« 2008 LOSER BONOFF CONSIDERING PAULSEN CHALLENGE | Home | WHERE’S RT? »
WILL MARK RITCHIE DO THE RIGHT THING?
By Luke Hellier | October 19, 2009
Since the recount from the 2008 election voters all over the state of Minnesota have urged the Democratic Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie, to step out and lead on the issue of election reform. Â Since the 2008 election, Ritchie has made no real progress on actual reform but instead travels around to other states to claim how great he is.
Former employee of the Minnesota Secretary of State’s Office and local scholar Kent Kaiser recently raised 15 recommendations to reform the election system in Minnesota.  Full report here.
The Center of the American Experiment published the report. Â Here are some of the highlights:
Executive Summary
The recount that followed the 2008 U.S. Senate election in Minnesota brought to light several weaknesses in the state’s election systems. Many observers have suggested that improvements are needed, but few have proposed anything more than small refinements. Based on observations and experiences of many experts from not only Minnesota but also from across the nation, we believe that some significant changes are needed.
Guided by the voters’ rights principles of access, accuracy, privacy, and integrity, this report sets forth fifteen recommendations in three areas: general election operations, absentee balloting, and recounts. The recommendations are summarized here, with rationales in the full report.
(I) General Election Operations
Recommendation One. Require voters to present a photo ID to access their ballots.
Recommendation Two. Eliminate partisanship and do away with political appointments in the Office of the Secretary of State
Recommendation Three. Eliminate partisanship from and increase effectiveness of the State Canvassing Board by changing its composition.
Recommendation Four. Check for interstate double voting.
(II) Absentee Balloting
Recommendation Five. Move the primary to an earlier date and extend the absentee ballot season.
Recommendation Six. Institute centralized administration of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) as it pertains to absentee ballots.
Recommendation Seven. Institute systems of barcoding and central processing of absentee ballots.
Recommendation Eight. Institute “no-excuse†absentee voting (but not so-called “early votingâ€).
Recommendation Nine. Make ballot-checking technology available to “in-person†absentee voters.
Recommendation Ten. Institute a provisional ballot system.
(III) Recounts
Recommendation Eleven. Require recounts to be done in a central location.
RecommendationTwelve. Recount only ballots counted on Election Day.
Recommendation Thirteen. In the case of “duplicate†ballots, count the duplicates, not the originals.
Recommendation Fourteen. Follow laws currently on the books and formally increase uniformity and specificity of procedures.
Recommendation Fifteen. Institute a run-off election for extremely close elections (but not so-called “instant run-off votingâ€).
Mark Ritchie needs to stand up and lead on the issue of election reform and make sure that each of our elections has the utmost of integrity.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 24 Comments »
24 Responses to “WILL MARK RITCHIE DO THE RIGHT THING?”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 20th, 2009 at 6:28 AM
There are some good ideas, some really foolish ideas, and some that are total non-starters here. The first item on the list, photo ID is the non-starter. The most foolish idea is counting ballots only counted on election day. This is basic. A voters right to vote can in no way be impaired by the subsequent act of an election official. The possibility that for whatever reason an election official may have failed to count a ballot on election day, and in no way be allowed to invalidate that ballot.
October 20th, 2009 at 7:41 AM
Hiram, you would be the expert on foolish ideas.
“The first item on the list, photo ID is the non-starter.”
Says who, Hiram the foolish moonbat? The guy who thinks abortion shouldn’t be outlawed, because potential lawbreakers would go to prison? The only person on the planet who is arguing that RT Rybak isn’t running for Governor?
Hiram, why to you talk so much crap? Does it taste goood?
October 20th, 2009 at 8:04 AM
“Says who, Hiram the foolish moonbat?”
Says me, the foolish moonbat. Democrats will always oppose voter ID because Democrats believe it discourages voter turnout. Actually, the theme of the report is the finding of ways to discourage voting and to limit the counting of votes. Republicans benefit from such policies, which is why they are in favor of them, and Democrats oppose them.
