Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

The GOP’s War on Voting Is Working
Wisconsin and Minnesota are case studies in the difference between Republican and Democratic rule.
By Ari Berman

From the New York Times, emphasis by poster


In the spring of 2011, Minnesota’s Republican-controlled legislature passed a strict voter-ID bill much like Wisconsin’s. Governor Dayton, who noted that his predecessors had refused to sign any election-law changes that didn’t have bipartisan support, vetoed it. Republicans responded by putting a constitutional amendment requiring photo ID on the 2012 ballot.

Initial polling showed that 80 percent of Minnesotans supported the law, including 64 percent of Democrats. “I would say [80 percent] is probably as close to certainty as you may hope to get in regards to the passage of a constitutional amendment,” said the bill’s author, Representative Mary Kiffmeyer.

“I would rather lose my job than suppress votes to keep it.” —Jim Sensenbrenner, GOP congressman from Wisconsin

Dan McGrath, executive director of TakeAction Minnesota, was given the unenviable task of defeating the ballot initiative. McGrath grew up in Wausau, Wisconsin, before moving to the Twin Cities for college, and he knew that Minnesota was perilously close to emulating Walker’s Wisconsin. “Nearly everyone in the state believed a photo ID was the most common-sense solution to the problem of voter fraud,” McGrath says. “We needed to reframe the issue. We decided to never say the word ‘fraud’; instead we would only talk about the cost, complications, and consequences of the amendment.”

Eighty groups representing 1 million members, from the AARP to the AFL-CIO to the League of Women Voters, formed a massive coalition—Our Vote, Our Future—to defeat the amendment. They highlighted the stories of the 250,000 voters who could be disenfranchised by the law: not just young people and minorities, but also seniors and members of the military. One TV ad featured a young Iraq War vet, Alex Erickson, saying: “The voter-restriction amendment might seem like a good idea, but when the legislature put it on the ballot, they screwed it up. To them, military IDs aren’t valid IDs. Which means that this amendment takes away a basic freedom from those who gave a whole lot.”

The coalition also stressed how the law would cost up to $40 million, endanger the state’s very popular Election Day registration system, and make it harder for rural voters to cast a ballot—arguments that appealed to independents and moderates.

One defining TV spot featured Dayton and former governor Arne Carlson, a Republican, standing in front of the state capitol. “This voter-restriction amendment is way too costly,” Carlson said. “And it will keep thousands of seniors from voting,” Dayton added. “If you’re a Democrat, Republican, or independent, please vote no—this is not good for Minnesota,” Carlson said in closing. Such an ad would be inconceivable in Wisconsin.

In addition to the voter-ID amendment, Republicans put an amendment on the ballot to ban same-sex marriage, which rallied progressive voters against both initiatives under the slogan “Minnesota Nice: Vote No Twice.” “At every marriage-equality rally, we talked about voting,” recalls Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison. “At every voting rally, we talked about marriage equality.”

Our Vote, Our Future contacted more than 400,000 people about the amendment and changed the minds of nearly 1 million voters—an incredible organizing feat. On Election Day, 54 percent of Minnesotans opposed the voter-ID amendment, a wider margin than the one for Obama or against the same-sex marriage ban. It was the first time that a voter-ID law had been defeated at the ballot box.

There wasn’t one single reason why the amendment was defeated, but the general consensus was that making it harder to vote would imperil all of the qualities that had long made Minnesota, like Wisconsin in the days before Walker, a laboratory for progressive government. “When we treat democracy as its own discrete issue area, we’re bound to lose,” McGrath says. “When we connect a functioning democracy as an essential means to a greater end—higher wages, racial equality, income equality—that’s when it becomes an inspiring fight.”

The defeat of the voter-ID amendment ended the voting wars in Minnesota, at least for now. “The debate has been more or less settled here,” says Secretary of State Steve Simon. “Having lived through this 2012 upheaval, I’d hope that some people have learned their lesson about rash attacks on the right to vote.” The defeat also made it easier to pass progressive policies in many other areas. “There’s just no way that Minnesota would have made the advances it has if voter ID had passed,” McGrath says. “Expanding public health care, raising the minimum wage, banning the criminal-history box for job applicants, raising taxes in a progressive way—they would not have happened, because the political voice of those people directly impacted would all but have been eliminated. It’s hard to overstate the importance of that.” Finally, the amendment’s resounding defeat offers a road map for combating similar measures in other states, like Missouri. “It’s important that people who believe in voting rights know that you can win,” Ellison says.

