I documented the cost estimates for the Republican’s vaguely defined constitutional amendment to change how we vote. They call it “Voter ID.” I call it vote suppression. Others call it vote restriction.
Regardless of the title, its going to be expensive to implement. There are many variables. So many that the Minneapolis Elections Department declined to guess at a price. Ramsey County suggested it would cost around $175 million for them to implement it.
Goodhue County (SE MN) and Hubbard County (north central) are worried. Sally Jo Sorenson at Bluestem Prairie documented their worries.
The election staff for Goodhue County wanted voters to understand all of the implications of the restrictions: absentee balloting ends, same-day registration ends and potentially 215,000 Minnesotans face difficulties getting valid IDs.
Hubbard County officials are very concerned about cost:
Minnesota’s proposed Voter ID law, which recent polls suggest could pass handily, will have unintended consequences and unanticipated costs for Hubbard County.“I think they’re going to be astonished at what this could cost us,” Auditor-Treasurer Pam Heeren said, admitting, “there’s so many unknowns it’s hard for us to put a price on it.”
But its probably a guest post at BSP by Max Halperin, professor at Gustavus Adolphus, that should scare every City Council Member and County Commissioner statewide.
Halperin debunks claims by the Center for the American Experiment that “Voter ID” would reduce election costs:
This report downplays the financial costs of the proposed amendment, but its most provocative claim is that “substantial cost savings accrue when photo ID is coupled with electronic poll book technology.” Specifically, in return for an estimated initial investment of $5 million, a cost savings of approximately $1 million per general election could be realized.Both of these estimates have substantial problems, but even if we accept the numbers, the idea that the proposed amendment could be a net win from a financial standpoint falters on two fundamental problems. First, the projected savings would be possible even without a photo ID requirement. Second, the initial investment is in fact a recurring cost that would be necessary each time the laptop computers reached the end of their useful lives.
When you combine Halperin’s analysis with the analysis at MinnPost, I don’t see how anyone can argue this amendment will save money.
They will of course, but Republicans rarely if ever let facts get in their way.
{ 1 comment }
When Jacob and Michelle Frey heard that the Republicans at the state legislature were going to put a measure on the ballot to define marriage as between one man and one woman, they were outraged. They wanted to do something to help in the fight to defeat changing our constitution to include discrimination.
One of the best aspects of the campaign to prevent marriage discrimination from getting enshrined into Minnesota’s constitution, is everyone is getting involved. Progressives, labor and faith are communities that often overlap in MN. So it’s great to see that the 
Minnesotans United for All Families announced on Friday that Richard Carlbom will be the Campaign Manager. MUAF is a broad coalition of organizations opposed to the marriage discrimination ballot measure Republicans at the legislature put on the 2012 ballot. The campaign is sure to get loud and ugly judging by other state’s experiences.