October 20th, 2009 at 8:16 AM
“it discourages voter turnout”
Oh no! Someone my have to carry their cumbersome ID to the polling place. Requiring people where shoes probably discourages a few voters too.
October 20th, 2009 at 8:27 AM
“Someone my have to carry their cumbersome ID to the polling place.”
Sure. And also because it also discriminates against people who don’t have ID’s and more generally people who, for whatever reason, fear interaction with the government.
October 20th, 2009 at 9:06 AM
And also because it also discriminates against people who don’t have ID’s
Do I have a right to a beer at the Metrodome (sorry, Mall of America Field) without an ID? I demand my beer without an ID!
and more generally people who, for whatever reason, fear interaction with the government.
What about the fear some have of fake ballots by people lying about where they live? Do those people have any rights?
October 20th, 2009 at 9:08 AM
The legislature did pass an omnibus election reform bill last session which was vetoed by the governor:
http://www.governor.state.mn.us/stellent/groups/public/documents/web_content/prod009549.pdf
Since the bill did contain a number of reforms similar to those proposed by Mr. Kaiser, including moving up the primary date, something the governor specifically opposed in his veto message, maybe these issues would be raised with the governor, who can do something about them, instead of with the secretary of state who can’t.
October 20th, 2009 at 9:13 AM
“Do I have a right to a beer at the Metrodome (sorry, Mall of America Field) without an ID?”
No. I am all in favor of requiring ID’s of anyone seeking to order a beer at a polling place. Finally, we can agree on something.
“What about the fear some have of fake ballots by people lying about where they live?”
Residence should be checked as part of the registration process. I am all in favor of that.
That does raise an interesting question which I am genuinely unclear about. What is checked with voter ID? Is the issue the identification of the voter? Or would the checkers have the power to verify additional information such as residence?
October 20th, 2009 at 9:59 AM
Hiram,
I agree with you that some of Kent Kaiser’s ideas are good and some are non-starters. Where I disagree with you is on the issue of requiring a photo ID. You need a photo ID to pretty much be a functioning member of society. A photo ID is required for banking, flying, buying alcohol or tobacco, driving, etc. Considering you just state a name when you go to vote, it’s not unreasonable for the polling worker to make sure you really are Fred Smith.
The other area where I think our system needs reform is in the area of same day registration. I think it’s absurd that our state allows one person to vouch for the identity and residence of another — let alone several people. If you don’t think vouching is an invitation for fraud and corruption, I think you’re naive.
I do agree with Kent that our primary system needs reform. It’s absurd to have primaries in the middle of September. While my next statement may be an affront to GOP and DFL activists, I think our state will produce better candidates with an earlier primary. Even though I’ve been a delegate since I was old enough to vote, I’ve never been comfortable with the idea that a small group of people are going to pick the candidate for the rest of the people — particularly when the candidate turns out to be a dud.
October 20th, 2009 at 10:25 AM
“You need a photo ID to pretty much be a functioning member of society.”
Really? I can’t remember the last time I have been asked to produce a photo ID. If you think of it, much of society is moving away from photo ID’s because they are a barrier to commerce. Stores for one, rarely ask you to produce an ID if you have a credit card.
“The other area where I think our system needs reform is in the area of same day registration.”
Registration is where we should address the issue of voter eligibility and voter fraud. I think registration should be checked, and am very open to the idea that the votes of same day registrants shouldn’t be counted until the registration is verified. That violates one of Kaiser’s principles, the one about counting election day ballots.
“It’s absurd to have primaries in the middle of September.”
That’s one of the two specific objections the governor raised in his veto message. But because of changes in federal law with respect to military voters, I think it’s generally assumed by both parties that the primary will be moved to August.
October 20th, 2009 at 10:54 AM
Hiram,
I thought the idea of not requiring a photo idea had to do with discriminating against people at the bottom of the socio-economic strata who do not have bank accounts and cannot afford the burden of paying for an ID. If you have sufficient credit and assets to have a credit card, then surely you can also purchase a photo ID.
