Today, members of the Minnesota House heard two controversial bills that could cost the state millions and hamper voter access in a state that is renowned for progressive election policy.
Minnesota has long boasted above-average voter turnout, thanks, in part, to a decades-old policy that permits eligible citizens to register and vote on Election Day with a zero-rate of voter fraud. Despite lacking evidence of pervasive voter impersonation issues (as well as lacking available funding), state lawmakers are intent on changing the rules governing Election Day Registration and adding a requirement for all voters to present photographic proof of identity before voting.
(Conservative hostility to democracy is becoming increasingly overt. Project Vote shines a light on the most recent developments that ought to alarm all Americans. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
Minnesota has some of the most progressive voter registration laws in the country, laws like same day registration and vouching, that are designed to maximize turnout and get as many voices as possible heard on Election Day. Some newly elected members of the Minnesota state legislature, however, have recently announced that they intend to repeal those laws as soon as they take office. These laws, they claim, leave the state vulnerable to voter fraud, so vulnerable they apparently must be repealed immediately, despite their obvious benefits.
Like Don Quixote charging at windmills, believing them to be monsters, these state legislators are gearing up to fight imaginary threats. Voter fraud, contrary to the media perception, is incredibly rare. According to a study by the nonpartisan group Citizens for Election Integrity Minnesota, only twenty-six people were convicted of voter fraud in Minnesota in 2008, all of them convicted felons who are restricted from voting. In other words, less than nine-ten thousandths of one percent of Minnesota voters (.0009 percent), were convicted of voter fraud in 2008. At the national level, a report by Dr. Lorraine Minnite, director of research at Project Vote and former assistant professor of American and urban politics at Barnard College, found that only 24 people were convicted of voter fraud between 2002 and 2005.
So, these state legislatures are trying to repeal laws that make it easier for all Minnesotans to vote, on the off-chance that repealing those laws might discourage some twenty-odd convicted felons from showing up on Election Day. Certainly, what little voter fraud there is should be prevented, but not at the cost of repealing laws that provide tremendous benefits to legitimate voters. In 2004, the six states with same day registration had turnout rates almost 12 percent above the national average, but the newly elected Minnesota legislators are more worried about the two dozen felons who might be voting illegally, than the thousands of legitimate voters who may be prevented from voting at all if these laws are repealed.
If the state legislatures want to fix elections in this country, if they want to protect the sanctity of the democratic process, they should not be focused on the .00009 percent of ineligible citizens who vote illegally--oftentimes unknowingly--due to criminal convictions. Instead, they should focus on reforming current law to allow non-incarcerated felons to automatically regain their right to vote and the 50-plus percent of eligible voters who did not even cast a ballot on Election Day, finding ways to increase turnout, not lower it.
Anthony Balady is a legal intern at Project Vote and second-year student at William & Mary Law School. Mr. Balady also serves as vice president of William & Mary's Election Law Society and editor-in-chief of its election law blog, State of Elections.
Weekly Pulse: DIY Abortions on the Border, Pawlenty Screws MN on SexEd
by Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium blogger
Women on along U.S.-Mexico border are buying black market misoprostol to induce abortions, according to a new report by Laura Tillman in the Nation. The drug is easily available over the counter in Mexico.
Equality supporters on the steps of the Rhode Island State Capitol
Providence was one of the more controversial stops on the NOM's "Summer for Marriage" tour, the scene of some tense confrontations: equality supporters shouting at Brown, two men praying in tongues, Brown spinning wildly regarding attendance, etc.
However, a new poll out this morning shows the issue being debated- marriage equality- isn't too controversial at all. The Rhode Island Marriage Coalition released a new poll conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner showing that 59% of Rhode Island voters support the freedom to marry for same-sex couples- a 10% increase from the last poll conducted in 2008. When individuals are told it would not impinge on a church's right to marry who they chose- which is part of the recently enacted law here in DC- support increases to a remarkable 66%.
The new pro-equality majority is demographically diverse. It includes Catholics (57 percent), women over 50 (56 percent), independent voters (58 percent) and parents (64 percent).
Support increases further with First Amendment reassurance. When told that marriage equality would not infringe on a church's right to marry whom they choose, support increases to 66 percent overall and 63 percent among Catholics.
Politically, this is a net positive vote for state lawmakers. Asked about the impact of a vote for equality on their support for, 27 percent say they would be more inclined to support a candidate, 24 percent are less inclined, and nearly half (46 percent) say it would make no difference. Just 13 percent are much less likely to support a pro-equality candidate.
