Minnesota: Judge hears senator’s photo ID complaint against Minnesota Secretary of State Ritchie | StarTribune.com

A state senator who sponsored the proposed photo ID constitutional amendment took his beef against Secretary of State Mark Ritchie to a judge on Friday. Sen. Scott Newman, R-Hutchinson, filed a complaint accusing Ritchie, a DFLer who opposes the amendment, of using his website, staff and state resources to promote his political opposition to the measure. An Administrative Law Judge heard arguments in the case Friday without making a decision. Lawyers for the two sides are to submit further briefs before the judge, Bruce Johnson, decides if there is probable cause for the case to go forward.

Minnesota: Voter ID foes decry unfairness to seniors | Winona Daily News

For nearly 70 years, Christeen Stone has voted in every election without having to present a document to prove she is a qualified voter. Stone has voted in the same precinct since 1944, when she moved into her Maplewood home. That’s one reason she said she strongly objects to a proposed constitutional amendment that would require Minnesota voters to present photo identification at the polls. “It’s just an insult to people who have voted all their lives,” said Stone, 91. “They’ve been good citizens, and then to go in and be suspects in their own country, I don’t like that.“ Opponents of the constitutional amendment claim the proposed requirement would it make harder, if not impossible, for thousands of people to cast a ballot. They say senior citizens are among those most likely to face hurdles, because many of them cannot readily produce the documents to prove their identity.

Minnesota: Judge hears senator’s photo ID complaint against Minnesota Secretary of State Ritchie | StarTribune.com

A state senator who sponsored the proposed photo ID constitutional amendment took his beef against Secretary of State Mark Ritchie to a judge on Friday. Sen. Scott Newman, R-Hutchinson, filed a complaint accusing Ritchie, a DFLer who opposes the amendment, of using his website, staff and state resources to promote his political opposition to the measure. An Administrative Law Judge heard arguments in the case Friday without making a decision. Lawyers for the two sides are to submit further briefs before the judge, Bruce Johnson, decides if there is probable cause for the case to go forward.

Minnesota: Absentee voting more popular this year; state sees requests top 100K month before election | Bemidji Pioneer

An increasing number of Minnesota voters, including those in Beltrami County, are requesting absentee ballots in advance of November’s general election. “We’re having a good incidence of absentee requests,” said Kay Mack, auditor/treasurer for Beltrami County. “We’ve sent out a large number of them considering the election is four weeks away.” Secretary of State Mark Ritchie said Thursday that more than 100,000 Minnesota voters have requested absentee ballots. Of those, 41,208 have already been returned by the voter and accepted. The number of absentee ballot requests in Beltrami County wasn’t immediately available, but Mack said her office has received more compared to the last presidential election. In 2008, there were 1,888 absentee ballots cast. That’s slightly more than 8 percent of the 23,313 total ballots cast in the election. Beltrami County could easily top the 2008 numbers. “The big push comes the last week or two,” Mack said.

Minnesota: ‘Voter ID’ will cost as much as $500,000 | DL-Online

If the Voter ID amendment passes, it could cost Becker County as much as $500,000, according to Becker County Auditor-Treasurer Ryan Tangen, who is in charge of local elections. The Voter ID Act is one of two constitutional amendments (the other is an anti-gay marriage amendment) placed on the Nov. 6 ballot by the Republican-led Legislature. That $500,000 estimate is based on a variety of factors, including $65,000 for equipment needed by the county to make photo IDs and $120,000 for election equipment that will be needed by the county’s 10 townships that now vote by mail-in ballot.

Minnesota: Voter ID opponents call it costly, unnecessary | Duluth News Tribune

Most of the argument about whether Minnesota should require separate photo ID cards for people to vote has focused on how much voter fraud occurs in the state. Supporters of voter ID cards say the cards will stop widespread fraud. Opponents say the evidence that shows fraud is almost nonexistent and that the card requirement might keep some people from voting. But Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, a DFLer, and some county auditors say there are several other problems with the amendment that most people have never heard of — most notably the cost to taxpayers. Ritchie said the state is in for some major election headaches trying to account for absentee, overseas military and even rural voters who now vote by mail. And he said it virtually will eliminate same-day registration, which has been credited with pushing Minnesota voter participation to among the highest in the nation.

