Posted on 12/30/2010 7:24:23 AM PST by rhema
There's one thing that the 2010 election and the recent recount in the governor's race made clear: It's time to stop arguing about whether we should institute photo ID for voting and time to start discussing how best to implement it.
Readers might have heard about how the "reconciliation" process became a point of contention in the recount. With a photo ID system, coupled with the electronic poll books that photo ID would allow us to use, this issue would go away. There would be no extra "voter receipts" floating around, and voters would receive their "receipts" or ballots only after showing and swiping their photo IDs.
Readers might also have heard about how county officials are having difficulty adding all of the voter registration cards from Election Day into the voter database in a timely fashion — this is a major problem after every election in our state. Again, with a photo ID system, this issue would go away. Upon arriving at the polling place, un-registered voters would simply swipe their photo ID cards to populate the fields in the state's computerized voter registration system (rather than writing out a card to be data-entered later). In this way, implementing photo ID for voting would save counties tens of thousands of dollars — an estimated $25,000 to $45,000 per election in Hennepin County alone — and would eliminate data-entry errors that result in misspellings, double entries, and more.
Additional benefits to instituting photo ID for voting include reducing and perhaps eliminating lines on Election Day and increasing voter privacy, as voters would not have to say their names aloud to get a ballot. The problem of voters inadvertently voting in the wrong precinct would go away. Also, we would save thousands of pounds of paper (and a lot of money) by not having to print voter rosters for the polling places. And, of course, instituting photo ID for voting would increase election integrity as well.
During the last legislative session, a vote on photo ID enjoyed bipartisan support in the Minnesota House, though the measure was blocked from being heard by DFL leaders in the state Senate. This year, many candidates for the state Legislature campaigned on the issue of photo ID, and it was noted in the media to be the biggest applause-getter at political gatherings. It was also the only issue that governor candidate Tom Emmer mentioned in his concession speech this month.
A Rasmussen poll this past summer found that 82 percent of people — an overwhelming, bipartisan majority — favored photo ID for voting, and only 14 percent disagreed. Of course, there are anti-reform special interests such as ACORN derivatives, Common Cause, and Citizens for Election Integrity Minnesota who will pretend that our antiquated system is adequate and try to oppose the inevitable.
Yet, with pro-photo-ID majorities in both the House and Senate, it is a safe prediction that the reform will be passed, no matter what the governor thinks of it — perhaps even as a constitutional amendment presented to the voters. If anti-reform legislators or the governor try to stand in the way, pro-reform legislators will certainly find a way to get it passed.
Given that, there are some options on implementation that should be discussed sooner rather than later.
There will be options on how to equip citizens with IDs. It probably makes sense to give state ID cards to voters who can't afford them — a side benefit being that it would help them function in other aspects of daily life.
There will be some difficult scenarios, like those experienced by overseas absentee voters and nursing home residents, which will have to be addressed.
There will also be options on the technology to use with photo ID. Electronic poll books interface with photo IDs essentially in the way Minnesotans are accustomed to when they purchase fishing and hunting licenses. One of the best, most versatile options for the electronic poll books is Minnesota's own Datacard Group; estimates predict a positive return-on-investment in only three years.
The implementation of photo ID for voting is long overdue and worth applauding. Minnesota has an opportunity to have a great election system once again and we should get our plan in place.
Yet, with pro-photo-ID majorities in both the House and Senate, it is a safe prediction that the reform will be passed, no matter what the governor thinks of it — perhaps even as a constitutional amendment presented to the voters. If anti-reform legislators or the governor try to stand in the way, pro-reform legislators will certainly find a way to get it passed.
I have to present my DL to vote in TN. Nearly every one has one of those.
WELCOME TO FREE REPUBLIC’S MINNESOTA PING LIST!
149 MEMBERS AND GROWING...!
FREEPMAIL ME IF YOU WANT ON OR OFF THIS LIST!
Here’s an additional voter integrity safeguard. I notice when travelling overseas that immigration desks have a camera that takes a snapshot of you and matches it the passport photo page. A similar system at the polls would provide a record to show who used your photo ID. It seems costly now but applying Moore’s Law suggests it would cost only half as much in 18 months.
But no one made a move.
I think the system is quite broken, and I think both parties are happy keeping it that way. It's probably like auditing the Fed. If we really knew what the situation was, the entire government would fall.
Politicians don’t want the mess cleaned up. The only problem they have is figuring out how to use the mess to their best advantage. If they truly wanted things to change, they would change it.
