ACLU denies Minnesota Majority's claim to $1,000 voter impersonation bounty

Categories: Voter ID
ACLU voter impersonation poster.jpg
The ACLU says it has still not seen a single case of voter impersonation that would've been prevented by voter ID.
The ACLU of Minnesota announced today that for the time being, it will not be paying out the $1,000 bounty it offered in exchange for a proven case of voter impersonation.

In February, the ACLU offered $1,000 for any "no good lyin' cheatin' vote stealin' rascal who would have been caught if the currently proposed Voter ID Amendment had already been enacted." A couple of weeks later, pro-voter ID group Minnesota Majority said it had found documented proof of a case of voter impersonation during the 2008 election.

But today, ACLU of Minnesota Executive Director Chuck Samuelson said the case in question "would not have been impeded in any way by the proposed [voter ID] amendment."

Minnesota Majority's case involved an Andover resident who voted once in person using her own name, but also completed a forged absentee ballot under a variation of her daughter's name. The daughter, away at college at the time, also voted in another precinct. Election officials noted the duplicate vote and contacted the daughter, who confirmed that her absentee vote was forged. The mother eventually admitted to voter fraud and was charged with three felonies, but was only sentenced to temporary probation and ordered to repay the costs of her prosecution.

At a news conference today, Samuelson noted that voter ID "wouldn't change how absentee balloting is done, [so] this case would've occurred even if voter ID were to pass."

In fact, Samuelson noted, the only anti-voter fraud proposal making the rounds right now that would prevent cases like the one brought forward by Minnesota Majority is the DFL-sponsored "electronic poll books" measure.

"Ironically, the alternative to photo ID -- electronic poll books -- would've prevented that case," Samuelson said.

As UpTake Minnesota reports, Minnesota Majority doesn't plan to contest the ACLU's verdict:

Related:
-- Minnesota Majority uncovers evidence of voter impersonation, claims ACLU's $1,000 bounty
-- Minnesota ACLU places $1,000 bounty on voter-impersonatin' "rascals"
-- House approves voter ID bill
My Voice Nation Help
21 comments
webcelt
webcelt

The post left out part of the story with the fraudulent vote. Since it seems to be Minnesota's one fraudulent vote, not hard to track the details. The mother didn't just forge a ballot. She took the daughter's vote over the phone and signed it for her, which was the illegal part. Then the daughter said she forgot she voted absentee and voted wherever she lived then. That bit sounds specious to me, but that's nothing photo ID would have stopped. They didn't know the law about absentee ballots, and lacking common sense isn't a felony. So all of one instance fraud is enough to create chaos in our elections? That makes sense to some people? Here's the funny bit: turned out the mother at least, if not the daughter too, is a Christian conservative. Presumably voted Republican. Isn't all the fraud supposed to be liberals in Minneapolis?

Common Sense
Common Sense

@JoeMy final postI actually went to the capital and attended the financal committee review of Voter ID and it really won't cost a lot of money (relatively speaking within our MN budget). The cost is low becuase most folks have a Government issued ID.  

What VoterID provides is a simple and cheap method of individual identification. VoterID insures that everyone is able to vote same-day. No one is turned away. The fact that voting is at the cornerstone of our democracy is all the more reason to support a basic and common sense approach to maintain its' integrity.

Good discussion - but this will be my last post on this topic. Please take the time to understand VoterID before you judge. It is one of the areas that I was interested so I actually took the time. I understand the concerns you have expressed and those of others. But VoterID does address those concerns and uses a common and industry wide acceptable approach to help protect one of our most vital rights. And at the end of the day it really just comes down to is the same question "is it really a burden to show your ID". How perfect that we will allow the voters to decide...

Common Sense
Common Sense

@ JoeAn ID is a common and simple method to verify ID. It is in use by private industry and  Governement services alike today. I could list 15 places where I had to show my ID in the past week alone. And VoterID has a provision that allows for same-day voting by everyone. So it comes down to one simple question.

"Is it really a burden to show ID to vote."

I am happy letting the good people of MN vote on this question.

Common Sense
Common Sense

@ Joe,You need to understand the VoterID proposal because it addresses your concern. The proposal is not just a requirement to show ID, it also allows for provisional voting. You can vote sameday if you forget your ID or lose your wallet. Your vote would go into provisional holding until you come back later (within x days) and show your identification. 

Every project needs to deal with implementation issues but just because there are implementation issues doesn't mean you scrap the project.

We are not taking new age DNA sampling or some other biometric security - we are talking about a "common and accepted" level of security (showing ID) that is in use by Government and Privat industry alike today all across America ... execpt at the voting booth.

