Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) have introduced same day registration bills into their respective chambers. We Minnesotans know how well it works and most often lead the nation in voter turnout. Cosponsors, at this point, include Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN) and Rep. Tim Walz (D-MN) among others.
"Helping more Americans exercise their right to vote is in the best interests of our democracy," Feingold said. "The system in Wisconsin, which allows for same day registration, has worked well for more than 30 years and is a major reason why Wisconsin is a national leader in voter turnout. In fact, the states that frequently have the highest voter turnout all allow Election Day registration. We should take action to get more people involved in the political process and same day registration is a proven way to do it."
"Minnesota routinely leads the nation in voter turnout - usually over 70%," Ellison stated. "We do so because in Minnesota our right to vote is a sacred right and a moral obligation. In Minnesota we do everything that encourages, fosters and facilitates everyone's ability to exercise that right. Enacting a National Election Day Registration law would do for the nation what same day registration has done for our State - give a voice to all who want to vote."
(Rep. Ellison press release)
Somehow I don't think any Republicans will be supporting this.
Remember Friend of MPP (FOMPP) and all around awesome guy Dusty Trice's last video of Senator Al Franken talking sense to teabaggers? That video has "gone viral" with over 400,000 veiws on YouTube and mentions all over TV and the internet.
Well Dusty has posted parts 2 and 3 of that video which I believe is what happened right before the previous video. He talks more about the public option and public financing of elections in one and about his first bill, service dogs for veterans in the other. Very impressive. I'm glad to have this man as my Senator.
It's well worth the 10 minute watch. And if you have some free time call Al and thank him for standing up for comprehensive healthcare reform with a public option, public financing of elections and service dogs for vets!
Minnesota State Representative Ryan Winkler (DFL - Golden Valley) describes the non-controversial election changes that were passed by the Minnesota house and senate and then vetoed by Republican Governor Pawlenty. Minnesota has a great election system, however the Franken Coleman recount highlighted that the absentee ballot process could be improved. Even though the election changes were requested by election officials across the state, Republicans would sign no election law that did not include a requirement for photo ID. Photo ID is supposed to prevent voter fraud, when there is no evidence that voter fraud exists. Actually photo ID is pushed by Republicans because it tends to disenfranchise people who tend to vote more for Democrats or vote independently.
Winkler: We were told by the governor that any elections bills needed to have bipartisan support in the legislature to win. That he would not sign a bill that was passed only by Democrats, which is basically a way of saying that Republicans had veto power over any piece of legislation. The bills that we passed that did a lot of these things, they were not controversial. We deliberately took pieces out of the bills, including early voting, that we knew that Republicans objected to and we focused the bills entirely on requests from local election officials to make the election official system better to administer, a better system. Not a single Republican voted for any of these bills. And what they said very plainly, on the floor of the House, on the floor of the Senate and in private conversations was that they were not going to vote for any bill that did not have the requirement of presenting a photo ID when you vote. So one of the most controversial (at best) but I think disenfranchising and racist provisions that you can possibly put in an elections bill they insisted on as a condition for voting for it. So basically in the end, you had the Republicans obstructing very non-controversial important meat-and-potatoes elections reform bills because they didn't get to put the controversial wedge issue piece in there that they wanted to.
Kelly: So the Republicans then were saying basically you give us all that we want or you get nothing at all.
Winkler: That essentially was the theme of the entire legislative session.
If you look at the news coverage, it sounds like both Democrats and Republicans did not want to compromise, when in fact the Democrats were very willing to compromise and to pass non-controversial bills.
In most cases, the reaction mirrors the political feuding between DFLers and Republicans that occurred in the last days of the just-finished session.
(Star Tribune)
It was the Republicans who would only approve bills into law if those bills had everything the Republicans wanted! And the news coverage is mis-representing that!
The St. Paul Pioneer Press printed/posted a very even-handed article about what we have learned from the MN-SEN election, recount and election contest suit. In it Elizabeth Dunbar (Associated Press) brings forward the suggestion that MN might be well-served to consider early voting. This differs from absentee voting in that you don't need any reason or excuse why you can't vote on election day. It's just an option. She gets good information from several experts. It's a good article.
I give in Republicans, you can have your photo ID requirement for voting. Even though you still haven't shown proof of fraud, and Bush's DOJ scoured the country for eight years yet couldn't find it, the case you repeat day after day has the scared child in me convinced that welfare recipients are obeying ACORN's directive to steal elections for George Soros. So I give you your photo ID requirement, almost exactly as you want it.
Reforming our election system is already getting attention from the legislature and one of the ideas being pushed by members of both parties is a run-off in cases of a close result. From one of the supporters herself, Sen. Ann Rest of New Hope:
"It would be $3 or $4 million instead of $250,000, which is the cost of the current recount. But I think voters would believe that is a worthwhile expenditure to have a clear result in an extraordinary circumstance."
In other words because the recount had a few glitches we should spend anywhere from 12 to 16 times the amount of money. And what happens if the runoff is really close? Do you have a recount of the runoff?
The other question to ask is would Minnesotans even want to go back to vote again for a single race? In Georgia this year there was a huge drop-off between turnout on Election Day and turnout in the Senate runoff. This means the people who ultimately decide the race will be a different group from the people who decided all the other races.
Another runoff supporter Laura Brod had this to say:
"The voters are the ones that are looking at it, saying it's a confusing process, I don't understand why these votes were counted and these votes were not. I don't understand how a recount total can be used in one place and not in another. I think a runoff vote -- not an instant runoff vote, but a runoff vote -- would create clarity. I think it would lessen confusion in the system, and I think it's something we should very closely look at."
I don't see how a runoff creates any clarity; there is the very real possibility that the person who wins the runoff is not the person who won on election night. I don't think that's clarity and I'm not so sure that clarity is something we should aspire to. Transparency, yes. The issues she brings up are clear though, not confusing. The issue of the missing ballots in Minneapolis is unfortunate, but to then say that those votes shouldn't count is ridiculous. This is a human system so mistakes will happen and ballots will be lost and it's not the voters who should be punished because of it. Just because some people are allowing themselves to be confused doesn't mean the process is confusing.
A runoff election is a solution to something that isn't a problem, a close election. A close election will expose problems in any voting system, but that doesn't mean that the closeness of the election is the problem, the problems are the problem. The number of rejected absentee ballots are a problem. The lost ballots are a problem. The ballots that were found while looking for the lost ballots are a problem. There were certainly problems with the election and the recount, but they are all problems that can for the most part be addressed with tweaks and changes to Minnesota's existing election law.