Minnesota: Voter ID: Close elections drive amendment battle in Minnesota | TwinCities.com

A dozen years ago, proving who you were at the polls wasn’t a big issue. But then came the presidential election of 2000, which spotlighted mechanical and other flaws in Florida’s vote-counting system and ended with the U.S. Supreme Court intervening to declare a winner. That high-stakes drama touched off a re-examination of election processes and led several states over the next decade to tighten ID requirements to reduce the possibility of fraud. By 2011, voter ID was “the hottest topic of legislation in the field of elections,” according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In Minnesota, voters in November will be deciding whether to move from having no voter ID requirement to adopting one of the strictest in the nation.

Minnesota: Divisions persist on need for Minnesota voter ID amendment | SFGate

Supporters of a proposed Minnesota voter ID amendment say it will protect the integrity of the state’s election system, while opponents point to several studies finding the kind of fraud the proposed requirement is designed to prevent is extremely rare. Weeks before voters get the chance to decide whether to approve an amendment to the state constitution to require a photo ID at the polls, deep divisions persist about whether it’s needed, Minnesota Public Radio reported. Dan McGrath, who runs the pro-amendment campaign Protect My Vote, said the group has found that Minnesota topped all states in the number of voter fraud convictions linked to a single election — nearly 200 convictions from 2008, when Democrat Al Franken defeated Republican Norm Coleman in the U.S. Senate race by a razor-thin 312 vote margin after a recount and court challenges. McGrath said that means fraud “played a role” in the race.

Minnesota: Coalition of church leaders oppose proposed Voter ID amendment | TwinCities.com

A coalition of religious leaders opposed to the state’s proposed photo ID amendment announced an aggressive outreach effort Thursday, Sept. 13, to persuade people of faith to vote No. The “Faith in Democracy” campaign aims to engage 50,000 people of faith on the issue through phone calls, door-knocking and direct mail. The effort is part of the “Prophetic Voices” initiative launched this spring by several groups including Jewish Community Action, ISAIAH, His Works United and the Center for Public Ministry at United Theological Seminary.

Minnesota: Photo ID edict could hit 215,000 Minnesota voters | StarTribune.com

Showing photo identification is a no-brainer for the vast majority of Minnesotans who have the magic card in their wallets and purses and produce it regularly to conduct even the most routine transactions. But a strict ID requirement, such as is being proposed in a constitutional amendment this November, can be a significant barrier for anyone who lives off the ID grid. According to the Minnesota secretary of state’s office, that number could run as high as 84,000. In addition to the 2.7 percent of registered voters who appear to lack a state-issued ID, the office estimates that another 4 percent — 131,000 — hold IDs that do not show their current voting address. The amendment would require all voters to show government-approved photo IDs before casting their ballots.

Minnesota: Will the voting amendment dismantle Minnesota’s current election system? | MinnPost

Ever since the Legislature first began considering the proposed voting amendment early this year, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and his staff have used nearly every venue available to hammer away on one key point. The innocuous-sounding requirement that voters must show a photo ID at the polls, they say, is only a small part of far-reaching language that actually would end up dismantling or significantly altering absentee balloting and Minnesota’s popular Election Day registration system. Ritchie made that point again Thursday in a MinnPost Community Voices piece, urging every voter to “carefully study the language of the proposed amendment on elections …. You might be surprised.” But the big question: Is Ritchie right in his interpretation of what the proposed constitutional amendment would do? Many voting amendment opponents think so, including a coalition of groups and individuals that include former Vice President Walter Mondale, former Gov. Arne Carlson and several public officials. The group Our Vote Our Future is leading the anti-amendment campaign.

