SMRs and AMRs

Tuesday, September 04, 2012

Fleecing the taxpayer to 'solve' a problem that doesn't exist

[VOX VERAX note: The Republicans in the Minnesota legislature have managed to put on the November ballot a constitutional amendment designed to stop voter fraud. The only problem is that in Minnesota there is no voter fraud except for a handful of felons casting ballots when they were not eligible to vote; the proposed amendment will not solve that problem. Instead, what the proposed amendment will do is raise taxes, primarily on property, anywhere from $33 to $67 million.]

Cost of the proposed elections amendment

September 4, 2012

Report highlights potential costs of the proposed Elections Amendment. State, local governments and individuals all need to prepare their pocket-books.

Minneapolis, MN—Citizens for Election Integrity Minnesota (CEIMN) and Hamline University professor David Schultz released a new report today on the potential costs of proposed elections amendment, up for consideration by Minnesotan voters this November. The report estimates that if the amendment is adopted state and local governments will need to spend between $33 million and $67 million to comply with its likely requirements and that individuals who currently lack a government identification will need to spend between $16 million and $72 million to get the documents necessary for the free ID if they wish to vote.

The proposed amendment would mandate the showing of a government-issued ID when voting. According to Kathy Bonnifield, Executive Director of CEIMN, “The amendment could make significant changes to Minnesota’s elections, affecting mail-in voting, absentee voting, and Election Day Registration, and introduce provisional balloting.”

The estimated cost to local governments is between $23 million and $53 million. Counties with mail-in precincts will be impacted at a greater rate than counties that do not have mail-in precincts. For example, the estimated cost to Renville County, with 9,000 registered voters and no mail-in precincts, is between $46,000 and $150,000 while the cost estimate for Roseau County, with 8,700 registered voters and eight mail-in precincts, is between $200,000 and $300,000.

Additionally, individuals who do not have a government-issued photo ID will incur costs to obtain an ID to vote. According to Schultz, “It will cost between $16 million and $72 million for individuals to get the free photo ID to vote. These are expenses to secure birth certificates or naturalization papers if they individuals do not have them."

However, based on the cost of previous legislation introduced in the 2011 legislation, Bonnifield noted that, “Adoption of the 2012 amendment will entail significant new costs for state and local governments. It would cost the State between $10 million to $14 million in its first four years just to provide voter photo IDs and to educate voters on the new requirement.”

2 Comments:

Blogger Tom Koch said...

A 'handful' of felons very well could of decided the last MN senatorial election and I suspect there would still be outrage and 'major' media interest if the tables were turned. Two questions for VV: How can we stop felons from voting and, why do the majority of felons vote for Democrats?

9:12 AM  
Blogger Leigh Pomeroy said...

Tom, to answer your question: The problem about felons voting I understand has been mostly solved. I say "mostly" because if a felon who knows he's a felon and ineligible to vote still votes, even with a valid Minnesota drivers license, and he has just been released from prison so his name hasn't shown up as being "challenged" on the official voter lists, then that possibility still exists. (I am a head election judge and know little about this stuff.)

However, because a number of felons who were ineligible to vote did vote in (I think) the 2008 election — I thought the number that were finally prosecuted was around 60, but the pro-amendment folks claim 200 — the Secretary of State looked into this problem and realized that by far the majority of felons who voted thought they were eligible to vote because neither they nor the local election officials had been informed by the Department of Corrections as to whether they were legal or not. (Go figure!) So the felons thought they were legal, and the local elections officials thought they were legal, so they were allowed to vote.

Since then, the Department of Corrections has been instructed to inform on a timely basis both the individual and state elections officials as to who is not eligible to vote.

The irony about the photo ID requirement is that felons could still have valid Minnesota photo IDs which would allow them to vote if there were no reporting requirement as described above. Thus, the amendment does nothing to stop felons from voting.

If one looks at the cost-benefit analysis of the photo ID amendment, the question becomes: Is the result worth the inevitable tax increase? That's something that each voter must decide.

As for how felons vote, I have no idea. One would assume Democratic given their probably lower economic class background. But who knows? There are some in the hoosegow who were convicted of high level bank fraud, and they probably are life-long Republicans.

11:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home