Commentary
The real fraud is the claim that voter IDs will prevent fraud
by John MartySen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville, is serving his eighth term in the Minnesota Legislature.
Supporters of Minnesota's proposed constitutional amendment to restrict voting ask people to ratify it based on an appeal to their narrow self-interest. Despite the lack of fraud from voter impersonation, they imply that a voter is "protecting" his or her own vote by requiring a photo ID at the polls. But blocking tens of thousands of other Minnesotans from voting because one or two of them might have done so fraudulently is not protecting one's own vote.
Amendment proponents appeal to fear and self-interest, but I want to appeal to Minnesotans' sense of fairness. It is wrong to place roadblocks to voting in the way of the senior in assisted living, the soldier serving in Afghanistan, the disabled woman who is homebound or the veteran who is homeless. They have a right to vote too.
In our democracy, the right to vote is fundamental. Taking away the vote from our neighbors under the pretext of preventing fraud is a radical step backward for that democracy. The Constitution is supposed to guarantee human rights, not take them away.
This anti-democracy initiative is present in many states, but the proposed amendment in Minnesota is perhaps the worst assault on voters.
The recent Minnesota Supreme Court ruling on the amendment shows that if it is ratified, people needing to vote absentee by mail might lose their right to vote. The court's opinion explicitly said that under the amendment, absentee voters who couldn't hand the election judge the government-issued photo identification would be required to provide "something that is virtually identical to such identification." There is no way that an election judge can make a "virtually identical" verification, comparing a voter's face to a photo ID, when the election judge is in St. Paul and the absentee voter is in Afghanistan or anywhere else.
It is not only out-of-town voters who stand to be disenfranchised by the amendment. The amendment authors tell voters not to worry about the details because they will be worked out later, by the Legislature. But we don't need to wait to see the intent. The amendment's authors already showed us their intent in legislation they passed last year, blocked only by the governor's veto. In it, they would give almost no alternative to producing a driver's license (or the state non-driver ID, or a new ID created just for voting) showing the voter's current address.
No military IDs would be allowed. No student IDs either. While many voters assume that "everyone" has a driver's license with current address, that simply isn't reality. And if your wallet is stolen, or you misplace your license in the weeks before an election, you won't be able to vote.
Students living away from home in a dorm, if they were no longer able to vote absentee, would need to pay for a driver's license for their new address even if they are living there for only nine months. Virtually no homeless Minnesotan, including the many Vietnam-era veterans who are living on the streets, would be able to vote. They risked their lives for our country, but they are not good enough to vote?
What about the senior in assisted living or a nursing home who no longer drives and doesn't need a driver's license? Should we just assume that every frail or elderly person has a friend or family member willing to drive that senior citizen to the license bureau to get an ID?
This amendment won't prevent fraud, but it will prevent many seniors in nursing homes from voting.
The only type of fraud that a photo ID requirement might prevent is fraud by impersonation. A national investigative report found only 10 cases of voter impersonation in the entire United States during the past decade. That's about one preventable voter fraud case in Minnesota every 50 years.
For that, we would take away the right to vote for tens of thousands of seniors, students, people with disabilities, people whose licenses were recently lost or stolen, and people who are more pressed with feeding their children than paying for a duplicate birth certificate and other documentation so that they can qualify for a "free" photo ID card for voting.
Minnesota has an election system that has relied, successfully, on voters signing an oath that they are eligible to vote, with violators facing a five-year felony penalty. We have consistently had the nation's best voting system, and the highest voter turnout. This constitutional amendment would destroy that record.
The real fraud is the claim that this amendment is about fraud prevention. It is a blatant attempt to take away voting rights from countless Minnesotans. A century after women were given the right to vote and 50 years after African-Americans were given the right to vote, this amendment would move Minnesota backward.
Our democracy depends, not only on your individual right to vote, but also on the individual right of all of your neighbors to vote. It's time for Minnesotans to speak out on behalf of our neighbors and defeat this mean-spirited amendment.
Comments (10)
My thoughts, exactly.
Nailed it.
The "real" fraud here, Mr. Marty, is being perpetrated by you & your Democrat cohorts as you try to scare Minnesotans into preserving your dishonest voting practices by telling them they will be unable to vote.
You know better, Mr. Marty.
But that has never bothered a true Democrat, as they are always willing to deceive the voters to get what they want.
"The Constitution is supposed to guarantee human rights."
No, Mr. Marty, the Constitution exists to guarantee the rights of CITIZENS of these United States. Not just any "human" who may happen to be within our borders at any given time.
"50 years after African-Americans were given the right to vote..."
Such a glaring lack of knowledge is extrodinary in a public office holder. But not in a Democrat.
For your edification, Mr. Marty:
Amendment 15 to the U.S. Constitution, ratified Feburary 3, 1870 (142 years ago).
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
Your ugly attempt to scare old people into voting your way on a State Amendment is appalling, to say the least. Please consider resignation immediately.
The fact that Democrats are spending so much time lying about the amendment is proof the amendment is indeed necessary to eliminate an old loophole favoring the dishonest Democrats.
No honest Citizen will be disenfranchised in voting. Just the dishonest & non-citizen.