It seems to me that your concerns have more to do with people who are anti-government. I thought those people were all on the right anyway. So if that’s the case then photo ID would discriminate against anti-government right wingers and not people in your party.
Also, I don’t know where you shop but I’m frequently ID’d for purchases with a credit card. With rampant identity fraud, many retailers ask for a photo ID for all credit card purchases.
With respect to the two other issues you commented about, I think the practice of allowing one person to vouch for another should be eliminated. If you want to register on the same day, you should be required to submit to the same voter registration checks people who pre-register submit to. Finally, I’d move the primary up as soon as practicable. I don’t think late primaries benefit anyone. I’m concerned that even an August primary is too late.
October 20th, 2009 at 11:23 AM
“It seems to me that your concerns have more to do with people who are anti-government. I thought those people were all on the right anyway.”
No, there are plenty of them on the left too. And I would have the same objections if they discriminated against the right too.
“I don’t know where you shop but I’m frequently ID’d for purchases with a credit card.”
Left wing stores, I guess. Lately I am not even asked for my signature when I use a credit card. That’s less security than is required for voting, but the reason for the policy is similar. The merchants want to remove barriers to the transaction. In any event, demanding ID’s won’t really address the issue of identity fraud effectively, because the ID’s themselves are fraudulent. ID fraud is so common because fake ID’s are so easy to come by.
As for vouchers, I am very open to discussion as to ways the system may be improved. For me, that’s the opposite of a non-starter. Issues of voter eligibility verification should be addressed at the registration stage.
Concerning primaries, Republicans have generally favored late primaries. As I noted earlier, that was one of two specific objections Gov. Pawlenty raised in his veto message. Because of changes in federal law, I think both parties will be on board with moving the primaries to August, before the state fair.
October 20th, 2009 at 9:58 PM
Hiram, you are completely full of BS.
“Lately I am not even asked for my signature when I use a credit card.”
The credit card is an ID, dolt.
“The merchants want to remove barriers to the transaction.”
That’s a business decision by the merchant, dolt.
“In any event, demanding ID’s won’t really address the issue of identity fraud effectively, because the ID’s themselves are fraudulent. ID fraud is so common because fake ID’s are so easy to come by”
It will still cut down on voter fraud, dolt. And fake IDs are easy to come by, but they also look like fakes IDs.
“Residence should be checked as part of the registration process. I am all in favor of that.”
Residence verification can show that John Smith lives a 312 Oak st, but it doesn’t mean the person voting lives at 312 Oak St, because there is nothing to prove that the person voting is John Smith. That why we need voter ID, dolt.
October 21st, 2009 at 12:31 AM
Hiram, this link (from NRO), but is pretty convincing that you have many unfounded fears for Voter ID checks:
xttp://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTZmNzViZGJjOThmN2QzNmMzNGNiMmNmODE4MDZhZjk
“In two years of litigation, lawyers were unable, as the Indiana judge noted, to introduce “evidence of a single, individual Indiana resident who will be unable to vote†as a result of the photo-ID law. In Georgia, the ACLU sent out a desperate e-mail asking their contacts to find an individual who could not vote because of the voter-ID requirement — but they could not find one. And none of the organizations like the NAACP that sued could produce a single member unable to vote. The Georgia court found that the failure to identify any such individuals was “particularly acute in light of Plaintiffs’ contention that a large number of Georgia voters lack acceptable Photo ID.â€
October 21st, 2009 at 6:07 AM
“The credit card is an ID, dolt.”
Not mine. It’s basically a piece of plastic with my name on it. Anyone could use it.
“That’s a business decision by the merchant, dolt.
And not requiring id’s is a political decision made by the government for many of the same reasons.
“It will still cut down on voter fraud, dolt. And fake IDs are easy to come by, but they also look like fakes IDs.”
I don’t believe there is a lot of voter ID fraud, and no one seems to have evidence that there is.
