Platform for Reform

First and most importantly implement Photo ID. 

71% democrats, 77% independents and 86% republicans favor photo ID.  And why not?  You go to the store to buy cough medicine and have to show an ID but for the most important foundation of our democratic republic, we can go to the polls to vote and we will just take someone's word on their eligibility and residence?  Common sense in accountability and integrity dictate that with something as important as a vote, verifying identity and eligibility should be fundamental to the process.  Of the hundreds of thousands of same day registrations that took place in the last election, tens of thousands of those ballots still remain unconfirmed.  The amount of work that is placed on the already short staffed county organization to validate these votes can easily be put low on the priority list and set aside in order to deal with more urgent issues.

Photo ID modernizes and streamlines the process, in the long term costing less, and provides us all the confidence to know that our votes are counted fairly without being diluted by people who may try to game the system. With Minnesota's lax election system, it is very difficult to determine the validity of an election after the fact and nearly impossible to identify who is responsible even when errors or abuse are detected. The solution is to verify first with photo ID.

Eliminate Vouching on same day registration.

By incorporating photo ID and eliminating vouching we can begin to address the enormous discrepancies that have become part of the voting system.   Vouching for up to 15 other individuals is a gaping hole that exposes our very trusting system to potential fraud and abuse.  Yet rather than address this issue, the current Secretary of State's recommendation was to expand the window to vote and create an even more difficult scenario to ensure integrity in elections.  It isn't about trying to keep people from voting, it is about trying to keep people from voting in the place of some one else or more than once which dilutes legitimate votes and creates doubt about the legitimacy of close elections. The fix to the vouching issue is to go to a provisional ballot which is cast but not counted until proper verification is received.  The voter has 10 days in which to produce the required information and once the information is received the vote is counted - if a recount is required.  This method ensures that the person is able to cast a vote and if the election is close, gives them the opportunity to ensure their vote is counted. The people of Minnesota deserve integrity in the voting process and through these changes they can be confident in our elections once again.

Absentee voting reform. 

Nothing is more frustrating and outrageous than the disenfranchisement of our military personnel at the election box.  In the last election roughly 28% of our military personnel in Minnesota were able to cast a vote that counted when using the absentee system.  In our local elections, military ballots were 2 times more likely to be rejected by local officials than other absentee ballots.  Much of the reason for that is because the ballots were received after Election Day.  If we can figure out how to get health care insurance to 93% of the population in Minnesota, don't you think that a fundamental right to vote and have it count for citizens putting their lives on the line for our freedoms ought to be a priority in our voting process.  Mark Ritchie doesn't or he would have tried to figure out what happened to the 2100 ballots that were not returned.  He also put out a memo on 7 December that resulted in a large number of military votes being rejected and then in the same memo relaxed the requirements for regular absentee ballots so that they would be counted.

KSTP news did an excellent report on the issue on the disparities of the treatment of out state absentee versus Metro area treatment.  Simply put, out state followed the letter of the law while Metro area judges went with "voter intent", what ever that means.  This video is on my home page and I strongly recommend watching it.  The bottom line is our chief election official Mark Ritchie is defensive and fails to explain the discrepancies.  Of further note is that the county filed a law suit to block discovery of possible ballot mishandling using tax payer dollars for the suite.  They lost and I look forward to real investigative journalism piece that informs the public of possible systemic governmental discrepancies so they can be addressed and not hidden.  This is the very reason freedom of the press was included in our constitution, to be the public watch dog - not political lap dog.  it can be viewed on a You tube video.  It gives an actual unbiased view of the mismanagement by the current Secretary of State.

Initiate Bar-coding and a central processing center for absentee ballots. 

In the last recount election huge disparities in training and standardized procedures brought to light a fundamental question that remains to this day.  Is the top vote getter actually sitting in the Minnesota senate seat?  Some will certainly point to the Supreme Court decision for their verdict but close scrutiny of the decision reveals that the justices refused to hear arguments regarding the uniformity or handling of the absentee ballots.  This was a major factor in the final count that pushed Al Franken over the top.

Creating a central processing center with an in person issuance requirement would first ensure that ballots were legally attained and then that they are handled in a uniform manner to ensure equitable treatment.

Mandate a run-off election for close elections. 

If the election is within .05%, it triggers a runoff election to be held for the top two vote getters and that it be held in December following the initial vote.  With the millions that were spent on the Coleman versus Franken case and indecision that remained for months after the November election, a re vote would help create a clearer picture of who is the people's choice by focusing on the individual race within the district or state wide race.

This is by no means a comprehensive picture of the irregularities that were encountered in the 2008 Senate race, but rather highlights some of the solutions that could be implemented to bring back a measure of confidence in a broken system.