From its 1858 statehood
Minnesota has been a leader in voting rights.
We take pride in the fact that Minnesota leads in the nation in voter
turnout, and it has a history and bipartisan tradition of encouraging citizen
engagement. Minnesota is also a state of
common sense, embodying a pragmatic “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it”
mentality. It is for these two reasons
and the cost borne to the state and individuals that the proposed amendment
requiring voter identification at the polls should be rejected.
Minnesota’s Constitutional Tradition
Minnesota
in its constitutional convention was one of the first states to debate voting
rights for African-Americans. Even
though both the United States and Minnesota supreme courts have declared voting
to be a fundamental right,1 it is textually explicit in Article VII
of the State Constitution. Among the 211 previous attempts to change Minnesota’s
constitution, 12 adopted amendments have addressed individual rights, with five
of them seeking to expand voting rights.
In the entire history of the state only one constitutional amendment, in
1896, restricted voting rights. Here it
limited the practice in place that allowed aliens or noncitizens to vote in
Minnesota. Minnesota’s tradition then is
one of expanding the franchise, not limiting it.
The
voter ID amendment is an abuse of our constitution and tradition. Minnesota’s Bill of Rights offers more
protection for individuals than found at the federal level. We protect freedom
of conscience and privacy more vigorously than does the U.S. Bill of Rights. We
also protect some rights—hunting and fishing, and peddling farm produce—that
are not found at the federal level. We have constitutionalized our commitment
to education and support for the environment and the arts. This reflects our
culture and who we are.
The
voter ID amendment wrongly sidesteps the political process and challenges our state
identity. Instead of trying to use the normal legislative process, it is an
effort to bypass it and our legacy.
The Absence of Fraud
Some
will claim that voter photo identification is needed to prevent voter
impersonation and fraud at the polls. The reality is that in-person voter fraud
is so insignificant in Minnesota and around the country that one has a better
chance of being struck by lightning than having it affect the outcome of an
election.3
What
evidence does exist documenting voter fraud?
Nationally, the three most persistent claims of voter fraud come from
the Wall Street Journal’s John Fund,4 a report from the
Senate Republican Policy Committee in Congress,5 and the
Carter-Baker Report.6 None of these studies have documented provable
and significant voter fraud. The
Carter-Baker report asserts that: “[W]hile election fraud is difficult to
measure, it occurs.”7 Proof of this assertion is citation to 180
Department of Justice investigations resulting in convictions of 52 individuals
from October 2002 until the release of the report in 2005.8 Yet
while the Carter-Baker Commission called for photo IDs, it also noted that: “[T]here
is no evidence of extensive fraud in U.S. elections”9 As with other
studies, absentee voting is singled out as the place where fraud is most likely
to occur.10
As
the Brennan Center stated in its analysis and response to the Carter-Baker call
for a voter photo ID: “None of the Report’s cited examples of fraud stand up
under closer scrutiny.”11 Even if all of the documented accounts of
fraud were true, the Brennan Center points out that in the state of Washington,
for example, six cases of double voting and 19 instances of individuals voting
in the name of the dead yielded 25 fraudulent votes out of 2,812,675 cast—a
0.0009 percent rate of fraud.12 Also, assume the 52 convictions by
the Department of Justice are accurate instances of fraud. This means that 52 out of 196,139,871 ballots
cast in federal elections, or 0.00003 percent of the votes, were fraudulent.13
The chance of being struck by lightning is 0.0003 percent.
Similarly,
Minnesota is devoid of significant in-person voter fraud. The state has witnessed two close elections
and recounts in 2008 with the senate contest between Al Franken and Norm
Coleman and then in 2010 with Mark Dayton and Tom Emmer. In both cases the recounts failed to show any
real in-person voter fraud or impersonation at the polls. Even in its oral arguments before the
Minnesota Supreme Court in Coleman v Franken,16 Coleman’s
attorney Joseph Friedberg, when asked by a Justice whether widespread voter
fraud existed, conceded that it had not.
The
Minnesota Majority has alleged many instances of voter fraud over the
years. Mike Freeman, Hennepin County
Attorney, has investigated many of them in his jurisdiction. He found none involving in-person voter
fraud. Yes, 40 ineligible felons voted,
but voter ID would not prevent that because drivers’ licenses do not indicate
criminal records.17 In 2008 seven voter-impersonation charges were
investigated by Minnesota county attorneys; there were no convictions.18
Some
election fraud may exist, but it is de minimis in Minnesota. It takes place not at polling places but as
studies have repeatedly pointed out, in the absentee voting process which will
not be addressed by voter ID.
