Minnesota Majority, Minnesota’s premier election watchdog organization, has issued a scathing indictment against Minnesota’s election integrity. There isn’t any question but that Minnesota’s election integrity has been compromised:

Minnesota Majority today released a report on voters flagged for challenge in the statewide voter registration system (SVRS) because of official election mailings to their listed addresses being returned as undeliverable by the United States Postal Service. The mailings, commonly known as postal verification cards (PVCs) are sent to newly registered voters as a means of confirming their provided address and residence at that address. Thousands of voters were flagged for challenge following the 2008 and 2010 general election in Minnesota.

“The PVC is the only real test we have for confirming a voter’s residence, and we often don’t perform that verification until after a person has voted,” said Minnesota Majority president Jeff Davis. “After the 2008 election, over 6,000 Election Day registrants were found to have provided addresses that were undeliverable and after 2010 there were over 1,200 more that remain unexplained even after accounting for voters who moved shortly after voting. This is a strong indicator of the possibility of voter fraud.”

Not only does this call Minnesota’s election integrity into question but it questions the advisability of same day registration. It’s troubling that the USPS returned thousands of PVCs as undeliverable. At minimum, same day registrants shouldn’t be given a standard ballot; they should be given a provisional ballot.

It’s preferable though, that Minnesota ends the practices of vouching and same day registration. Similarly, Minnesota voters need to pass a Photo ID constitutional amendment next November. The DFL’s declarations that Minnesota’s recounts prove that Minnesota’s election system is airtight doesn’t make it fact.

All that a recount proves is that the people can add and subtract. It can’t prove that the person who filled out the ballots were eligible to vote. Minnesota Majority’s PVC report verifies that plenty of people, perhaps in the thousands of people, weren’t eligible to vote.

If they were eligible to vote, 6,000 PVCs wouldn’t have gotten returned in 2008. It’s one thing if a dozen PVCs got returned. It’s another thing if 6,000 PVCs got returned. A dozen might be explained away. 6,000 can’t be lightly explained away.

This needs to be addressed, too:

Minnesota law requires voters to register at least 20 days before an election so that the information they provide and their eligibility to vote can be verified by election workers before they vote on Election Day. However, Election Day registration creates an exception. People who register at the polling place are given a ballot without first being subject to the same scrutiny.

Election Day registrants can account for as many as 25% of all votes cast in a typical election. For those voters, the postal verification card isn’t mailed until after their ballots have been accepted and counted. Voters whose PVCs are returned as undeliverable will be flagged for challenge if they show up at the next election, but meanwhile, their ballots have already been accepted.

“This is an example of why creating two classes of voters is unacceptable,” said Davis. “You shouldn’t be subject to less scrutiny than everyone else, just because you waited until the last minute to register. Less responsible voters are allowed to cut in line and cast a ballot without being validated and this is what happens.

That’s creating a system where voter fraud can run rampant. Hypothetically speaking, there isn’t a way of stopping a union thug from Wisconsin from creating a fictitious identity and address, then registering to vote on Election Day. There’s virtually no way that the criminal could be caught and punished.

Minnesota can’t ignore voter fraud after this report. It’s obvious that it’s happening. This is what happens when a political party puts a high priority on ballot access while ignoring election integrity.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

6 Responses to “Minnesota Majority report an indictment against Minnesota’s election integrity”

  • J. Ewing says:

    And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Right now the law easily permits multiple voting, no questions asked, and doesn’t even require that people show up to cast a ballot– ballots are cast “for them” and often after the polls close. We don’t even know that our hyperpartisan SOS (a fitting acronym) is properly maintaining the voter rolls, as required by law.

  • Mike Dean says:

    You do understand that photo ID won’t solve this issue. The only way to stop any potential for voter fraud is to require a fingerprint scan. This would be the cheapest option too.

  • Gary Gross says:

    You do know that fixing the problem is a multi-faceted problem, don’t you, Mr. Dean? It’s interesting that liberals have gone from saying that voter fraud doesn’t exist to saying that Photo ID wouldn’t stop felons from voting to saying that Photo ID doesn’t solve the problem. Which tall tale will you opt for next?

    It’s time to eliminate same day registration & vouching. It’s time we elected a SecState that did what U.S. federal law requires him to do. It’s time that DFL activists like Mr. Dean stopped playing games with our elections.

    PS- A fingerprint scan doesn’t verify that the person actually lives in that precinct.

  • walter hanson says:


    If you have to show a photo id then you might actually catch some possible illegal voters.

    Pedro Lopez (made up name by me) can show up with an utility bill and be allowed to register to vote even if he doesn’t speak English (hint I’m describing a potential illegal voter from Mexico). If he can’t show a MN Drivers license, a US birth certificate, or a US passport that’s proof that he isn’t a legal citizen able to vote.

    I bet over the years Mike a lot of Pedro Lopez’s won’t have voted if we had that standard.

    Walter Hanson
    Minneapolis, MN

  • J. Ewing says:

    And if the election judge doesn’t check the license for immigration status, as our SOS does NOT train them to do, they get to vote. Also, state law REQUIRES that college students be allowed to vote twice. Most don’t, but our SOS doesn’t check that, either. Adding electronic validation to voter ID, as the original bill had, WOULD eliminate all these routes to fraud.

  • Adam says:

    So a typo on a registration card, or on the data entry in the state’s computer system, indicated fraud? How?

Leave a Reply