Common Sense
Common Sense

In selling IT security systems often the hardest thing to do is convince your customer of the need. Imagine the banker that never counts his money ... how would he know if he had a problem with embezzlement, he doesn't count his money. In fact he can say there has never been a proven case of embezzlement. We don't have even the most basic security in place to catch voter fraud - how ironic that we use that lack of security to justify no additional security. The fact that ACLU can not find even ONE case of fraud either means every voter is 100% honest and never makes a mistake (not statistically possible) or we lack the basic security measures to catch even one mistake. The ACLU is actually proving the need for VoterID.

Kirk the Conservative Jerk
Kirk the Conservative Jerk

And the dishonest continue to protect the dishonesty of others...

"Ironically, the alternative to photo ID -- electronic poll books -- would've prevented that case," Samuelson said.????

Are they saying "electronic poll books" would "disenfranchise" the absentee voter?  I don't understand how either will stop voter fraud in the case of absentee voting.  You're forging a ballot and mailing it in.

And wait on moment, I thought most democrats said their was "no voter fraud" a few months back.Why do they now have their own version of "Voter ID" when by their own admission there was "no problem".And their lies come into the light...

ludwigtr
ludwigtr

Solution to a problem that doesn't exist...

Joe
Joe

 Good point.  Since the fraudulent absentee ballot isn't protected by voter privacy laws, and is in fact evidence of a crime, how bout someone find a copy of that thing.

Joe
Joe

 99.X% of the time, it is not going to be a burden to show ID.  But I don't want to live in a state that finds it acceptable to to place that burden on any percentage of its citizens to solve a problem that doesn't exist.  Don't get me wrong, I definitely see both sides.  I just don't think that it is something that we need to rush headlong into with myway/highway legislation.  It's not a pressing matter, and we can afford to take our time to find the correct approach.

Good chat.

Joe
Joe

None of those 15 places you had to show your ID for are constitutionally protected.

It's not a big deal *in most cases*.  But this WILL cause people to be unable to vote. 

Additionally, this is going to cost taxpayers a LOT of money.  I ask you again - What is the benefit?

Joe
Joe

You're creating barriers to voting that other voters wouldn't have.  You know how long it takes to get a new ID in this state?  Obviously there are implementation issues, but that's why you do a costs benefits analysis.  This is a big expensive solution to a non-issue.  No business in their right mind would undertake this project, so why are we still pursuing it?

Joe
Joe

 If, as you say, we have no security, then how was the duplicate vote mentioned in the article noticed?

Your example makes perfect sense until you apply it to the issue at hand.  This is about balancing security against infringing on people's right to vote.  Your example doesn't include anyone being denied their rights.  In simple point of fact, this WILL prevent legal voters from voting.  Whether someone forgets their id, or loses their wallet the day before election day... there are a million ways this could screw a valid voter.

How would you feel if it was you?

Drew
Drew

yes, you've uncovered a vast left wing conspiracy there. but first...

you should start by looking up the word "disenfranchise,"

continue with learning the difference between "their" and "there,"

follow that by learning why a political party would propose an alternative to legislation it opposes.

We'll all be on pins and needles until then

Row
Row

 Actually when purchasing a gun you have to have a background check to make sure you are not a felon and a photo ID.  Firearm ownership is a constitutionally protected right....

ludwigtr
ludwigtr

it took me over a month to get my ID, then they shipped it to the wrong address.

I guess with a system like that someone could have taken my ID and used it to vote.

Kirk the Conservative Jerk
Kirk the Conservative Jerk

Yes, lets look at my use of the English language.  That will help misdirect people from the lies we were all told by Minnesota's Democrat Party and their parrots in the local media.

BTW, do you know what rule are you are following from Saul Alinsky's - Rules for Radicals?

ludwigtr
ludwigtr

Know what you're talking about before you speak, please.

Joe
Joe

 That's Federal.  We're discussing State law.  Shh.  The adults are talking.

Drew
Drew

No, I don't watch Glenn Beck. Or listen to him, I guess would be more accurate. I'm sure banging the Alinsky drum is your way of characterizing me as an extreme parody of my actual position...which actually was one of his tactics, I'm sure.

Anyway, if you'd learn to use the language we wouldn't have this problem. More importantly, though, can you tell me why a political party might propose an alternative to legislation it opposes? I'll even let you google it if you need a civics lesson first.

I admire your crusade for attention and only regret that I'm giving it to you

ludwigtr
ludwigtr

Do you know what symptoms of a sociopath you express on a daily basis?

Not everything can operate as it did in 1950.  Things change.  Except we should learn from our mistakes...like poll taxes.

Now Trending

Minnesota Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...