Terry Franklin, what exactly are you referring to with "an old loophole favoring the dishonest Democrats" or "dishonest voting practices"? Do you dispute the fact that many "honest Citizens" will find it difficult, if not impossible, to comply with the proposed new requirements? I can easily and just off the top of my head think of six real people I know, all Minnesota citizens and eligible voters, who would have trouble obtaining a new photo ID with their current address in time for election day. And their situations are by no means unique. Thousands will face these hurdles. These are not lies. Amendment supporters are using ugly insinuations to stoke fear and resentment and that is really sad. Most of their arguments, like Terry's, rely on these tactics, unlike the column here which presents specific examples to demonstrate the real harm that this amendment would cause.
Annie N
As I said, No honest citizen will be disenfranchised. Only the dishonest and the non0citizen.
"...who would have trouble obtaining a new photo ID with their current address in time for election day."
The next election day, if the amendment passes this November, will be 2 years down the road. So, don't worry about it. There will be plenty of time. I envision State or County workers going out to the nursing homes with a camera and providing the ID service right at the nursing homes. It will be fun for the residents. They always enjoy something happening in their lives.
Dishonesty, scare tactics, downright lying, these are the well-honed tools of the Democrats, including Mr. Marty.
They have been doing it so long, they think it is the right and good way to live.
Don't worry about it. Liberalism is passing. In Canada, in Quebec, even in the Motherland of big government, jolly ol' England. Liberalism does not work. It is no longer a viable way to live. The Democrats know it. That's why they fight so hard to hang on to their free ride.
Wave it bye-bye.
"I envision State or County workers going out to the nursing homes with a camera and providing the ID service right at the nursing homes." Never mind your condescending "it will be fun for them" opinion, do you think IDs will just be handed out without any documentation proving the identity and citizenship of said nursing home residents? How will birth certificates and other official, approved documentation be obtained for these residents? And at what cost?
If the amendment passes, enacting legislation would presumably pass next spring, and the requirement could start as early as next July 1, with details like allowable documentation only determined in April-May 2013. That's only six months before the next election, not two years. Now, what about college students who move frequently, often just weeks before an election? This could impact them (and impose additional fees for updated IDs) multiple times.
You are not thinking seriously about this, only throwing out blanket accusations and insults. Not sure how many minds you'll change with that attitude.
terry,
Actually you are wrong about the Constitution and rights, but then this has never stopped you from your blather in the past.
The 1st Amendment is what is called a negative right, not a grant of rights. Read the text closely and you will see, there is no grant of any right, but rather, the right to be free from government intervention. "Congress shall make no law..." is different than you have the right to free speech.
Brush up on your constitutional understanding, it will make your weak arguments just that much stronger.
As the three judge panel in D.C. pointed out in their smack down of the racist Texas I.D. law, there is no proof of fraud, but there is plenty of proof that many poor, minority, and elderly folks will be disenfranchised by this unwarranted law.
Thanks Senator Marty, keep up the good fight on this misguided and racist amendment.
Annie N
"How will birth certificates and other official, approved documentation be obtained for these residents?"
In the normal way, of course. From the county records in the court house of the county where each nursing home resident was born.
Most old folks already have a birth certificate in their immediate possession. More often than not it is the original, not a copy. I am a senior myself. I can put my hand on my birth certificate without moving from where I am sitting right now. And it is the original, the exact one given to my parents when I was born. Old folks are like that. It is important to them to have their birth certificate on hand. It is part of their personality.
I am sorry to hear you do not want the old folks at the home to have some fun. Perhaps you are unfamilliar with life in nursing homes, but the home itself must always be looking for new ways to entertain, bring some fun into the lives of the residents. Maybe you could go to a few and break up the monotony for them. Would be a nice thing to do. (Yes, I have, and do).
You worry too much, darlin'. Relax a bit. Life is better then.
Kurt
You are wrong, as always. The Bill of Rights portion of the Constitution does not grant rights, but recognizes the God-given unalienable rights of the citizens, and prohibits the Government from interfering with those God-given rights.
Perhaps you can find a good book on the way our government is supposed to work. Then you can learn, and then post.
terry,
Which part of my post differs from what you wrote, are you really that obtuse?
Negative rights, (i understand this is hard for you to comprehend, but give yourself credit for hanging in there) means the government cannot infringe your rights to such things like freedom of religion, freedom to exercise that choice and freedom to vote for the person of your choice. point to the clause where an I.D is required to vote.
Take a class on con law, learn something new, or will that conflict with your narrow world view.
Try to create an original idea of your own, it's kind of self affirming, or you can continue to just regurgitate the mindless prattle coming from those "intellects" like Rush and Beck.
By the way, Marty, and all other leftists, it is extremely tiresome to watch you scream "racist" every time you lose the intellectual argument.
Grow up. When something doesn't go your way, that's okay. You lost because you were on the wrong side of the issue. The sky isn't falling, so stop running around like so many Chicken Littles with acorns bouncing off your collective head, screaming "The races are falling, the races are falling!"
Everything is fine. Really.
You can't fool the people any more with the race card, or the woman card, or the poor card. Give it up and grow up. Not even the self-respecting liberals believe that stuff anymore.
Democrats have been making a good living by creating dissention and hate among Americans. Time to be better than that bottom of the barrel leftist tactic. See if you can.
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.
