The anticipated battle over election law reforms kicked off today at the Capitol.
Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer, R-Big Lake, a former secretary of state, unveiled a complex, detailed 40-page bill that would require various forms of official photo ID to vote. It also would begin a statewide online electronic poll book system, checking in voters via bar codes or magnetic tape on the back of IDs.
The measure also would begin controversial provisional ballots and would, among other things, prohibit court-appointed guardians from helping disabled people vote.
Kiffmeyer was joined by Sen. Warren Limmer, R- Maple Grove, who spoke of “a growing chorus of concern from citizens who are growing suspicious of our election process.”
Limmer then mentioned the long-disproved — even in court — anecdote of ballots in Minneapolis in the 2008 U.S. Senate election that supposedly were “found in a trunk.”
The pollbooks are generally favored by election officials statewide, but not necessarily with photo IDs. Voters would be checked in via laptops in precincts.
Under Kiffmeyer’s bill, it would facilitate voter check-in and recordkeeping via computer with the swipe of an official state ID card of some sort. There is a cost, but Kiffmeyer said she wasn’t sure of a price tag.
However, two DFL representatives — Ryan Winkler of Golden Valley and Steve Simon of St. Louis Park — estimated the costs at as much as $40 million.
Also, they pointed to a recent survey (PDF) by Citizens for Election Integrity Minnesota of county attorneys that reported a total of 26 fraudulent voters and 12 who broke the law on registering in Minnesota during the 2008 election; all of them were felons who weren’t allowed to vote.
Winkler called voter fraud in Minnesota a “myth.” Of Kiffmeyer’s plan, he said: “It’s like building a multimillion-dollar water barrier to stop the Loch Ness Monster from coming up the Mississippi.”
Mark Ritchie, who succeeded Kiffmeyer as secretary of state in 2006, said the bill requires “careful research and analysis,” adding: “At a time when lawmakers are looking to streamline government and create efficiencies, HF 210 includes many proposals that would significantly increase the state’s budget deficit and create higher ongoing costs for cities, counties and townships.”
Still, Winkler said there was a “close to 100 percent” chance Kiffmeyer’s bill could pass the Legislature with the new Republican majorities. Election law changes in the past, he noted, even under Gov. Tim Pawlenty, were required to obtain bipartisan support.
Winkler said he suspected Gov. Mark Dayton would require such bipartisan support for any substantial election reforms.
A veto, of course, raises the possibility of a constitutional amendment. Kiffmeyer said she wanted to work with Dayton and hoped the issue isn’t headed toward a constitutional change.
Simon said with talk of constitutional amendments dealing with gay marriage and abortion, he wondered if Republican lawmakers had “room on their plate” for an election law amendment.
Hearings are expected soon.
I’ve just taken a cursory glance at the bill, but I was struck by the provisions related to recounts that appear to increast the cost and administrative burden of conducting recounts, and would very clearly increase the opportunity for political gamesmanship leading to widespread disenfranchisement.
The bill would authorize challenging ballots missing a judge’s initials (though it is not apparent why such ballots would be okay to count if the election did not require a hand-recount). It would also allow challenges for “identifying marks” based on any old fantasy or vision experienced by the party-designated challenger, and only the state election’s board could deem a challenge frivolous. Meaning that recounts could be dragged out for weeks and weeks by unscrupulous political operatives (who would blame it on “overeager volunteers”), even though it was demonstrated in Hennepin County in 2010 that 99% of challenges were frivolous and that only a small handful of votes legitimately warranted the close scrutiny of the canvassing board.
The bill’s proposals related to recounts are clearly election DEFORM. They would make hand recounts much more of a circus than we experienced in 2008 and 2010, and would result in much greater disenfranchisement. I don’t hold out much hope for the rest of it being constructive and well-designed policy.
No one’s cheating except the people who keep trying to put up roadblocks to stop normal people from voting.
This is voter suppression first and foremost, and the whole scam reeks of contempt for free elections.
Focusing like a laser on jobs and the economy.
A classic case of a solution in search of a problem!
No, Myles … there’s clearly a problem that needs this solution: too many poor people exercising their franchise. (And another problem: the risk that folks might start thinking about the REAL obstacles to a democracy worthy of its name.)
Either Limmer is dishonest for bringing up the ballots in the car trunk, or he’s grossly misinformed on an issue where he’s claiming enough expertise to write a bill. I don’t like calling people liars, so I’ll go with the idea he’s getting his information only from ideologically safe sources. He’ll probably keep believing it even though he’s been shown it’s false.
Photo ID can stop only one kind of fraud, impersonation of another voter. So where are the instances of impersonation? All the fraud is felons voting illegally. It’s hard to prove felons didn’t honestly think they could vote, and probably they did think so. We could essentially end voter fraud by making the law clearer on when voting rights are restored. If the standard was simply you can vote if you’re out of jail, can’t if you’re in, there couldn’t be mistakes. You can’t get to the polls when you’re in jail — problem solved.