Commentary
Who are these voters who have no I.D.?
By Owen Riess
Owen Riess is an author and Vietnam-era veteran. He is also a source in MPR News' Public Insight Network.
I think Mark Ritchie is just playing politics. Minnesota's secretary of state is a Democrat who opposes a voter I.D. requirement; he estimates that more than 215,000 Minnesotans lack either identification with a current address or any identification at all. Ritchie and other opponents of requiring voters to have I.D. say the rules will make voting harder for seniors, college students and people who are homeless.
I spent Easter with extended family in Rochester, Minn., and I had the opportunity to talk with some senior citizens. I think Ritchie fails to realize that all of our senior citizens collect Social Security income. The Social Security Administration is making a transition away from sending checks in the regular mail. To receive Social Security income, a person will have to have a bank account that will accept direct deposits from the Social Security Administration. To get a bank account, a person has to have a valid identification card. Among the senior citizens I visited with, even those who could no longer drive had a valid state I.D. card.
Has Ritchie never taken an elderly person to the doctor? Not only do patients need their medical card; they may be required to show proper identification, as well.
I'd like to see Ritchie produce a senior citizen in Minnesota without valid identification.
The opponents also point out that some college students don't have proper identification. Again, I say: Produce one. Produce an actual live registered college student in Minnesota. One who is a Minnesota resident, without proper identification. One with no student loans — because he or she would have no bank account without proper identification — no driver's license, no insurance, no vehicle and no job. Please show me a Minnesota resident college student who cannot buy student-discounted books in the college bookstore because he or she has no valid identification.
Here, however, Ritchie and the opponents may have some argument, if you take out-of-state students into consideration. A student may have been here for years attending a Minnesota college or university, have lived in Minnesota the whole time and still have a driver's license and vehicle registration from another state. This student may have a difficult time getting a valid Minnesota I.D. without becoming a resident of Minnesota.
This does not mean that they cannot vote; they just have to vote in their state of residence, or become residents of Minnesota.
Finally, let's discuss the homeless. Although it is sad that we even have to discuss the homeless in the present tense, there are two types of homeless people. Those who are homeless because of unfortunate circumstances in their lives, and those who choose to be homeless. The first would still need a valid identification card. To receive any kind of social welfare, from medical assistance to food stamps, they have to have valid identification.
Those of the second type, having chosen to live outside the mainstream, probably have no intention of ever participating in what we would call normal society, and don't care about voting.
The argument against producing a valid identification card at the polls is lame at best and ridiculous at its core. The proposal allows for the poor to get a free identification card. Anyone who wants to vote can get proper identification. The vast majority of Minnesotans will have no problem producing a valid I.D. at the voting booth.
If the requirement eliminates any questioning of who voted and adds integrity to the process, it makes you wonder whom Ritchie and the opponents are trying to protect.
Comments (22)
It doesn't matter if people "probably have no intention of ever participating." The right to vote is the most sacred right that we have in this country.
Free ID cards? There is no such thing. How will the rural poor get to a clerk to file for ID? What if they have to take off work because their local DMV is open at the same time as their shift? There are hidden costs, and all of them are the same as a poll tax, one of our nations most shameful practices of vote denial from the past.
We are trying to protect those who might not be able to take off work, who forgot to change update their address in time. They are entitled to participate in our most sacred right. Why should they be denied?
Why won't the author protect them too?
My mom is 89 years old. Last year, she gave up driving (probably a good thing). When her license expires, she didn't plan on getting a new one. She has accounts at the same small town bank she's had for over 50 years. They don't ask for her ID anymore. Also, she's voted in every election since she's been able to vote. Yes, one of us will probably take her to the license bureau when her license expires to get her a state ID... but what if she didn't have us? She would in effect lose her right to vote. Voter fraud is NOT a problem in Minnesota. There's is nothing to fix. There are people who don't drive who haven't needed the IDs before now for what they do. Now people like you want to FORCE them to do something they haven't had to do before... But I'll bet you're against the personal mandate in healthcare because it FORCES you to do something you don't want to do. Amazing, isn't it?