Even so, winning on voting rights will be harder in 2016. This is the first presidential election in 50 years in which voters cannot rely on the full protections of the Voting Rights Act, and 17 states have new restrictions in place for the first time. In our two-tiered democracy, the gulf that separates states like Wisconsin and Minnesota is only getting larger.

letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.

Why not just throw away all the registers and signin sheets and open the doors to anyone that walk thru them.Just et the dead, the Illegals, The liars, the Green Carders, and all those on visa vote. Would make everything easy. Hell you could even vote once at every polling place in the State, no need to regulate something so unimportant to our government.

Keenan Loc: Central Coast California

Congratulations, John! You just won the Straw Man of the Week Award!

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

Truly a silly post. You had to work at it to find something so silly, didn't you?

We've had elections in this country since the Constitution was adopted, and the process has been consistently fair and honest--Until George Bush!

letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.

I think you already hold that title. Just continue living in your land of Denial.

Keenan Loc: Central Coast California

Please indicate specifically when I have ever used a straw man argument. If you cannot point to any specific incidences, then please concede that you just lied about me.

letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.

Then explain to me how opinion becomes a strawman argument, remember this is a discussion, not a debate. Then you must also concede every untruthful aussmption you have made about me. Have to go to work so maybe later or tomorrow, careful with the Fireworks.

Keenan Loc: Central Coast California

John, do you understand the definition of a "straw man"? You're attempt to deny you argued a straw man merely by trying to say that this is a discussion, not a debate, doesn't cut it. You are still denying.

You are certainly free to spew illogical and irrational arguments to your heart's content to support your positions, as you so frequently do on this forum as a matter of habit. That's your choice. But to then demand that people don't call you on your bullshit and whine like a baby whenever you are busted engaging in such misrepresentations and bullshit is asking too much. If you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you want to traffic in bullshit and irrational arguments, then expect to be called on it.

Zophman Loc: Northwest

Twardlow.....voter fraud is a serious issue and not one owned by any one political party.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=2216

And here is a nice summary of the history of voting fraud in the USA prior to President Bush.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_election_campaigns_in_the_19th_century

Enjoy . . .

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

"Myth of Voter Fraud
It is important to protect the integrity of our elections. But we must be careful not to undermine free and fair access to the ballot in the name of preventing voter fraud.

The Brennan Center’s ongoing examination of voter fraud claims reveal that voter fraud is very rare, voter impersonation is nearly non-existent, and much of the problems associated with alleged fraud in elections relates to unintentional mistakes by voters or election administrators. Our report "The Truth About Voter Fraud" reveals most allegations of fraud turn out to be baseless — and that of the few allegations remaining, most reveal election irregularities and other forms of election misconduct. Click here for additional resources on fraud.

Voter fraud is not acceptable in our elections, but we must find a balance and not impose solutions that make it harder for millions of eligible Americans to participate in our democracy."

Zophman Loc: Northwest

Is Chicago included in the study?

Zophman Loc: Northwest

In order to vote isn't it required to be registered in the state or one's residence? What states do not require any proof of citizenship to register? So if a state requires proof of citizenship why is requiring ID at the time of voting such a big deal for some folks? Sounds like more political bullshit to me!

btbg

How do you honestly think that requiring ID disenfranchises voters? Do you have proof of who you are? I do, and so does everyone that I know. Everyone has social security cards, they are now issued at birth. Most people have drivers licenses, etc... If you can't meet the minimal standard of proving who you are why should you be allowed to vote?

Remember, constitutionally it is the states that are supposed to make the voting rules for their state and define the rules concerning who votes and how they register and or show proof of who they are. As much as I disagree with the results in Minnesota, that is exactly how the system is supposed to work. The state proposes a rule and after much debate the public decides what they want or don't want. Now, good or bad, Minnesota has to live with their results.

However, other states, who have also followed the process legally and with reasonable debate have had the courts disallow the will of the people by ignoring what the Constitution actually says about voting and claiming that the constitution doesn't allow voter ID, an absurd claim.

The system works when it is allowed to, so what is it that you are afraid of when it comes to voter registration laws and IDs?

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

I have been registered to vote in at least five locations, over fifty-five years, and I have never been asked for proof of citizenship.

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas