Commentary
An election judge's view: Voter IDs might help, but not against fraud
By Craig Huber
Craig Huber, Apple Valley, is a small business owner and a source in MPR News' Public Insight Network.
The touted benefits of the voter ID amendment simply do not add up.
I've served as a head election judge for a dozen or more elections (primary, general and school district) over the past decade. There are already steps in place, both overt and subtle, to verify the identity and address of each voter. A voter ID requirement would simply change the methodology by which any election fraud would be perpetrated.
(For another perspective on the proposed voter ID amendment, see Tuesday's commentary, "Voter ID controversy offers a lesson in independent thinking." For more information on the amendment, see this compilation of frequently asked questions.)
I have yet to see any detailed analysis that explains how this measure adds significant protection to the process.
Note that I do not say that there may not be such a case — simply that the rigorous level of analysis required has yet to be done, in part because the actual definition of how this revised process would work is apparently being left until after the decision to implement it has been made. To me, it's an indication that this is not about "fraud prevention" at all.
For example: A roster judge is told to not allow a voter to see the roster (to find his own name, for example), and is instructed to ask the individual to state his address. The judge then is to verify that information. Hence, our fraudulent voter not only has to know that the individual he is attempting to vote in the place of has not yet voted, and his name, but must also be able to recite his address. The birth date is also printed on the roster, and the roster judge is encouraged to review that data item as well. So our fraudster needs to be of a believably comparable age.
Does every roster judge do all of this every time? Sadly, probably not. But does our supposed fraudster want to take that chance — and not once, but dozens of times? He only needs to be caught once.
But what if our fraudster instead goes to the registration table? There, he already needs to show ID, or prove his identity and address by other means. To remove vouching as an option "solves" the "problem" there.
An organized campaign of fraud capable of actually swinging an election is going to have the resources to generate ID cards capable of fooling an election judge at a busy polling place, no matter how diligent. At the same time, the proponents of this amendment have yet to provide even one solid example of voting fraud that would have been prevented by this measure, let alone enough to swing even the Franken-Coleman contest — at least that I have read or seen.
On the other side, MPR's story of last week puts on display testimony from multiple instances of actual individuals and cases where this requirement would create a barrier to access to the polls.
Presenting an ID at the polls would have certain benefits unrelated to voter fraud. For example, a physical card allows the roster judge a method to determine the spelling of difficult names, for easier location in the roster book. Also, in a busy polling place it can be difficult to hear voters who speak softly, or who have speech or hearing challenges of their own. An ID would help in those instances as well. Making the showing of an ID a suggested practice (not a requirement!) in the polling place would have some value, in my opinion.
Comments (5)
I'm a supervisor judge in Bloomington, and think this is a great explanation of why not to require photo ID. My only issue is with your suggestion to get rid of vouching. In 2010, about 2% of our new voters in our precinct were vouched for. They were elderly parents moving in with their children, or 18 year old children who didn't drive going to vote for the first time with their parents, or wives who just moved and all the utility bills were in their husband's name. The thing to remember about vouching is that a new voter has to be vouched for by a registered voter in the precinct, who has already shown an ID if they registerd that day, or was already on the rolls and been verified as a legitimate voter. And when the new vouched for person is verified later, if they aren't an eligible voter, we have a record of who vouched for them and can go after them for illegal vouching. And vouched for people can't vouch for others, and no one can vouch for more than 15 people. It's important to remember that vouching is available because the State Constitution forbids requiring property ownership as a qualification of being a voter (Article I, section 17). Owning an ID is an easy option for registering to vote, but we have other alternative methods of registration that don't cost money to the voter so as to not require ownership of any property.
This is strictly a partisan issue, since the assumption on both sides is that people on the dole are more likely to both vote Democratic and not have meaningful ID. How true that is is debatable, especially with only about 1 of 4 eligible voters voting these days.
@Peter: I just wanted to say, I am personally in agreement with you that vouching is not a major issue, due to the detailed procedure you mention, amongst other reasons. In my precinct, we've had perhaps 6 uses of vouching in 10 years, mainly husband-wife or parent-child situations, but looking at it with an impartial eye, it is the most likely potential vector by which fraud could be perpetrated with any reasonable chance of success.
If security was the penultimate concern, I would suggest that the voter picture (which is the majority of the value of the ID requirement) should be in the roster book itself. Far less possibility of fraud than in relying on something the voter themselves brings to the poll.
Is this registration book iron clad proof of identification? By what various processes can a person get their information into this log? Can someone explain why it would, or would not, be possible to submit a false registration form(s) early in the year to get one's name (real or otherwise) into a registration book(s), in time for elections?
@Jackie: That is somewhat the point, actually. The roster book is compiled by state and county resources, which does include multiple steps to verify voter identity and residence to a far greater level than anything we at the poll are capable of doing. In short, if they are in the roster book, they likely have a state issued ID as well... in most cases, the two things result from the same initial process. That situation needs to prevented at the registrar, not at the poll.
The only security value presenting an ID card at the poll can really bring to the entire process is the ability to compare the photo on the card to the person standing there.
I can't speak to all the specifics of the steps performed at the state level to verify the lines in the roster book. I know that one type of residence verification that is performed is the sending of the polling place reminders, non-forwardable. We also know that verification of the roster against individuals convicted of felonies, thus having temporarily lost their right to vote, is less than 100% accurate, since that is where every example of voter fraud I have specifically seen has come from, to date.
Other questions: I don't know how much cross-checking between various states (or even counties) is done to make sure someone living in SW Minnesota, for example, can not also vote in Iowa and Wisconsin by taking a couple short drives, or that a snowbird cannot vote absentee in Minnesota and in person in Arizona.
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Terms and Conditions before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