Minnesota: Catholics, Lutherans and voter ID | StarTribune.com

Me to editor: “Please headline this column ‘Lutherans and Catholics agree: Vote “no” on amendment.'” Editor to me: “Really?! That’s a big story!” Me to editor: “Well … it’s not that amendment. And it’s not the Lutheran and Catholic churches’ official governing bodies. But yeah, I think it’s a big deal.” When this state’s two leading faith-based social service agencies, Lutheran Social Services and Catholic Charities, speak out in opposition to a proposed constitutional change in voting requirements, this long-ago religion reporter smells a story. Many Lutheran synods and Minnesota’s Roman Catholic dioceses have staked out opposite sides of the proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage that’s on the Nov. 6 Minnesota ballot. Their differences have been widely trumpeted in the 15 months since that amendment went on this year’s ballot. Some Minnesotans might not appreciate the religious overtone the marriage amendment debate has acquired. But it was to be expected. Marriage is a matter about which religions claim considerable authority. What isn’t as well-known is that some prominent church folk are also talking about the “other” amendment. The governing boards of both Lutheran Social Services (LSS) and Catholic Charities of St. Paul and Minneapolis (CC) think the proposed photo-ID-to-vote requirement ought to be rejected.

Minnesota: Local election officials see added duties, costs in proposed Voter ID amendment | St. Cloud Times

Local election officials are bracing for an expected increase in work load if Minnesota voters approve a constitutional amendment requiring voters to present photo identification at the polls. There are still many unknowns about how the new requirements would be carried out. But county auditors say it’s clear there would be added duties, changes in the ballot-counting process and possibly the need to purchase electronic equipment for all polling places to verify voters’ eligibility. Most county officials have steered clear of the political debate over whether the proposed amendment is good public policy. But they are vocal about the costs and complications they expect if it passes. “There’s going to be a lot of political denial that this thing is expensive,” said Jeff Spartz, executive director of the Association of Minnesota Counties.

Minnesota: Campaigns over voter ID amendment ramp up | Minnesota Public Radio News

Now that the Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that a proposed constitutional amendment calling for voters to present ID at the polls on the November ballot, groups for and against it are ramping up their campaigns to win voters. Supporters of the proposed requirement point to public opinion surveys that have consistently shown it has strong support. Opponents are trying to convince voters it could disenfranchise some Minnesotans and that there is scant evidence of voter fraud. One visible reminder of the amendment battle already underway is a simple billboard along Interstate 94 near Albertville, Minn., with a stunning proclamation: Minnesota is “number one” for voter fraud. But that message is simply not true, said Joe Mansky, elections director for Ramsey County.

Minnesota: Group opposing photo Minnesota ID totals up potential costs | StarTribune.com

A proposed constitutional amendment that will require voters to show photo ID and make a series of other changes to state elections will be costly to governments and individuals, an anti-ID organization said. The costs to the state for providing free IDs, to local governments for instituting provisional balloting and upgrading technology, and to individuals for obtaining underlying documents such as birth certificates will be significant, said a report from Citizens for Election Integrity Minnesota and David Schultz, law professor at Hamline University.  Here is the breakdown of costs, according to the group’s report. The state would pay $8.25 million over four years to provide free IDs, as the amendment requires, and a one-time cost of $1.7 to $5.3 million to educate voters about the change. The counties, which administer local elections, would have to spend between $23 million and $53 million to institute a new system of provisional balloting, to provide the technology for instant verification of voters and to convert mail-in voters to in-person voters. Some of these costs would be continuing costs, the report states.

Minnesota: Twin Cities mayors say voter ID requirement expensive, restrictive | Minnesota Public Radio

The Democratic mayors of Minnesota’s two largest cities are speaking out against a proposed voter identification constitutional amendment. During a state Capitol news conference today, mayors Chris Coleman of St. Paul and R.T. Rybak of Minneapolis warned that the proposed change in state election law will be expensive for their cities. They also claim it will restrict the rights of many eligible voters. The mayor of St. Paul offered numerous adjectives describing the effort to require all eligible Minnesotans to show photo identification in order to vote. Within just a couple of minutes, Mayor Chris Coleman said the amendment is terrible, unnecessary, restrictive, cynical and wrongheaded. Coleman is also concerned about the cost to his city, which he estimated at $870,000 just for first-year implementation.

