Anyone Want a $1000 - Simply Prove Voter Fraud in Minn

ACLU Offers $1,000 Reward for Proof of Voter-Impersonation Fraud in Minnesota

Weighing in on a controversial effort to pass a Minnesota ballot measure in November that would require voters to show photo identification at the ballot box, the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union is offering a $1,000 reward for proof of voter fraud as part of a lobbying effort against the measure.

The ACLU is offering to pay $1,000 to anyone who can present evidence at its St. Paul offices before 5 p.m. on March 30, 2012 proving a charge, indictment or conviction for voter impersonation has occurred in the state during the past decade, reports the Star-Tribune.

"The bet is that no one has been legally charged, indicted or convicted for voter impersonation in the state of Minnesota between Jan. 1, 2002 and March 30, 2012," said Chuck Samuelson, the group's executive director. He argues that the lack of criminal prosecution proves there is no need for a voter ID law.

However, a leader of a lobbying force for the measure says it's opponents who will need to prove in court, if the measure passes, how requiring voters to provide ID is a significant barrier to casting a ballot.

Meanwhile, doing so allows poll workers to check voters against other state databases, such as a list of convicted felons, to be sure they are eligible, Dan McGrath tells the newspaper. He is executive director of Minnesota Majority.

"They're really concerned with making sure it stays easy to vote in Minnesota." he said of the ACLU. "On that point, we're in agreement. Where we part ways however, is we also believe it should be hard to cheat.''

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/aclu_offers_reward_for_proof_of_voter-fraud/

 

I honestly don't understand the problem with presenting identification to vote. I present my identification to use my financial aid at my school bookstore--why should I not prove my identity when I vote?

 

Perhaps Minnesota should pass a "breathing law", too. The ACLU could then offer a reward of $1000 for anyone charged, indicted or convicted in the last decade of improper breathing.

 

My son had to jump through hoop after hoop after hoop to get his Driver's Licence... after jumping through those same hoops to get his photo ID the previous year. We were able to afford it since the benefit exceeded the cost... but that's not true for everyone.

It seems to me the issue is that poorer people find it too difficult to obtain the IDs, given the expense and time it takes to get one. Not everyone can easily jump through those hoops or be able to afford to. So it looks to me like the issue is disenfranchisement.

Poorer people probably tend to be more Democratic than Republican, which would explain why Republicans would want to disenfranchise them. If they didn't intend to disenfranchise anyone, provisions could be made to help cover the cost of the IDs ...but Republicans also tend to hate the idea of someone getting something for free... so, unless Republicans are willing to compromise, that point is moot, and the end result is that disenfranchisement is more desirable to them. Which is where the ACLU comes in.

 

You assume that EVERYONE has your means, your mobility, your health, your family support.... What I don't understand is why you would make that assumption.

 

That is a very carefully worded proposition you presented there. Considering that;

http://www.electionintegritywatch.com/documents/2011-Report-Voter-Fraud-Convictions.pdf

 

What is Minnesota Majority? It contends Minnesota school children are being indoctrinated into homosexuality, and it also questions the Republican values of former Democrats such as Norm Coleman and Joe Lieberman.

Another Right-wing group trying to disenfranchise as many poor, elderly, and disabled people as possible. I would take their word with a grain of salt unless you are predisposed to believe their nonsense from the start. Don't believe everything you read. They are a well-known RW group in Minnesota and can hardly be trusted nor are they an objective source.

 

I have no idea what who collected the data has to do with the 113 convictions and the additional 112 currently charged.

 

It was in your post.

"Minnesota Majority’s survey of county attorneys revealed an additional 112 suspected ineligible voters"

 

Minnesota's population in 2000: 4,919,479
Minnesota's population in 2010: 5,303,925
My rough estimate of Minnesota's population in 2008: 5,200,000
Minnesota’s current estimated Voting Eligible Population (VEP) is 3,741,514.
My rough estimate of Minnesota's VEP in 2008: 3,650,000
Alleged cases of voter fraud committed in 2008: 113
Alleged cases of voter fraud committed in 2008 awaiting trial: 112
Alleged cases of voter fraud committed in 2008 pending: 73
Total alleged cases of voter fraud in 2008: 298
Number of Total that are Democrat: unspecified
Number of Total that are Republican: unspecified
Number of Total that are Independant, or other than Democrat or Republican: unspecified

 

I knew exactly where you got it from, but it still has absolutely the apparent facts that there are currently 113 convictions and the additional 112 charged.

 

Even iq is agreeing with my data.

 

Yep, but with the understanding that the data involving alleged voter fraud was collected by Republicans and should be verified. I don't see any major issues with the numbers though, as they are quite low considering the amount of votes cast in the general election in Minnesota in 2008: 2,921,147

http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html

Do all the alleged cases of voter fraud stem from the general election alone? If so, a rough estimate of the ratio of fraudulent votes versus non-fraudulent is 1:10,000

 

That is assuming that each case only involved a single vote. However, even more pertinent, Franken only won by 1 vote in 12,982. I will let you draw the conclusion.

 

Agreed.
Where I live an ID is free and easy to obtain.
My daughter just got her driving permit & it was no hassle at all.

 

The link below contains the following results:
*from 11-2010 about the 2008 general election in Minnesota


1,581 voters investigated, the vast majority (1,179) being felons.

The report states 26 voters who actually cast votes in the 2008 General Election were convicted. All were felons who were ineligible to vote. The ratio of people convicted of fraud versus total votes cast is roughly 1:110,000

http://www.ceimn.org/files/Facts about Ineligible Voting and Voter Fraud in Minnesota_with appendix.pdf

Moen may be interested in all the racial disenfranchisement allegations made in the above report/survey.

 

You know absolutely nothing about me, but for some reason you seem to be under the misapprehension that I have significant income, that I have family support, and that I am healthy. There is nothing difficult about obtaining a driver's license or a non-driver's photo identification card where I live. We have to present identification to vote. I'm not sure why you chose to come after me for making a simple observation, but there it is.

 

So, as best as can be determined here, the worst-case scenario for voter fraud is roughly 1 fraud in 10,000 votes. It's been mentioned that disenfranchisement will certainly result from a requirement to have photo IDs in order to vote in Minnesota and that those dienfranchised will likely vote Democratic. The argument has been made that every vote matters, and therefore the law should be passed so less fraud can occur.

My conclusions: If the idea that "Every vote matters!" is paramount, then measures should be in place in the ID law to provide financial assistance to those who are poor and cannot afford to get IDs on their own. Measures should also be in place to form a government agency, or task an existing agency, to help those individuals who need assistance with aquiring IDs in a timely manner, and this agency must be staffed at a level that will ensure that every vote that matters is counted... otherwise... the ratio of votes that mattered but were not cast (because of an inability to get an ID as a result of cost or other legal reason) versus total votes cast would be far worse than without the law.

Consider the long history of intentional disenfranchisement in America, especially in regard to blacks. IMO, this law is another law in a long line of laws that are created with the intent to win an election and not to protect the idea of "every vote matters".

Unless you'd rather the government spend more money and make more government.

 

ID's are not difficult to obtain and in most cases they are free.
It's a myth that requiring an ID causes a hardship on the poor. It is also a myth that the desire to have voters properly identify themselves is designed to disenfranchise any voters. Pure & simple.

 

Those who are against the Voter ID bill simply want to disenfranchise the people who vote legally.