A couple of things about these laws that make me uneasy. They do not make me a confirmed opponent, but they make me nervous. First is cost. For such laws not to constitute an undue burden, states cannot charge people for photo-IDs: otherwise it constitutes a de facto poll tax. States also have to spend time and money making sure voters are aware of the new laws. Indiana found that implementing its photo-ID law cost $1.3m, with an additional $2.2m in revenue loss. A cost study in Missouri concerned a proposed photo-ID law forecast costs of $6m the first year and $4m recurring. According to a Brennan Center report, around 11% of voters nationally lack government-issued photo IDs. A few mil here and a few mil there may not sound like much, but when state budgets are tight it those costs add up. Second, a related point: voter fraud is rare and these laws would be largely ineffective against it. Far from preserving the integrity of the electoral process, one could argue that these laws imperil it by stoking fears of a rare crime and using it to cast doubt on an election's outcome
My grandmother would be one Owen. She is 82, in a nursing home and hasn't had a photo ID in over 20 years. She has been moved 3 times in the last year through the same nursing home system, but to different cities. Are you planning to get her a photo ID redone for EVERY move? I'm sure she would enjoy a ride on your motorcycle. :)
"Produce an actual live registered college student in Minnesota. One who is a Minnesota resident, without proper identification." Yes, most college students have IDs. Do they have the correct address though? Most college kids keep their parents' address as their permanent listing, since it is common to change addresses every single year of school. Regarding the "Minnesota resident" part of your rant, one does not have to be a MN resident to vote here. An out of state college student, living in the U of M dorms or wherever, gets to vote in MN. How will these students' right to vote be preserved under this law? I have moved 5 times so far in my twenties and I have not always updated my ID right away. At $25/ID, when I might not live there more than one year, why should I?
I personally don't see a problem with voter ID.I think that very few don't have a photo ID.If they don't it's not that hard to obtain one.All they have to do is go to the license bureau at City Hall and pay a small fee to get their picture taken,If they have any transportation I'm sure they could find a way if they "tried"??If "incapacitated" in a nursing home,are they really capable of voting for a "choice" or just voting because it is a right??Some may be,but not all.Ritchie and others probably have a "hard" time getting out of bed.My wife don't drive,but has had a photo I.D. for years.With me if there is a will there is a way,unless bed ridden for a reason.By the way.I am 83 years old.It sure would be "terrible" for people to make someone do something they didn't want to do like have their picture taken???Of course if they don't like their image thats another issue.
The lack of knowledge on display in this rant is appalling. Such individuals as the writer describes have already produced themselves at various hearings for this poorly thought out proposal. On the other hand, the supporters of it have yet to produce a single fraud perpetrated that the law would have stopped.
Even the case presented in response to the ACLU challenge, of the mother voting with the daughter's absentee ballot, actually shows how this law doesn't do what the supporters say it does. Daughter goes home for weekend, produces id to get absentee ballot, votes, goes back to school, registers for new drivers license at school, and uses new license to register and vote there on election day. Voila: same fraud perpetrated despite "voter ID" requirement in place and enforced. Similarly, felons are not noted on driver's licenses (and should not be), so no effect can be expected on that known form either.
If we do go this route, driver's licenses should not be accepted as valid ID either... a driver's license is a license to drive, not confirmation of your eligibility to vote. Everyone should be required to register for and be confirmed for a dedicated voter ID, every election year... that at least would provide _some_ true value in terms of preventing actual fraud.
The proposed amendment, as typically envisioned at least, is security theatre at best, attempted voter suppression and disenfranchisement at worst, and should be voted down.
Well put Owen. You hit the nail on the head. There is such a VERY SMALL minority of people that MIGHT have a problem getting an I.D.
And I would bet most of them don't care to vote anyway. But the crooked people would like to vote for them and probably have and will.
Illeagal's can vote in MN and there are alot of them in all of our states and this would be a positive form of taking the privilage away from them . Nursing nomes could have in house voting . However , ID's help keep things alittle more honest in all area's !
Illegals can vote in Minnesota? Really? Please provide more cited background. Also, are you also willing to pay and setup the polling needs in nursing homes? With these pro-ID comments, I hope to see plenty of transportation and ID location needs easily met if this passes. Owen, Lonnie, Mike, Calin and others should be ready and willing to volunteer and help with these situations or pay more in taxes to cover costs.
Oh and what is to stop a person willing to commit voter fraud from obtaining a fake ID?
What about absentee voters?
I found it interesting to read earlier this week that the unions require a picture ID for their organizational voting purposes.
I can't speak to the plight of the elderly or college students when it comes to the voter ID issue.
I do, however, happen to work for a nonprofit that works with homeless young adults ages 16-23.
Mr. Riess, I take issue with a few items here:
1. No one, absolutely no one, chooses to be homeless. Homelessness is a very difficult spiral to get out of, and many long-term homeless adults first experienced it as a young person and never regained their stability. At the age of 16, I can assure you Mr. Riess, the only choice these youth make is to leave physically, emotionally, mentally and sometimes sexually abusive situations. So perhaps yes, they do "choose" to be come homeless, but would you really call that situation "home" to begin with?
2. People experiencing homelessness are not denied access to food stamps because they don't have a vaild photo ID. No photo ID is required, there are in fact many different options to provide identification for homeless people accessing food stamps specifically because of the barriers they face maintaining a valid photo ID.
So you see, Mr. Riess, while I am tempted to point out how baseless your argument is in this area and how I wish you'd done a bit more research before publishing your view point, freedom of speech is something made sacred by our constitution.
So is voting.
You have as much right to make public your under-researched opinion as homeless youth do to vote. Let's keep it that way, shall we?