In Rhode Island, the LGBT community is the mainstream. Overall, 79 percent of voters here know a gay or lesbian person and 45 percent describe their feeling toward gay and lesbian people as favorable, while just 18 percent are critical. Seventy-five percent believe "homosexuality is a way of life that should be accepted by society."
It's a big step forward.
On the politics of it, Gov. Carcieri, a horrible anti-LGBT elected official who even vetoed a bill to extend the right to make burial decisions of a loved one to same-sex couples, along with a bill to expand the definition of hate crimes to include gender identity/expression, is thankfully term-limited. Both leading contenders to replace him- State Treasurer Frank Caprio, a Democrat, and former Sen. Lincoln Chafee, an Independent- have said they would sign a bill legalizing the freedom to marry for same-sex couples. The Rhode Island State House Speaker, Gordon Fox, is openly gay, and it's expected equality supporters are very likely to have the votes in the State Legislature.
That brings me to another issue, which is the importance of gubernatorial races this year. A lot of anger poured out after Hawaii Gov. Lingle's veto of a civil unions bill recently, including calls for a boycott. She is also leaving office, and now-former Rep. and Democratic candidate Neil Abercrombie is the only candidate who has said he will sign the bill and does not want to put the issue to the ballot. In Minnesota, where NOM just launched new radio ads attacking the Democratic and Independent candidates for governor over their support for the freedom to marry and lack of support for a constitutional amendment, we have another pivotal race, as the person who sits in the governor's chair could be the one to sign or veto a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. The same could be true in Rhode Island.
The point is that while it is (thankfully) a year free of anti-equality ballot initiatives like Maine's Proposition 1 or California's Proposition 8, this is not a "bye week" for our movement out in the states. There are still key gubernatorial elections that could decide the fate of marriage equality and civil unions in states, and it's critical to keep an eye on them.
In challenging times like ours, it is important to step back and look at the big picture. In the Senate we wrestle with painful choices to balance the state budget. Some factors affecting the budget are outside of our control, some we can control, and others fall somewhere in-between. While most legislative work addresses things we have direct control over, we should at least understand other factors influencing the resources available.
My campaign manager recently drafted a letter to discuss the electability of my candidacy. Recently, we had a strong showing at the gubernatorial caucuses, stunning the pundits who said we didn't have a chance.
As the Chief Author of the Minnesota Health Plan, I've helped organize over 70 signers onto the bill, including several of my opponents in this primary race. If I have the opportunity to serve as Minnesota's next Governor, I will push for real changes. That is my promise to you. We will see real change!
I look forward to hearing any questions, comments or concerns relating to the electability of my candidacy and addressing them directly.
I'm not saying there aren't plenty of 2010 candidates that need our help. (There are! Please help!) I'm just saying that helping our previous progressive winners to close their books and retire their debts could encourage other Democrats currently running to follow in more progressive footsteps, knowing we have their backs.
I'll leave you with a few reasons to be very, very proud of Senator Al Franken's first months as a U.S. Senator (and very, very motivated to help retire his campaign debt):
When an appellate court shut down Indiana's unequal mandate for polling-place voter ID, it sent a clear signal that-partisan politics aside-election laws should be assessed on whether or not all voters are given equal access to the democratic process. Yet, despite violations of law and the fact that absentee voting is more susceptible to voter fraud activity than in-person voting, other states continue to emulate what was one of the country's toughest voter ID laws.
If this were a boxing match, it appears Norm Coleman is on the ropes:
Roll Call reports that we may now be entering a truly crucial phase in the seemingly never-ending saga of the 2008 Minnesota Senate election -- indeed, it might actually be ending fairly soon, if Norm Coleman doesn't have the heart to keep going.
The MN Supreme Court will rule within a week or two.
This is the moment of truth. Either we lay the pressure on thick now and get Coleman to concede when the ruling comes, or he appeals again -- keeping Al Franken out of the Senate for potentially months more.
So Norm made a statement about Obama's Supreme Court appointment, tu wit:
"When debating judges, I was firm that I would use the same standard to evaluate judges under a Democrat President as I would a Republican President. Are they intellectually competent, do they have a record of integrity, and most importantly, are they committed to following the Constitution rather than creating new law and policy. When I am re-elected, I intend to review Judge Sotomayor's record using this process. Certainly, the nomination of a Hispanic woman to the nation's highest court is something all American's should applaud."