“Residence verification can show that John Smith lives a 312 Oak st, but it doesn’t mean the person voting lives at 312 Oak St, because there is nothing to prove that the person voting is John Smith. That why we need voter ID, dolt.”
So ID proponents want us to check identification, not residence
October 21st, 2009 at 6:13 AM
“In two years of litigation, lawyers were unable, as the Indiana judge noted, to introduce “evidence of a single, individual Indiana resident who will be unable to vote†as a result of the photo-ID law.”
I think lots of people don’t have photo ID’s.
October 21st, 2009 at 8:34 PM
“Not mine. It’s basically a piece of plastic with my name on it. Anyone could use it.”
Your Credit Card does have your signature on it doesn’t it? The use of a PIN is being used more an more in lieu of a signature, which again is a business decision.
“I don’t believe there is a lot of voter ID fraud, and no one seems to have evidence that there is.”
That sounds a lot like the defense used by ACORN.
“Said ID proponents want us to check identification, not residence.”
Where did you read proponents do not want to check residence? The for registered voters, name and adress would be on recored. ID would make sure the the person voting is the person listed on the registration.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:02 AM
“Your Credit Card does have your signature on it doesn’t it?”
It does, but many merchants don’t ask for a signatiure. And when they do, any scrawl seems to be acceptable. The signature in a credit card transaction isn’t used for identification purposes anymore. When merchants have a signature, credit card companies assume liability for paying the merchant if the debtor defaults. When they don’t, the liability on default is assumed by the merchant.
“That sounds a lot like the defense used by ACORN.”
And a good one it is.
“Where did you read proponents do not want to check residence?”
Nowhere, and it’s a question I have asked before. I want to know what is checked during the process. Identification, or in addition, residence? You seem to be saying yes which answers my question.
I am against any ID process that would result in the turning away of voters at the polling place. That’s just not an expansion power I am willing to turn over to election judges.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:24 AM
On the Democratic side, Voter ID at the polling place is a deal breaker. If Republicans want to make requiring voter ID a necessary condition for before any other election reform is considered then no election reform is possible. Since the status quo has resulted in Democratic majorities in both houses of the legislature and Democrats in every constitutional office except governor, I don’t see the status quo as being so bad.
But even though current rules work to my advantage, I am very open to all kinds of reform proposals, including those which address voter security. I think a number of the recommendations on the list are worth pursuing. And the fact is the election reform bill, supported by Ritchie, passed by both houses of the legislature, and vetoed by the governor for mostly unexplained reasons, addressed many of those issues.
If Republicans are sincere in their desire for election reform they should come to the table and negotiate the issues seriously and in good faith. They won’t get everything they want, but I think they will find they can get quite a few changes that will improve the quality of elections in Minnesota.
October 22nd, 2009 at 7:59 AM
Hiram, I find it odd that while the DFL wants to embrace ‘motor voter’ where you are automatically registered when you get your driver’s license, but then find it offensive to require the same voter to show that license before they vote?
“Governor Tim Pawlenty vetoed the 21st Century Voter Registration Law, which would have automatically registered Minnesotans to vote when applying for a driver’s license, instruction permit or identification card.”
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:20 AM
Hiram, polls typically show that 75-80% of people favor voter ID. How do you consider that a non-starter?
“The signature in a credit card transaction isn’t used for identification purposes anymore.”
They are used millions of times every hour.
“But even though current rules work to my advantage,”
How so Hiram, do you not have an ID, or do you benefit when people vote fraudulently? This shouldn’t be a left v right issue, it’s a matter of right v wrong.
Hiram, it’s people like you that make all Democrats worthy to be spat upon.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:57 AM
‘I find it odd that while the DFL wants to embrace ‘motor voter’ where you are automatically registered when you get your driver’s license, but then find it offensive to require the same voter to show that license before they vote?”
