Photo ID will make it harder on military voters

By Todd E. Pierce

Todd E. Pierce is a Minnesota resident and a major in the U.S. Army with more than 37 years of military service between active and reserve duty. He serves currently in Virginia in the Office of the Chief Defense Counsel, Military Commissions, under the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

I was astounded to learn recently that two state senators have complained about Secretary of State Mark Ritchie publicly stating that troops deployed overseas would have a more difficult time successfully casting their ballot under the proposed constitutional amendment on elections.

I believe Ritchie is correct and that he would be derelict in his duties as our state's chief elections officer if he didn't advise voters of potential consequences of proposed changes in our state Constitution.

Grow the Future of Public Media

MPR News is supported by Members. Gifts from individuals power everything you find here. Make a gift of any amount today to become a Member!

The proposed new constitutional amendment would turn the clock back to those days where military voters would need to find someone to vouch for their identity by signing on their ballot as a witness or notary.

Contrary to the assertions that military members will not have any problems meeting the new voting regulations because they have a photographic identification for getting onto a military base, this ID card does not have any address on it, let alone a Minnesota address showing which precinct one is eligible to vote in.

This is one reason why every other state in the nation that has imposed photo ID voting restrictions has always exempted military voters -- it is not possible to find a witness or voucher that can be certified in all parts of the world, especially in a war zone.

I worked in the Minnesota Office of the Secretary of State from 2004 until 2008, coordinating with the Department of Defense to address obstacles to Minnesota's military voters. I served under former Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer (sponsor of the photo ID amendment) and Ritchie.

When Ritchie took office in 2007 he developed a close cooperative working relationship with the Department of Defense, adopting its proposals along with his own. He reached out to veterans organizations to inform them of his goals and to seek their support to push the Legislature to adopt the important suggestions being made by the Pentagon and others.

Working closely with veteran's organizations, Minnesota National Guard leaders, and other active duty and reserve servicemen and women, he drafted proposed laws and then worked tirelessly to get them passed.

Ritchie was so successful in getting his reforms adopted into law that Minnesota was named an All-Star state by the Military Voter Protection Project as part of its 2012 Heroes Vote Initiative.

This is a conservative oriented organization, as I understand. But they validated the success of Ritchie's military voting reforms.

In fact, in the course of writing this short piece, I took a break, went to the Minnesota Secretary of State website to the military voting program that Ritchie brought into use in 2008 and submitted a military absentee ballot application within minutes and with which I requested and received my ballot electronically, virtually immediately.

In my time in the Secretary of State's office, I was also the person charged with receiving allegations of illegal voting from the public or government officials. If there was any substance to the allegation, I would forward it to the proper authority.

In two national elections, there was not a single substantiated complaint of anyone intentionally committing voter fraud.

Two statewide recounts where each ballot was looked at confirms the lack of voter fraud in the state.

I no longer work in the Office of Secretary of State, nor do I write as a partisan of any party. But it is critical to set the historical record straight.

Knowing the facts as I do, it appears to me that these false allegations being made of Secretary Ritchie regarding military voting are simply partisan political attacks.

The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. government.