A recent fundraising email by Minnesota Majority prompted former Meeker County Commissioner Amy Wilde to respond to the group's executive director Dan McGrath.
McGrath replied and the two went back and forth via email. The exchange, with both people's email addresses redacted, is posted below, beneath the fold.
It's a remarkable example of mansplaining, Dan McGrath style.
Wilde's not opposed to the idea of requiring voters to present an id card, but she's not happy about the voter restriction amendment on the ballot in November is written, especially since she's not fond of unfunded mandates to counties or being asked to approve a constitutional amendment without knowing the details of what implementation might mean. That caution comes from years of serving as strong conservative woman in local government.
Formerly active in the local county Republican Party for many years, as well as a trained election judge, Wilde has worked on resolving a number of complex policy issues over the years; her work in improving public health services for counties garnered state-wide recognition. She's no dummy.
She's also not particularly happy with McGrath's cavalier answers.
There's reason to be annoyed with McGrath's beyond just matters of tone. Perhaps the most disconcerting is this assertion:
99% of people have the documents they need to get ID already. For the rest, there's a one page form called petition for variance available from DVS to allow people who don't have a birth certificate, etc an ID. Do you really think there's any valid person in Minnesota who couldn't get a valid ID? The state already has procedures for unusual circumstances.
Although McGrath asserts in the email exchange below that anyone opposed to voter restriction is ignorant of Minnesota election law, Bluestem contacted Carolyn Jackson, lobbying coordinator at the American Civil Liberties Union-Minnesota with questions about the petition for variance.
Lawyer that she is, Jackson outlined three civil rights problems inherent in McGrath's suggestion:
- A citizen must pay $10 for the petition for variance (The cost of the variance, when applied to voting, would be an unconstitutional poll tax)
- The variance is granted at the discretion of government (the rights of American citizens are not discretionary)
- DVS staffing levels are such that the investigation required for granting a petition is not a high priority and thus an investigation may take up to 30 days; should more petitions be filed, the average time could increase and exceed the system's capacity (due process)).
However, the form requires documentation--for instance, if one's name has been changed:
Evidence required for name change.
If you have changed your legal full name as it appears on the presented primary document you must also present legal name change documents.
To verify the name change, you must present one of the following documents:
(1) A copy of the applicant's certificate of marriage certified by the issuing government jurisdiction;
(2) A certified copy of a court order specifying the name change; or
(3) A certified copy of a divorce decree or dissolution of marriage granted the applicant that specifies the name changes requested from a court of competent jurisdiction.
The instructions for the one page form are two pages long, listing documentation. It's not a simple as it seems.
Pat McCormick, Minnesota Driver and Vehicle Services, testified to the Government Operations and Elections Committee, on Thursday, March 8, 2012:
. . .It's a very time-consuming process and that's why there's a fee for it. And I can tell you that in the last year, we had 840 requests for variances, 586 were granted and 260 were denied.
There's very specific criteria that our department has to look at in terms of approving a variance because you know we're talking about documents that are identity documents and we have to be sure that we're preventing fraud because drivers licenses are not only used for driving in today's world and so we have to be sure that it's secure and the people are who they say they are.
So we do have that process in place but it takes a lot of time...We have thirty days in which we can make a decision about a variance. We try to turn them around in three days but what I mean by turning them around is starting a discussion with an applicant because oftentimes we have to work back and forth with applicants to get the right documents to get to prove that they are who they say they are.
We have to work with the Social Security Administration, it's not a simple process. . . .[transcipt of House hearing audiotape]
So that one-page form? It's not a simple process, though Dan McGrath and Minnesota Majority wants you to believe that it is.
After all, he thinks that folks like election judge Amy Wilde simply don't know anything.
Here's the email exchange--below the fold--
From: Amy Wilde [redacted]
Sent: Wednesday, September
26, 2012 4:36 PM
To: Dan McGrath [redacted]
Subject: Voter IDThe rules regarding how "substantially equivalent" Photo ID will work have not been written yet. You folks are asking the voters to buy a "pig in a poke."