K Smith: The youth coming to you seek a way out of homeless. Of course you don't see those who do not want your help. As soon as you said "absolutely no one, chooses to be homeless" you gained job security but lost credibility. Perhaps take your own advice and research this unique culture of young people.
My mom is 89 years old. Last year, she gave up driving (probably a good thing). When her license expires, she didn't plan on getting a new one. She has accounts at the same small town bank she's had for over 50 years. They don't ask for her ID anymore. Also, she's voted in every election since she's been able to vote. Yes, one of us will probably take her to the license bureau when her license expires to get her a state ID... but what if she didn't have us? She would in effect lose her right to vote. Voter fraud is NOT a problem in Minnesota. There's is nothing to fix. There are people who don't drive who haven't needed the IDs before now for what they do. Now people like you want to FORCE them to do something they haven't had to do before... But I'll bet you're against the personal mandate in healthcare because it FORCES you to do something you don't want to do. Amazing, isn't it?
I am amazed at the anger over requiring someone to have an ID to vote. Voting is a privilege. All the "what ifs" in these comments amaze me. They are nothing more than "what ifs." And by the way, you are required to show an ID to vote in Mexico, and as I said earlier, the unions require an ID to vote in their matters. We need to require an ID for voting for someone who will represent us in local, state and national offices. All the emphasis here is placed on old people being unable to get to the polls. I suggest that instead, we place an emphasis on responsibility and accountability in executing our votes, and nobody should have a problem with that unless they have something they feel they need to conceal. And then, so be it that they cannot vote without an ID.
You ask who doesn't have an ID that would work. Me! -- I don't drive and have no desire to do so. I use my passport for beer/going out. My father doesn't, as he no longer chooses to drive (he finds it easier to make time for exercise if he's walking to/from his errands). A friend of mine in her mid-twenties doesn't, as she's saving money to travel by living with various roommates in shorter term places. Are any of the three of us living outside the mainstream? Not at all (though I'm not sure why that would matter, nor what that constitutes for you).
And the three of us are just off the top of my head of people I know who voted in the most recent election in Minnesota. I have a good friend who's very politically active but who doesn't drive due to a medical condition.
I have been an election judge since I was 16 (I'm now 31). We do NOT need to add in additional obstacles to vote; we don't have a problem with voter fraud, and we have a very good system for keeping it that way WITHOUT disenfranchising people. If you honestly want to keep Minnesota's electoral system strong, try working as an election judge!
While there are many problems with our political system, not a single one is solved by decreasing participation and effectively taking the franchise away from a significant portion of our population. This push for more barriers to voting as a means of solving a non-existent problem scares me -- do we not have enough REAL problems to address in the U.S.?
Julia C - [I use my passport for beer/going out.] *** Apparently you don't understand the concept that any government issued ID can be used for Voter ID.
I can see both sides of this debate, but if I get to vote I'll be voting in favor of the author's position. Voting is a privilege. All these comments kind of shock me. Pretty much every voting situation requires a valid ID - the unions require an ID to vote in their issues. It is required to have an ID for voting for someone who will represent us in local, state and national offices. I agree that we place an emphasis on responsibility and accountability in executing our votes, and nobody should have a problem with that unless they have something to hide. If thats the case then they shouldn't get to vote anyway. I agree Dawn.
Voting is NOT a "privilege," as several comments have stated. Voting is a civil right. The proposed amendment would erase Minnesota's effective, longstanding same-day registration policy which helped us have one of the highest voter participation rates in the nation. Anyone who has recently changed addresses, moved here from another state, misplaced or lost their documents in a flood or fire, will find this law an impediment to their RIGHT to vote. There are hundreds of possible reasons why a legitimate voter could be turned away. Weigh that against the tiny possibility of a fraudulent vote under our current system. NO in NOvember becomes the rational choice.
The Voting Rights Coalition, initiated a project to research documented cases of ineligible voting and voter fraud in the 2008 Minnesota election. This is what they found. "Not one single government-issued identification confirms all the requirements to vote. In fact, in reviewing all types of government-issued identification (i.e. passports, military IDs, driver"s
licenses, state-issued IDs), the only type of election fraud a photo identification requirement would
prevent is voter impersonation. In reviewing the survey results, we found neither an expression of
concern about voter impersonation nor convictions of voter impersonation. In fact, less than one half of one percent of all investigations focused on voter impersonation. Another way of evaluating the survey results is to review the total number of investigations of voter impersonation (7) and compare
it to the total number of 2008 voters (2,921,498), which allows us to see that the total percent of all
voters who were investigated for voter impersonation was two ten-thousandths of one percent
(0.0002%). There was not one single conviction of voter impersonation. The results of the survey did not indicate a photo identification requirement would improve election integrity".
If this amendment called for EVERYONE who wants to vote to obtain a Voter ID, that is different from a Driver's License, it would be voted down even if the State of Minnesota pays for that Voter ID.
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.