Minnesota: Federal Court Rejects Challenge to Election Day Registration | Election Academy

While observers in Minnesota await the fate of two separate court challenges to a proposed voter ID amendment, a federal court recently rejected an attempt to limit the use of Election Day registration (EDR) in the state for 2012 and beyond. The suit – brought by seven voters, State Rep. Sondra Erickson (R-Princeton), the Minnesota Voters Alliance and the Minnesota Freedom Council – asked the federal court to require state and local officials to verify the eligibility of EDR voters before counting their ballots in 2012 and in any election thereafter. The suit also challenged state law on voting by disabled individuals under guardianship – in particular, the presumption that such individuals have the right to vote unless a court orders otherwise. Both procedures, they claim dilute the effect of legitimate voters by exposing the election system to potentially ineligible voters.

Minnesota: An expensive proposition: Voter ID passage could increase Minnesota county’s election-related costs | The Stillwater Gazette

Washington County faces spending more than $750,000 for new voting machines and a central counting machine in 2013. But the county also stares at a hidden cost next year if Minnesota voters approve a proposed state constitutional amendment requiring voters show identification at the polls. That was the message from Property Records and Taxpayer Services Director Jennifer Wagenius Tuesday during a Board of Commissioners budget workshop. Although the majority of the department’s projected 2013 revenue, more than $5.684 million, comes from non-levy fees collected by recording documents, assessments and revenue collected at license centers, Wagenius said her office will rely more on levy revenue to replace election equipment.

Minnesota: Judge interrupts voter ID spin | StarTribune.com

For political spinmeisters, timing can be tricky. You never know when something like a federal judge’s ruling might disrupt your spin cycle. That apparently happened Friday to the folks at Protect My Vote, the group promoting the amendment that would allow only people bearing government-issued photo identification cards to vote. They issued an email at the crack of dawn to journalists upbraiding DFL Secretary of State Mark Ritchie for saying that if adopted, their amendment would impede Election Day voter registration for many Minnesotans. “No legislators have stated any intent to eliminate Election Day registration,” said Dan McGrath, Protect My Vote’s chair and the executive director of the conservative advocacy group Minnesota Majority.

Minnesota: Fine print within photo ID proposal could loom large | Grand Forks Herald

The idea of a photo ID requirement for voters sounds simple and does well in polling, but the fine print of Minnesota’s proposed constitutional amendment suggests that the impact on the state’s election system could be complex and significant. Questions lurk behind the snappy title: What exactly is a “valid government-issued ID”? How will a new system of “provisional voting” work? What is the impact of “substantially equivalent identity and eligibility” standards on the state’s popular system of Election Day registration? None of the questions is unsolvable, and supporters say any changes will be for the good. But the complexity behind the “photo ID” catchphrase creates plenty of room to vigorously debate what the change will mean.

Minnesota: A recap of the Supreme Court argument over the voter ID amendment, and why it matters | MinnPost

I grew up with an eye on Minnesota politics and spent summers interning at the state capitol watching the floor debates on TV; but on July 17th in Saint Paul I had a front row seat.  The Minnesota Supreme court heard a challenge to a proposed constitutional amendment that would require valid, state-issued photo identification for voting in Minnesota, and I was courtside. The room was abuzz and the Justices were beyond well-prepared. The lawyers on both sides had barely introduced their arguments when the storm of questions rained down from the bench and struck to the core of the issue.  It was intimidating. At trial was whether the amendment question, as it is being put to the voters, is misleading. The lawsuit, brought by the League of Women voters and a coalition including Jewish Community Action (where I am on staff as an organizer), was argued by Bill Pentalovich and a team from Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand. The last case that I heard Bill Pentalovich argue was a mock trial of Abraham held at Adath Jeshurun’s Shabbat Morning Program when I was a bar mitzvah student. Abe didn’t stand a chance. To bring down photo ID, the team from Maslon argued that the discrepancy between the ballot question and the actual amendment is deceptive and should be struck from the ballot.  The short ballot question does not accurately reflect the drastic impact that the amendment will have on our voting system.