I know as well as anyone that some emails that you expect to work simply flop. Others that you expect to be par for the course go gangbusters -- inspiring droves of activism. Innovation and creativity are key, so I'll never fault anyone for trying weird, wacky new things -- even if they fail.
With one caveat: Every activist email must have a plausible "theory of change." People should see some concrete theory about why taking action could lead to a desired result.
But some people choose to inflame people's passions just to get their email addresses (and, more likely than not, to fundraise from them -- as opposed to later engaging them in quality activism). This sullys the online activism process for the rest of us.
That's why getting emails like this one from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee recently was both insulting and maddening:
Dear Adam,
First they counted the votes. Then they recounted them. Then they painstakingly went over every disputed ballot by hand. It was the most thorough and exhaustive recount process Minnesota has ever seen.
It's time to give it up, Norm. President Obama needs Al Franken in the Senate. It's time to concede the race. Click here to add your voice.
First the bipartisan canvassing board declared Al Franken the winner of the U.S. Senate race in Minnesota.
But Norm Coleman didn't like that result, so he took it to court. And now when even his own lawyers are predicting he'll lose, Coleman's threatening to keep appealing to more and more courts.
How many more recounts does Norm Coleman want? How many more delays? How much longer will the Republican Party hold Minnesota's Senate seat hostage?
Coleman can end it today and give Minnesota the two Senators it's entitled to. But he's not going to give up unless we convince him to act. So let's speak with one voice and tell Norm Coleman it's time to go.
It then links to a page with a "petition" to Norm Coleman. If you sign, you land on a donate page. If you scroll to the bottom of the email, you also see a donate button -- and a tell-a-friend button, so the DSCC can get your friends' emails.
Nowhere in the entire email is there a theory for why a DSCC petition to Norm Coleman will make any impact.
And, if you think about it, why on earth would Norm Coleman listen to the DSCC? Can you think of a less credible messenger than the DC committee whose sole role is to defeat Senate Republicans like Coleman?
I'm not saying the DSCC has no role to play in getting Coleman to step down. I'm just saying they should play an honest and effective role.
(In Japan, which has much lower crime rates, much less recidivism, there's an emphasis on doing whatever possible to reintegrate convicted criminals into society after incarceration. Depriving ex-cons of the right to vote is INTENTIONALLY taking the exact opposite approach, insisting that they are NOT part of society, and that they are right to feel alienated, hostile, and at war with society. Hopefully, this diary reports on continuing progress in changing these counter-productive practices. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
by Erin Ferns and Donald Wine II
For the past few years, there has been a push by voting rights advocates to expand and balance the electorate in the United States. Finally, measures to help enfranchise some of the nation's least represented Americans are moving forward in several states. This past week, five states advanced bills to restore the voting rights of citizens convicted of felonies, while four states moved bills designed to facilitate voter participation among young citizens. This trend in election reform is a step in the right direction, which more states should take notice of and consider in the near future.
Norm Coleman has had several vote quests struck down by the Minnesota Second District Court, and Al Franken told a conference of Democratic Senators today that he can see a "light at the end of the tunnel." I hope that means Al will be awarded certification on his seat by the Minnesota Court very soon. The Democrats need his vote to fight off the filibuster strength of the Republicans in the Senate.
In order to get a real sense of what's happening, I spent time reading .pdf files at the Minnesota Second District Court web site this afternoon, and, going back a couple of weeks, it's clear that Norm Coleman is following every failed approach with a newer one... what he is doing is stalling and, I expect, it is stalling at the instruction of the Republican National Committee.
(With so many other big, crisis-related issues staring us in the face, we should not lose sight of the crucial importance of protecting and enhancing voter rights, as this diary highlights the ever-growing threat. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
Nationwide, budget concerns seem to be rendering most of this year's threatening election reform proposals impassable. However, that does not prevent these measures from perpetuating the irrational distrust in elections (and voters) that come with restrictive voter ID and voter registration proposals. Instead of focusing on resolutions that would create more transparency in election administration without disenfranchising voters, lawmakers in Oklahoma, Minnesota, Mississippi and Texas made headlines for their battles to move voter ID laws last week, while two more states are discussing bills that would negatively impact young voters.
If you wanted to register to vote today, would you be able to provide a copy of a birth certificate, U.S. passport or naturalization papers? Would those documents reflect your current name?
STATE BLOGS
