With more votes approaching this week in the Minnesota legislature on Photo ID, the left’s misinformation campaign is in high gear. As noted in this article, TakeAction Minnesota issued a statement after the Senate Local Government & Elections Committee voted to approve the constitutional amendment ballot question legislation. This information was part of their statement:
Despite numbers put forward two weeks ago by Minnesota’s Secretary of State demonstrating the depth and scope of those who would be stripped of their right to vote, over 715,000 eligible Minnesota voters, Senate Republicans passed the restrictive photo ID bill out of committee.
TakeAction Minnesota’s statement isn’t credible. In the 2008 Coleman-Franken race, just over 2,400,000 people voted. We know that that number is accurate because those ballots were counted on election night. Those ballots went through a mandatory recanvassing. After that, they went through a manual recount. It isn’t possible to say that the 2,400,000 isn’t verifiable.
TakeAction Minnesota’s statement that “over 715,000 eligible voters” would “be stripped of their right to vote” means that approximately 30% of that year’s voters wouldn’t have been able to get either a Minnesota drivers license or a state-issued identification card.
Any state that can only get drivers licenses or state-issued identification cards to 70% of its driving age citizenry isn’t qualified to conduct an election. Period.
It’s important to highlight TakeAction Minnesota’s statement said that 715,000 people “would be stripped of their right to vote.” That’s a definitive statement. There isn’t any equivocation in TakeAction Minnesota’s statement. What’s their proof that verifies that statement? Is there proof that verifies that statement? The answer to the last question is “it’s improbable.”
This wouldn’t be the first time Democrats exaggerated the impact Photo ID would have on voters. Writing the majority opinion from the Supreme Court case of Crawford v. Marion County Board of Elections, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote this in his opinion:
After discovery, District Judge Barker prepared a comprehensive 70-page opinion explaining her decision to grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 458 F. Supp. 2d 775 (SD Ind. 2006). She found that petitioners had “not introduced evidence of a single, individual Indiana resident who will be unable to vote as a result of SEA 483 or who will have his or her right to vote unduly burdened by its requirements.” Id., at 783.
She rejected “as utterly incredible and unreliable” an expert’s report that up to 989,000 registered voters in Indiana did not possess either a driver’s license or other acceptable photo identification. Id., at 803. She estimated that as of 2005, when the statute was enacted, around 43,000 Indiana residents lacked a state-issued driver’s license or identification card.
Judge Barker found that the Democrats’ expert witness supplied testimony that was “utterly incredible and unreliable.” Just as noteworthy is that Judge Barker wrote that petitioners hadn’t “introduced evidence of a single, individual Indiana resident who will be unable to vote as a result of SEA 483 or who will have his or her right to vote unduly burdened by its requirements.”
According to the Indiana Secretary of State’s office, 2,468,000 people voted in the 2004 election. That’s the election that triggered Crawford v. Marion County Board of Elections. If the Democrats’ claim that 989,000 people didn’t have proper photographic identification and wouldn’t have been able to vote, that would’ve represented 40% of the people that voted in the 2004 election.
At this point, people should be skeptical of both unsubstantiated statements. They’re self-serving statements that can’t be substantiated by an independent third party.
It’s quite possible that Democrats didn’t expect a judge to question their figures. It’s quite possible that they just mentioned those numbers for shock value, only to find that judges aren’t prone to just accepting allegations without substantiation.
Either way, the Democrats are in a difficult position of defending their indefensible figures. Worst of all, they’ve tied themselves to a corrupt organization known for their prevarication.