Minnesota: Let’s play voter fraud whack-a-mole! | The Washington Post

Voter fraud whack-a-mole continues. Remember the bottom line here: no one has found convincing evidence of any recent, significant level of voter fraud. The cases that have been alleged often turn out to be phony. And the voter suppression “remedies” Republicans like don’t have anything to do with whatever fraud is generally alleged. So: the latest conservative talking point is the claim that there were a bunch of felons who voted improperly in Minnesota in 2008 — perhaps enough to have flipped the very close Senate race in that cycle from Democratic Al Franken to Republican Norm Coleman. Conservative columnist Byron York points out correctly that flipping that seat would have been hugely consequential; the Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank, and other legislation might well have failed if Dems had lost just one more Senate seat. But the accusations are old and long ago debunked. The evidence that York discusses is in a new book by a conservative journalist and a former Bush administration lawyer — charges that were pretty convincingly rebutted when they were made back in 2010.

Minnesota: How could voter ID impact rural Minnesota elections? | Morris Sun Tribune

This November, Minnesota residents will be asked to decide whether voters should be required to present valid, government-issued photographic proof of identity prior to casting a ballot. While it is not the job of local election officials to determine whether this concept is valid, it is the responsibility of all local units of government, ranging from the smallest township to the largest county, to be properly prepared to administer elections in compliance with all applicable laws. In order to be fully prepared for the implementation of the proposed amendment, the Greater Minnesota Advisory Panel (GMAP), a voluntary association of representatives of rural townships, cities, counties, and school districts seeking to work with both the legislative and executive branches of the state government on rural concerns), believes it is important that local officials and voters understand the details and potential impact of what they are being asked to approve, and how local governments must prepare now even though the amendment has not yet been approved nor enabling legislation enacted.

Minnesota: State Supreme Court hears ballot naming debate | The Minnesota Daily

On Tuesday, the Minnesota Supreme Court heard two cases on the same issue: Who has the final authority to write the titles of amendment ballot questions? Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, a Democrat, changed the ballot titles of both the proposed voter ID and marriage amendments from what the Republican-controlled Legislature had originally written. Solicitor General Alan Gilbert argued that based on a 1919 Minnesota statute, the role of titling lies with the secretary of state and attorney general.

Minnesota: Next dispute: Should all the disabled have voting rights? | StarTribune.com

The summer of Minnesota’s discontent over voting rules has spun off a related fight: whether disabled people who cannot handle their own affairs should retain the right to vote. The debate has set off alarms among disabled people and their advocates, adding another layer of controversy to the legal and political battle over whether Minnesota needs a photo ID requirement for voters, changes in Election Day registration and a new provisional balloting system. “I want to vote,” said Dave McMahan, a 61-year-old military veteran with mental illness who lives in a Minneapolis group home and has his affairs controlled by a legal guardian. “I’ve been through sweat and blood to vote. I don’t want my rights taken away, because I fought for my rights here in the United States and expect to keep them that way.” Equally passionate is Ron Kaus of Duluth, an activist and plaintiff in a federal lawsuit that has raised the issue. Citing allegations in Crow Wing County in 2010, Kaus worries that disabled people have been hauled to the polls and told whom to vote for, which would be a crime. “It’s one of the sickest form of exploitation, political abuse,” he said.

Minnesota: GOP legislators take Ritchie to task over voter ID | StarTribune.com

Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, who has long campaigned against the Republican-backed election changes under the GOP’s photo ID proposal, was accused by GOP senators on Friday of crossing the line between running elections and trying to influence them. A Senate committee hearing, led by Sen. Mike Parry, R-Waseca, who is also a candidate for Congress in the 1st Congressional District, focused on Ritchie’s criticism of a photo ID constitutional amendment and his decision to rewrite the title voters will see on the November ballot. Parry,  Sen. Dave Thompson, R-Lakeville; Sen. Paul Gazelka, R-Baxter; and Sen.John Carlson, R-Bemidji, led the charge at the State Government Innovation Veterans Committee in criticizing the DFL Secretary of State. Neither Ritchie nor Attorney General Lori Swanson appeared before the hearing. The Republican-controlled Legislature voted this year to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would require in-person voters to show a photo ID, would set up a new system of two-step provisional voting for those without “government-issued” IDs, and would change eligibility and identity verification standards. No DFLers voted for the bill, and the two sides have bitterly contested the effect of the amendment, should it pass.