In my little bailiwick of Minnesota, at least, Republicans have long been pushing for voter ID, but until Nov. 2's election, they've always been stymied by legislative DFLers. I wonder why.
The Soros AG and SOS here will never enforce it if a vote ID law passes in MN.
Too busy suing corporations and tobacco.
I think MN is one of only several states that don’t require state ID mandatory to vote. Almost certain we’re the ONLY one that allows “vouching” for people in line.
"Twenty-seven states have broader voter identification requirements than what HAVA mandates (note, however that the newly passed requirement in Oklahoma does not take effect until July 1, 2011). In these states, all voters are asked to show identification prior to voting. Nine of these states specify that voters must show a photo ID; the other eighteen states accept additional forms of identification that do not necessarily include a photo (Table 1). In no state is a voter who cannot produce identification turned away from the polls—all states have some sort of recourse for voters without identification to cast a vote. However, in Georgia and Indiana, voters without ID vote a provisional ballot, and must return to election officials within a few days and show a photo ID in order for their ballots to be counted."
About @#$% time!
(In other news, Al Franken has decided he will not seek a second term...)
I already have a Photo ID.
It is called my Nevada Driver’s license.
I see no reason to issue an entirely new set of cards.
Let us use our driver’s licenses.
Those who do not drive could get an “ID” card.
The majority of people already have driver’s licenses. I had to provide alot of proof that I was who I said I was & that I was born in the USA. I consider my driver’s license to be perfectly good ID.
I do this having been a poll-watcher for a Tea Party group on Election Day.
The problem with a Voter ID is that it will too easily become a kind of internal passport like the Soviets used to control the Russian population.
The Liberal Superstate has already shown an appetite for pulling people's livelihood "licenses" (doctor, lawyer, etc.) when pushing beeves over e.g. child support and taxes.
If the Voter ID does in fact become an internal passport, there is no way it won't become politicized. When I was stationed in the Bahamas decades ago, the Lyndon Pindling government, which was black-racist to the core, used their work-permit system to exclude U.S. immigrants and control Canadian ones, who were required to train their Bahamian (black) replacements and then leave after a few years.
Like the Soviet internal passport, an American one could be pulled by police, crippling a person who had attracted official umbrage.
In theoretical terms, introducing a sine qua non paper document into the exercise of one's rights (suffrage, work, movement, speech, RKBA) suppresses the liberty of the person by transferring his rights to the document -- which can then be taken away by force under color of law.
I would add to that, that any person whose "rights" are subsumed in a state document knows they are counterfeit because they can be lifted by an Authority, and this knowledge must color his perception of his rights, and therefore his speech and actions.
Voter registration should require TWO forms of ID. One would have to be a photo ID issued by State or federal government. The other could be either a second form of photo ID or a state issued birth certificate, or a church baptismal record. Applicants should have to appear in person to register. A photo record should be made and be part of the voter list at the polling place.
Birth certificates and State ID's are too inexpensive to be used as an excuse.Anyone who is too lazy to go through these small steps really does not want to bother voting.
Absentee voting would be restricted to persons who can show they are legitimately too far away to reasonably get to the polling place to vote in person, ie; military, diplomats, and persons whose work takes them away from home on election day. Proof would be required for all absentees other than military on assignment and diplomats.
Your vote is such a precious right as well as a duty, it deserves extra effort. No registration, no vote. PERIOD.
works for me. I'd add that you have to have paid some income taxes,too, but that's just me. ;)
I believe you may have the wrong idea.
“Voter ID” refers to identification being required to vote. Believe it or not, the requirements are rather lax here in Minnesota. What we are hoping for is a requirement to show proof of identification (such as a driver’s license) when voting. This is currently not the case.
In MN a state ID card only cost $15 the last time we got one for our adult child (disabled) that fee was reduced or waived with a statement from a physician stating she was disabled. the renewal for this ID is .50, not even a buck. I’m really sick and tired of people saying someone cannot afford to pay $15 for an ID. Many of those same people think nothing of forking out more then that for smokes or the drug of their choice. But as I told my state representative I would gladly agree with the state providing ID’s for this group of people for free when they show the correct documents. (unless you have done so you really don’t know how many hoops are required to get a passport for your adult, disabled child..we even had to pay...PAY i tell you...oh the inhumanity....(sarcasm here)to get the certified copy of her birth certificate..)
True. It would help if the feds required photos to be placed on SS card after a person turns 18 and up dated every 4 years like DL’s. Would eliminate all arguments on photo ID sources. The paper SS card is a joke.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.