Tell the Legislature to get to work & write a bill w/bipartisan support that will solve the possivble voter impersonation problem (as well as the felons voting one) without creating costly hurdles for people without drivers licenses, or people who move frequently, to overcome.
Unlike a constitutional amendment, a Legislative bill can be more easily modified to accommodate changes in technology. as time goes by. That is the route to take.
I'm sorry if Gov. Dayton vetoed the bill the Republicans sent him. They should have worked harder to get DFL support on something this important to Democracy. Go back to the drawing board & re-write Voter ID. Then I might support it, but not this poorly worded amendment. A. Wilde
That elicited this response:
From: Dan McGrath [redacted]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 05:54 PM
To: [Amy Wilde]
Subject: RE: Voter ID
The amendment is very clear and concise in what it accomplishes. It doesn't require a drivers license (that's just one of many available government-issued photo IDs). The amendment requires the state to provide ID at no charge. It doesn't require a current address on the ID.It's not poorly worded at all, but you have to begin with a knowledge of how our current election system operates to understand how it fits in. It was written by the most knowledgeable people on Minnesota's election system and it's being criticized by people who don't know the first thing about our election system, which is (partly) why they are getting it all wrong. The other part is they just don't care whether what they say is true as long as it convinces people to vote no.Regards, Dan McGrath
Minnesota Majority http://www.minnesotamajority.org
A determined Wilde responded:
From: [Amy Wilde]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 8:48 PM
To: [DanMcGrath]
Subject: Re: Voter IDSorry, I know quite a bit about our election system (I'm a trained election judge) and this amendment could be a HUGE unfunded mandate on local govts. Setting up a provisional ballot system, hiring & training more judges, etc. Is MInnesota Majority supportive of higher property taxes to cover this cost?
Not all precincts (esp. in rural townships) have Internet access to do on site "checking" on felons. So the biggest actual cause of fradulant voting would not be addressed by this amendment!! But that's only one conceern.
The best solution might be some kind of official "state ID" or "national ID" that would be issued at birth or at citizenship induction. But that sounds a bit too "big brotherish" for many.
There is also the requirement under current rules (for non-drivers) that a person present birth certificates, marriage licenses or other proof of change of birth name in order to get a state ID. That could get very costly--and some citizens got married in other states or even overseas. Obtaining the proper documents could be time consuming and/or quite costly. Will the govt pay for the underlying documents? How much would that cost the taxpayers?
Are election judges (many of whom are elderly retirees) going to be trained in spotting fake IDs?
The issue is not so much that ID should be required (I agree with that) but WHAT TYPE of govt-issued photo ID would suffice.
People who move around a lot (est. 14% of the population by some counts including many retirees who no longer drive) often don't have IDs with a current address and the amendment is silent on whether that would be required; would a current utility bill suffice, together with a license of state or tribal ID card, as it does now? I have no idea.
What about police investigators and others in risky professions who have iicenses with their work, not their home address, on it, to protect their family's privacy?
Would overseas voters voting absentee be required to get a notary to certify that they've seen a photo ID? Not sure how "substantially equivalent" would apply.
The amendment sounds clear on the surface, but there are still TOO MANY QUESTIONS re: how exactly it would work.
Therefore I cannot support this amendment and will advise others, including you, to vote against it.
The Legislature needs to go back to the drawing board!!! Amy W.
McGrath sneered back:
From: Dan McGrath
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:34 AM
To: [Amy Wilde]
Subject: RE: Voter IDChallenge lists don't need live internect access. It's very simple. The amendment will result in fewer election judges required, not more. Indiana had a grand total of fewer than 4,000 provisional ballots in 2008. Minnesota has over 4,100 precincts. With similar voting populations, that means we can expect an average of less than 1 provisional ballot per precinct.
99% of people have the documents they need to get ID already. For the rest, there's a one page form called petition for variance available from DVS to allow people who don't have a birth certificate, etc an ID. Do you really think there's any valid person in Minnesota who couldn't get a valid ID? The state already has procedures for unusual circumstances.
