See the other videos in the Voter Fraud in America series at the Veritas Visuals Youtube Channel.

In 2008, after the US Senate race was ultimately decided by just 312 votes, it was discovered that over 1,000 ineligible convicted felons had unlawfully voted in the general election. Nearly 200 have since been convicted and approximately 100 more are awaiting trial. Most ineligible felon voters were never charged because they pled ignorance of the law and in Minnesota’s election statutes, this is actually a valid defense. The standard for conviction is “ineligible voter knowingly votes.” If an ineligible voter maintains ignorance, it’s very difficult to prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. No one is convicted for “accidental” voter fraud.

Now that the problem of ineligible voters has been discovered by a non-governmental non-profit group, some see
legalizing felon voters as the solution. This is akin to determining that too many people are robbing banks and solving the problem by legalizing bank robbery.

Why are felons denied the right to vote?

Article VII of Minnesota’s Constitution is explicit that people convicted of felonies are not to be entitled or permitted to vote in any election in the state. It states in part, “The following persons shall not be entitled or permitted to vote at any election in the state… a person who has been convicted of treason or felony, unless restored to civil rights; a person under guardianship, or a person who is insane or not mentally competent.” The framers had good reasons for this.

1. Felons are the most anti-social of all criminals. Their crimes are of the worst, most harmful and offensive nature. Murder, rape, robbery, gross fraud and conspiracy are examples of felony crimes. People who have demonstrated such gross disregard for the law, society and government should not be allowed to participate. They are outlaws, living outside the law and thus should not be allowed a hand in creating the laws that the law-abiding live under.
2. Besides lawmakers, Judges, county prosecutors and sheriffs are elected positions. It is in the felon’s interest to elect lenient judges and incompetent or corrupt prosecutors and law enforcement officers. Candidates for sheriff should not be in a position to try to solicit the votes of felons under the supervision of the Department of Corrections.
3. Deprivation of rights is the primary means of punishing and deterring crime in the United States. Felons on probation are prohibited from carrying a firearm, associating with certain people, entering certain establishments, may be subject to curfews and prohibitions of drug and alcohol use in addition to being prohibited from voting, until they have demonstrated their rehabilitation by successful completion of their sentence. At that point, they are considered to have “paid their debt to society” and are welcomed back into the civic process and their rights are restored. Many convicted felons never serve a day in jail. The deprivation of rights while on probation is the entirety of their punishment – should felons be punished for their crimes at all?

Even if the legislature determined that restoring voting rights to convicted felons prior to the completion of their
sentence was desirable, it would likely require an amendment to Minnesota’s Constitution.

The way to prevent corruption of our election process through the participation of ineligible voters, including felons and also non-citizens is to require all voters be subject to equal verification standards before voting. Currently, people who register more than 20 days before an election are verified as eligible before voting. Election Day registration currently requires no verification of eligibility, however, allowing may invalid votes to be cast and counted.

Minnesota is a forgiving state that leaves open the possibility of redemption. Convicted felons are restored to their
rights immediately upon successful completion of their sentence, including supervised release or probation. Our
probation system offers felons a chance to demonstrate their rehabilitation and integration into society. If they can do that, they can vote again. That’s current law and the mandate of the Constitution. It may not be easy, but it’s just.

Download the printable 1-page policy position memo (pdf).

An election judge from a small town in Minnesota testified before the House Government Operations and Elections Committee during a Thursday hearing on the Voter ID Amendment. He recounted a personal story of having witnessed election fraud in progress in 2008.

A group of 10-13 people used Election Day registraton to obtain ballots. Each used the same address – a local laundromat.

Officials at the Auditor’s office told him at the time that he could not “interfere with their right to vote.”

Plans to contribute $1,000 reward for evidence of voter impersonation charges towards the “Vote Yes for Voter ID” Campaign

St. Paul – Though some groups that oppose Voter ID deny its existence, voter fraud is a serious concern in Minnesota. ACLU-MN is one group that doesn’t think so and they recently put their money where their mouth is.

On February 13th, the ACLU offered a $1,000 wager from their “Vote No 2012 Fund” that there hasn’t been a single case of voter impersonation in Minnesota in the last 10 years. Minnesota Majority, the government watchdog group that’s blazed trails in voter fraud research, has proven the ACLU-MN wrong and asked to collect on the bet at a press conference on Tuesday.

“The ACLU of Minnesota asked for evidence of a voter impersonation charge, indictment or conviction. We’ve completed that research for them and are providing them court documents that clearly show a charged case of one voter fraudulently voting in the name of another in the 2008 election,” said Minnesota Majority’s executive director Dan McGrath.

The case in question wasn’t easy to locate because the deal the court cut with the defendant kept the records somewhat obscured. The voter charged was an Andover resident who voted once in person using her own name and also completed a forged absentee ballot in an apparent variation of her daughter’s name. The daughter was away at college and also voted in her college precinct.

Election officials detected the apparent duplicate vote and contacted the daughter who denied voting twice. Eventually, the mother was contacted and admitted that it was she who completed the absentee ballot in her daughter’s name.

The Andover woman was charged with three felonies, but was sentenced only to temporary probation and was ordered to repay the costs of her prosecution.

“The moral of the story is that if you look for voter fraud in Minnesota, you’ll find it. This is a clear-cut case of voter impersonation,” said McGrath. “It’s unusual that it was caught, because ordinarily there’s no connection to be made between a false identity and the actual voter. In this case, there was a connection to be made.”

Minnesota Majority plans to contribute the $1,000 reward to the Vote Yes for Voter ID campaign, or to furthering their research into election integrity issues.

“The ACLU and their Vote No 2012 fund can rest assured that the money will be put to good use,” said McGrath.

Read more:

• Star Tribune
• City Pages
• WCCO
• KARE-11