The Costs of Voter ID
What
are the costs associated with adopting the amendment? Minnesota will spend millions of dollars
issuing identifications for those who currently lack them. The Secretary of State has estimated that 215,000
Minnesota adults lack a state-issued ID. Minnesota and local governments will
spend millions of dollars to implement the new ID requirements. Additionally,
individuals will bear costs to secure these IDs. In Weinschenk v. State19 the Missouri Supreme Court noted that approximately 3
percent to 4 percent of the state population lacked an appropriate
identification to vote under its voter ID law.
It found that for many the costs of getting the ID were significant,
even if the state issued it for free.
Many individuals lacked state birth certificates, or were born out of
state, or naturalized, and they lacked the required documents to secure the
state ID. Many of these documents cost
money, in addition to the time and ability to navigate the bureaucracy to
obtain them.20 For these
reasons, the Missouri Supreme Court invalidated its voter ID law under its
state equal protection and right to vote clauses.
Many
of the individuals who lack valid IDs are the elderly in nursing homes, recent
immigrants to the state, students away at school, and those who have recently
moved into a new home or apartment.
Imagine trying to get your elderly mom or grandmother out of a nursing
home and into a state driver’s license office to get new photo identification. The costs to these individuals may be enough
to disenfranchise or discourage them from voting.
Legal Issues
Finally
there are the legal issues surrounding voter ID that could delay implementation
for years and cost million to defend.
The Supreme Court did uphold Indiana’s voter identification law, but it
was a facial challenge. The Court did note
that as applied challenges are possible if the law is discriminatory. In
Minnesota, challenges to the voter ID amendment could range from violation of
the single-subject rule21 to concerns over vagueness in determining
what constitutes a “valid” photo identification as described in the amendment’s
description.
Conclusion
The
voter ID amendment is bad public policy.
It runs against the grain of the state’s constitutional tradition of
expanding rights and encouraging voting, it is not needed given the absence of
significant in-person fraud, and it will be costly to the state and citizens.
Notes
1 Harper v.
Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966); State ex rel. South St. Paul v. Hetherington,
240 Minn. 298, 303, 61 N.W.2d 737, 741 (1953).
2 “Wisconsin Recall Exit Polls: How Different Groups Voted,” New York
Times (06/05/2012) http://tinyurl.com/7h7oey8
(site last visited on 07/23/2012).
3 David Schultz, “Less than Fundamental: The Myth of Voter Fraud and the Coming of the
Second Great Disenfranchisement,” 34 William
Mitchell L. Rev. 484 (2008); David Schultz, “Lies, Damn Lies, and Voter IDs: The Fraud of Voter Fraud,” Harv. L. & Pol. Rev. On-line (03/17/2008).
Available at http://tinyurl.com/28j5qcq (site last visited on 07/23/2012).
4 John Fund, Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens
Our Democracy. San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2004.
5 United States Senate Republican Policy Committee. “Putting
an End to Voter Fraud” (2005). Document located at http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/Feb1504VoterFraudSD.pdf (site
last visited on 01/02/2012).
6 Center for Democracy and Election Management,
American University. “Building
Confidence in U.S. Elections: Report of the Commission on Federal Election
Reform” (2005), [hereinafter Carter-Baker Commission]. Document located at http://www.american.edu/ia/cfer/report/full_report.pdf (site last visited on 07/23/2012).
7 Id. at 45.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id.
at 46.
11 Wendy
Weiser et al., Response to the Report of the 2005
Commission on Federal Election Reform. New York: Brennan Center for Justice
(09/19/2005), p. 9 (emphasis omitted). Available online at http://tinyurl.com/d7vamom (site
last visited on 07/23/2012).
12 Id.
13 Id. at 10.
14 553 U.S. 181 (2008)
15 Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita. 2006. 458
F.Supp.2d 775, 792 (D. Ind. 2006).
16 767 N.W.2d 453 (Minn. 2009).
17 Mike Freeman, “Hennepin
County Attorney: Historically We Expand
Voting Rights,” Star Tribune (02/20/ 2011).
18 Jay Weiner, “Voter
ID issue advances at Capitol, but facts continue to get in the way,” Minnpost, located at http://tinyurl.com/7fthfpg
(04/25/2011) (site last visited on 07/23/2012).
19 203 S.W.3d 201 (Mo. 2006).
20 Id. at 214-15.
21 Minnesota Constitution, Article IV, section 17: “No law shall embrace more than one subject,
which shall be expressed in its title.”
No comments:
Post a Comment