What’s so odd about it? To begin with, I have no problem at all with verification at the registration stage. That’s where I believe issues of voter security should be addressed. Do you think registrations secured at the time someone obtains a driver license are insecure? If you do, I think we should be very open to any suggestion for improving the process.
“They are used millions of times every hour.”‘
They are used, but not for purposes of identification. Check it out the next time you go to Target. For smaller transactions, they don’t ask for a signature at all. For larger transactions, they ask for a signature, but they don’t check the signature they receive against the card. And as I noted earlier, any scrawl will do.
“How so Hiram, do you not have an ID, or do you benefit when people vote fraudulently?”
I was referring to election laws as a whole, particularly in Minnesota. This used to be conventional wisdom, but I think there is a lot of evidence to support it. Democratic voters have more problems voting than Republican voters. So it follows that the more aggressive the search for votes and voter intent, the better off Democrats will be. That’s why careful recounts which find votes that might not be otherwise counted, tend to favor Democrats. If you notice, some but not all the recommendations in the posting above would limit the counting of votes from which voter intent can be discerned, also something of a non-starter with Democrats.
I really don’t think people cast votes under false identification to any significant extent. I think the vast majority of voter fraud that does occur happens elsewhere in the process (such as the improper use of absentee ballots), and I suspect it favors Republicans, but I am not having a cow over it. When three million votes are cast, you are going to have problems, and if we insist on perfect elections we will never get elections decided at all.
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:00 AM
“Governor Tim Pawlenty vetoed the 21st Century Voter Registration Law, which would have automatically registered Minnesotans to vote when applying for a driver’s license, instruction permit or identification card.”
Did he say why? For me, the issues with registration are verification of identification and residence. Those are both things driver license issuance should address as well. Does the governor feel the driver license process doesn’t sufficiently verify the applicant’s identity and residence? If so, he should consider proposing or at least accepting legislation that addresses those two very important issues.
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:15 AM
Here are some comments:
“Eliminate partisanship from and increase effectiveness of the State Canvassing Board by changing its composition.”
The canvassing board worked extremely well during the recount. Because it’s members were so highly respected across the political spectrum, the recount took on a high degree of credibility.
“Recommendation Four. Check for interstate double voting.”
I am very favorably disposed on this. I think it will catch snowbird Republican voters.
“Recommendation Five. Move the primary to an earlier date and extend the absentee ballot season.”
Traditionally, something Republicans have objected to, because of changes in federal law, this now seems a done deal.
“Institute centralized administration of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) as it pertains to absentee ballots.”
Seems kind of inside baseball, but I am generally in favor of more careful scrutiny of overseas voters. I find it curious that Republicans are.
“Institute systems of barcoding and central processing of absentee ballots.”
Seems like a good idea.
“Institute “no-excuse†absentee voting (but not so-called “early votingâ€).”
I wonder why early voting is a non-starter here. In Minnesota, the goal is discerning voter intent, not making voters jump through hoops. Let’s remember the government works for us, we don’t work for the government.
“Make ballot-checking technology available to “in-person†absentee voters.”
Fine with me. Early voting does that too.
“Institute a provisional ballot system.”
I would want to see the details.
(III) Recounts
“Require recounts to be done in a central location.”
Voting is a very local thing. But as a practical matter, central counting might favor Democrats so in partisan terms, it’s worth considering.
“Recount only ballots counted on Election Day.”
Not going to happen. Ballots should be counted whether or not an election official manages to count them on election day.
“In the case of “duplicate†ballots, count the duplicates, not the originals.”
I am certainly against counting ballots twice.
“Follow laws currently on the books and formally increase uniformity and specificity of procedures.”
Sure, but the devil is in the details. The more specific the procedures, the more grounds for disputes. And you can’t increase uniformity in things that are inherently non-uniformity. People will always find innovative ways to screw up.
Recommendation Fifteen. Institute a run-off election for extremely close elections (but not so-called “instant run-off votingâ€).
Mark Ritchie needs to stand up and lead on the issue of election reform and make sure that each of our elections has the utmost of integrity.