I was denied the vote

I try hard to keep my posts free of my political and religious views, but find myself compelled to speak on this issue. 

Back in the olden days, when I was at college, I lived near the University of Minnesota. Like many, if not most, students, I didn't change my driver's license to reflect my school address. Then, as now, Minnesota allowed same day voter registration. My roommate and I, both legally residents in our precinct, went down to vote, with what we thought was proof of our address in hand. We had licenses, but they were for our homes, not school, so they proved identity, but not residence. She and I had our signed lease for proof of address. Wrong. I still don't know why, but they wouldn't take the lease as proof. We could submit a fee statement from the U with our address. The problem with that is that the statements didn't show addresses! I can't remember what else they'd take, or why we didn't have it, but we weren't allowed to register. And we had no way to get to where our parents lived. So here we were, ready, willing, and eager to do our civic duty, and legally where we were supposed to be, and not allowed to vote.  I'd forgotten that for a long time, but it's an important item to note in our debate over voter ID.

Proponents of the measure say it's easy to get ID, that "everyone" can get one easily, that "everyone" needs one for daily life.  (Remember multiple choice tests?  When they told you to beware of "always" and "never" statements?  Still holds true.)  It isn't always easy to get a current ID.  What if you're in a homeless shelter?  By law, you are entitled to a vote.  What if your housing is uncertain and you move frequently?  You are still entitled to vote.  And if you're a person fleeing domestic violence, you don't want your address publically known - but you can still vote.  In Washington County (and I'm assuming others), there's a generic address set up for those victims, but it's probably not where they actually live.  I haven't verified - but I've heard - that police officers, parole officers, etc, use work addresses on their licenses to protect their families - makes sense.  If true, that renders a license invalid for them to prove residence.  And remember a license doesn't confirm residence - only identity.  Many elderly in nursing homes no longer have current IDs - but they get to vote.  Proponents say you need ID to see your doctor. I don't know about you, but I don't have to present ID - I have to present proof of insurance.  I know my mother only needs her Medicare card.  If you already have your benefits established, you don't need a current ID to keep them.  As you can read in this story, http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/169055996.html, it's sometimes incredibly difficult to re-establish an ID.  You could ask how people got an ID in the first place, and it's a fair question.  I don't know.  The point is they did, but now can't.  A license also doesn't prove eligibility to vote. My mother, a legal immigrant, didn't become a US citizen for quite a while.  But she had a license.  She never tried, but she might have been able to register.

Right now, many of these folks  mentioned above vote by voucher.  Someone from the nursing home or homeless shelter vouches that they live where they say they do.  Perhaps this will continue - perhaps not. 

I've voted absentee before, when out of town on election day.  How will that work?  I didn't have to prove my identity to do it.  How many of you want to cut out military voters serving overseas?

Minnesota leads the nation (or close to it) in voter turnout - an excellent thing.  Many voters use same-day registration.  Will that go away?  Do we really want it to?  Tens of thousands - if not hundreds of thousands - used same-day registration in 2008.

NOTHING in the amendment addresses vouching, absentee balloting, same-day registration or how those "provisional" ballots will work. Yep, that's right.  Those lawmakers pushing this didn't even get around to making rules on how it will work.  The amendment says government issued ID.  It doesn't say a driver's license - remember how it doesn't prove residence?? I'm not willing to trust that it'll all work out somehow. I also don't like the idea of my name being attached to my provisional ballot until I can provide some proof of residence.   Do you want someone else to know how you voted?  Didn't think so.  Want to wait days for elections results?  Didn't think so on that, either.

And this whole thing seems like a solution in search of a problem.  I found a report, http://www.ceimn.org/files/Facts%20about%20Ineligible%20Voting%20and%20Voter%20Fraud%20in%20Minnesota_with%20appendix.pdf, that surveyed county attorneys all over Minnesota.  NONE reported anything approaching a voter fraud issue, with the exception of felons voting when not eligible to do so.  I'll grant that this is an issue, albeit a small one, but much of it seems to be an education issue.  Officials state that parole officers are possibly failing to tell felons they can't vote.   And legally fraud requires intent.  So if you don't know you can't vote, it's not fraud.  I've heard proponents say election officials can run IDs though some kind of system that will check "the" voter database and stop those not eligible.  The trouble with that one is that there is no one database.  There are quite a number, depending on what ID (license, passport, military ID, etc. ) is used - plus you'd need to connect into a list of felons.  Is that at state or national level?  Or both?  Is it current? Think of the expense to get equipment and software and training to all polling places. Think of the expense of connecting to those secure databases. It's not like you're looking in a phone book - these databases are, thank goodness, tightly guarded.  How will that cost be covered?  And what happens if - or should I say when? -systems go down?  And how would this prove residence, anyway?  There are legal records when you buy property, but I don't think the government is notified when a lease is signed!

I posted a question a couple of weeks ago, asking how voter ID would prevent felons from voting.  I heard from supportors and opponents.  But not a single supporter showed me any data holding up their claims of illegal immigrants voting in large numbers or widespread fraud in Minnesota.  And no one could tell me how ID would prevent felons from voting.

This all leads  me to logically conclude that I find no reason to support this amendment, and plenty of reasons to oppose it.  I would far prefer to have a few vote who might not be eligible to than deny a vote to hundreds or thousands of those who are eligible but don't meet whatever those  ID requirements turn out to be.