American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey
The ACLU-MN submitted this testimony to the Minnesota Senate Committee at a hearing on February 1, 2012.
Good afternoon. My name is Jana Kooren, and I am the public education coordinator for the ACLU of Minnesota. The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota is funded and supported by over 8,500 members statewide. Our mission is to defend constitutional rights under the United States and Minnesota constitutions.
The United States Supreme Court upheld Indiana's voter ID law in a decision known as Crawford. The Crawford decision held that, on its face, a photo identification requirement for voting did not violate the right to vote. The court established a balancing test, where a court must balance the state's interest in the voting rule against the burden imposed by the rule.
Because the case was not based on individuals who were actually impacted but only on the theory that this would disenfranchise voters, the court held that the burden did not outweigh the compelling interest in election integrity.
Applying the balancing test to SF1577: what is the state's compelling interest, and what is the burden imposed?
There is zero evidence of voter impersonation fraud in Minnesota, despite massive efforts both in statewide election recounts and by advocacy groups to find such evidence. The only "voter fraud" found was people with felony sentences who were on parole or probation who registered to vote or voted despite the fact that their voting rights were not yet restored. The simple and nearly cost-free answer to that problem is to allow persons who are not currently incarcerated to vote, not a constitutional amendment on voter i.d.
Furthermore, the number of people convicted of violating voter eligibility rules is miniscule. There were approximately 160 convictions in 2011 after an election where 2.1 million voted. That is 0.007%, or 7 thousandths of a percent of the votes cast. Actually, the number is even smaller than that because a number of the convictions were for felons who registered to vote but did not actually vote. These numbers demonstrate a nearly perfect system. The much bigger problem is that 47% (or over 2,000,000) of eligible voters, did not actually cast a ballot in 2010.
Therefore, while the State has a compelling interest in election integrity, there is no credible evidence of an existing problem.
What is the burden? If you look at raw numbers, the State has said that approximately 140,000 eligible voters lack a state-issued photo ID card which would enable them to vote. That is about 3.5%. That number does not include eligible voters with a state-issued ID card that does not contain their current address.
At the least, 3.5% of the 4,000,000 voters in Minnesota lack the requisite ID card. We can't discount the votes of the 140,000 individuals just because they are in the minority. Their votes shouldn't count for less. What is the burden of obtaining an ID card on an individual?
This is my grandmother, Ramona Kooren, a 78 year old woman who lives in Hawley Minnesota. She recently downsized from a 3 bedroom to a one bedroom apartment to cut back on expenses because she lives on a fixed income (and no longer needs as much space since her husband passed away). At the same time she moved, she was denied a renewal for her driver's license (could not pass the test) and so she did not get a new ID card with her current address. She has no family in town, and no mode of transportation. She always votes, and if the election were held today she would not be able to vote. In order to get a supposedly free ID card she would have to find someone to drive her to the nearest DVS that issues ID cards which is 25 miles away, and ensure she had all the proper documents to get that ID card.
When she was told about this impending law, she said she had no idea they were even debating it, and didn't understand why after voting consistently for her whole life she would have to change how she voted. She is able to cash checks, and do all of her normal tasks without a current ID and didn't know she would need one since she no longer can drive. While she remains very sharp in general, my grandmother grew anxious at the thought of not being able to vote and having to find her birth certificate and marriage license. Now, could my Grandma eventually get an ID? Probably, because she has family members who know what is going on and will take days off of work to help her get an ID, but not everyone has that luxury.
This is the burden we will be putting on our elderly. This burden will be put on others of limited means and mobility. This burden will be put on highly mobile people who move frequently, either because they are young and not yet established, or because they are poor, and their lack of means makes them have to move a lot.
If SF1577 were just a bill for a new law, I could tell the legislative decision makers points of law and fact, sit for questions, and listen to the deliberations. The Minnesota Constitution would still protect the people whose voting rights were affected. They could could sue under the Constitution and tell a judge their story.
But a constitutional amendment puts my grandmother's ability to vote up to a vote of strangers. Her rights, and the rights of thousands of others like her, would be left to the kindness of strangers, with no affordable way of telling their story.
Therefore, I urge you to vote no to SF1577.