Since the amendment doesn't specify that ID needs an address, that falls to statutes. The statutes allow residence to be established by utility bills, etc.
You have no idea, but I do, because I've read the laws and the amendment and I understand how they interact. Apparently you don't know enough. Do some more study. The legislature doesn't need to go back to the drawing board. They got it right. You need to hit the books to understand what's been accomplished.
Regards,
Dan McGrath
Minnesota Majority
http://www.minnesotamajority.org
Wilde was not impressed:
From: [Amy Wilde]
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 12:29 PM
To: [Dan McGrath]
Subject: Re: Voter IDWay to win friends and influence people: telling a trained election judge & retired county official that she "has no idea" and that you know it all. Wow.
APW
Will Minnesota Majority's McGrath take the same approach to ISAIAH's Doran Schrantz on Thursday or is this contempt reserved for online correspondents? The Morning Take notes:
THURSDAY: At Metro State University, Minnesota Majority’s executive director Dan McGrath, representing ProtectMyVote.com will square off against ISAIAH’s executive director, Doran Schrantz, representing Our Vote, Our Future in what is likely to be the only public head-to-head public debate on the Voter ID Amendment between the two major opposing campaigns.
Cartoon: Dan McGrath, by Ken Avidor.
This needs to be seen by every county elections official in the state. MM's McGrath knows that the facts aren't on his side, so when he's challenged to back up his balderdash, he responds by flinging Snidely Whiplash unwitticisms.
Dear Minnesota elections officials: Dan McGrath and Mary Kiffmeyer hate you. Furthermore, they want you to fail at your jobs, as they use this ALEC amendment of theirs to force you to spend precious time and money (money that won't be available for roads, law enforcement or any of the other myriad needs of a community) on implementing their grand plans to keep tens if not hundreds of thousands of legal voters from voting in this state.
In short, they hate democracy, they hate the common good, and they hate you.
Just thought you should know.
Editor's note: Upon seeing the Avidor cartoon on Facebook, Ms. Wilde said that she felt like Lady Liberty in the image.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | Oct 03, 2012 at 02:42 PM
Thankyou for this story. Clearly the new requirements for a photo id is more complex and with costs. This legislation needs to be more thoroughly thought out and effects anticipated.
Editor's note: You're welcome.
Posted by: Leona Carlson | Oct 04, 2012 at 09:29 AM
Thanks, this is a great post.
I hope that in the debate tonight someone asks Dan McGrath two very simple questions:
(1) Would the amendment get rid of election-day vouching? [yes - if not then why are all of the proponents of the amendment complaining about how horrible vouching is?]
(2) In your view, is residence in the precinct part of a voter's "eligibility"? [yes]
Follow-up questions: If, as you say, that component of eligibility does not need to be verified via "valid, government-issued photographic identification," then could it be verified by any existing means of establishing eligibility, like a utility bill or a college's roster of students? [yes, as he says in the email exchange above]
But when a person vouches, they don't vouch for the person's identity, they just vouch for the person's residency within the precinct. So by your logic, why would the amendment get rid of vouching?
I'd add that Dan McGrath needs to go back and hit his civics books. In response to the Pennsylvania court ruling on Tuesday, he told MPR: "If Minnesota voters pass the voter ID constitutional amendment, McGrath said it will be protected from what he termed as 'court meddling.'" Most people recall from civics class that one of the jobs of the courts is to say whether laws (such as the laws that will need to be enacted to put the amendment into force) violate the constitution (such as the amendment itself). Yeah, no meddling.
Posted by: Amy Bergquist | Oct 04, 2012 at 10:52 AM
A follow-up: Got my answer in the debate last night. McGrath conceded that the amendment would not end vouching. He said it would end vouching for a person's identity (as opposed to residence), but there is no such thing in MN law as vouching for a person's identity. So vouching for residence - the only kind of vouching we have in Minnesota - would be untouched.
So why do amendment proponents get so hysterical about vouching if the amendment won't do anything about it?
Posted by: Amy Bergquist | Oct 05, 2012 at 01:14 PM