Minnesota: Voter ID amendment supporters sue over ballot question title change | TwinCities.com

As expected, supporters of the proposed voter ID constitutional amendment have filed a petition with the state Supreme Court to overturn a new title for their proposal that they say is unauthorized and misleading. The move follows similar action by supporters of the other proposed amendment on this fall’s ballot — related to the definition of marriage — after the title of that measure was also changed by Secretary of State Mark Ritchie. Amendment proponents in both cases argue Ritchie has no authority to interfere with titles selected by the Legislature for questions it presents to voters and that the titles Ritchie picked tend to discourage support for the measures. Both constitutional amendments — one of which would require voters to show photo ID at the polling place and the other of which would define marriage as an opposite-sex union — were placed on the ballot by the Republican-led Legislature. Both are opposed by Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton.

Minnesota: State Supreme Court vigorously questions Photo ID supporters and opponents — but doesn’t tip hand | MinnPost

The Minnesota Supreme Court on Tuesday vigorously questioned attorneys from both sides of the Photo ID debate and is expected to rule by late August on whether the proposed constitutional amendment will appear on the November ballot. The suit, brought by the League of Women Voters and other activist groups, asks the court to strike the proposal from the ballot, arguing that the current language doesn’t accurately portray the amendment’s effects. An attorney for the state Legislature argued that the court lacks the authority to dictate the form or status of constitutional amendments. The justices’ mood in the courtroom — pointed at some times and lighthearted at others — gave little indication what the court will do with the amendment. At least two justices seemed to indicate that they consider the ballot question misleading — which is what opponents of the amendment argue — but then in almost the next breath defended the Legislature’s authority to craft amendments.

Minnesota: Photo ID details draw scrutiny of Minnesota’s high court | StarTribune.com

Minnesota Supreme Court justices peppered lawyers with pointed questions about the right to vote and the Legislature’s power as the volatile issue of photo ID landed at the state’s highest court Tuesday. “The right to vote is an institutional way to peacefully revolt,” said Justice Paul Anderson, who criticized parts of the proposed constitutional amendment. “It doesn’t get much bigger than this.” The stakes indeed are high. The League of Women Voters-Minnesota and other plaintiffs are asking the court to strike the issue completely from the Nov. 6 general election ballot, arguing that the question voters will see is misleading. The Republican-controlled Legislature, which voted to put the issue on the ballot, says that writing ballot questions is its sole prerogative, and that voters have a right to make the ultimate decision. Justices Paul Anderson, Alan Page and David Stras raised questions about differences between the language of the ballot question and language of the proposed constitutional amendment, which voters will not see on the ballot. “Don’t the people have a right to vote on something that’s not deceptive?” said Anderson. Page suggested that differences between the language of the ballot question and the actual amendment constituted “a bit of bait and switch. It seems to me, in responding to the ballot question, I can’t know what I’m voting on,” Page said.

Minnesota: Voter ID Amendment Draws Youth Activists | Colorlines

A coalition of groups led by the ACLU and the League of Women Voters made arguments in Minnesota’s Supreme Court yesterday against a ballot measure that would amend the state’s constitution to “require all voters to present valid photographic identification to vote.” The plaintiffs argue that the measure’s language obscures how the constitution would be changed. “Valid photographic identification” would only include those that were government-issued, and not other forms of ID, such as those issued by schools. Minnesota remains one of only seven states that does not use a provisional ballot system. This measure would institute provisional voting, but lawyers argue that the measure is misleading because it makes no mentione of the significant change to the way votes are counted when using provisional ballots. The measure, which will be decided by voters in November if the state’s high court allows it, also requires “the state to provide free identification to eligible voters.” Yet those IDs wouldn’t exactly be free—at minimum, taxpayers would foot the bill, as would voters who would first need to obtain a $26 birth certificate and travel up to 100 miles to a Department of Vehicle Services office to apply for their ID.