secretary of state Hillary Clinton, repeatedly made claims that three-to-five million fraudulent votes were cast, preventing him from also winning the popular vote. These assertions regarding the general election were summarily rejected in August 2018 by the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, which disbanded after it couldn’t substantiate any of Trump’s claims. The topic of voter fraud soon took a back seat to front page stories asserting Russian interference in the 2016 campaign. The resulting investigation, spearheaded by special counsel Robert Mueller and still ongoing, occurs amid a partisan divide in the country that, according to data from Pew Research Center, is worse than it’s been since the American Civil War. And for both those who think Mueller is overreaching and those who are convinced candidate Trump colluded with a foreign power, the ongoing probe is sure to influence votes in both local and national contests on November 6.
ILLUSTRATION BY WASCO
F
or some concerned citizens, the prospect of fraudulent voting (either because of loopholes in the law or weak enforcement) remains the number one threat to the country’s elections apparatus. Their main concerns include, but are not limited to, counterfeit absentee ballots, vote buying, ineligible voting, and, most importantly, the chance that ineligible voters will manage to vote—sometimes more than once. Others worry that tales of malfeasance at the ballot box are a gross exaggeration that can lead to remedies—including the elimination of same-day registration and the push for government-issued photo IDs—that they argue are actually designed to discourage certain populations from voting. This anxiety has historical precedent. Until the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965, Jim Crow laws in the Southern United States kept blacks and poor whites from exercising their 14th Amendment rights through the use of poll taxes (also enforced in northern states, including Minnesota), literacy requirements, intimidation at polling places, and onerous record-keeping requirements. In Minnesota, these differences in opinion played out in the 2012 election, when a voter ID amendment to the state constitution was proposed that would have required a person to produce a
government-issued photo ID before participating in municipal, state, and federal elections. Supporters argued that the minor inconvenience of such a requirement was outweighed by the promise of transparency and the rule of law. Those who fought the proposal countered that the proposition was not only an overreaction to a mythical crisis, but would disproportionately burden minority, handicapped, and older voters. In the wake of the amendment’s defeat (46 percent for, 52 percent against), some political observers posited that because it appeared on the ballot with the Minnesota Marriage Amendment, which would have banned marriage between same-sex couples, the results were skewed. The argument being that forces opposing both initiatives pooled their resources to create a “Vote No” campaign, which conflated the issues in most people’s mind; and that, if voter ID would’ve stood alone, it may well have received majority support. Looking forward, it is noteworthy that, according to national poll results released by the Public Research Institute in July 2018, 62 percent of Democrats say voter disenfranchisement is a bigger problem than voter fraud, while 68 percent of Republicans point to voter fraud as the greater concern. As a result, the subject of voter ID is likely to re-emerge sooner or later in Minnesota, depending on which party controls the governor’s office and legislature. As Republican gubernatorial candidate Jeff Johnson, who supports voter ID, told Minnesota Public Radio in October 2017: “Because there are a lot of people that believe cheating is going on, if there’s a way to address without disenfranchising people, we ought to do that.”
A
mong mainstream Republicans, Donald Trump’s rise and eventual nomination came as a shock. An unconventional outsider with little political experience, he took advantage of a growing movement of increasingly vocal and active conservatives who had long been frustrated with middle-of-the road presidential candidates, including the late senator John McCain and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. Traditional Democrats were also unprepared for the emergence of Bernie
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT The impetus behind the creation of A Good Debate was a recog nition that meaningful conversation and respectful, evidence-based discourse is lacking in popular media and the public sphere. Our desire in each issue of Citizens League Voice is to model thoughtful dialogue that encourages disagreement and discourages rancor. Every quarter, those who turn to the cover package will be presented with Just the Facts, designed to provide objective context for a specific question or area of disagreement. What follows is a carefully planned and vetted collection of Opening Arguments, written by policymakers, academics, and engaged community members representing a wide range of opinion and expertise. Participants work closely with Voice editors to hone their positions and are encouraged to rely on logic and best evidence. Personal attacks, red herrings, and assumptions, particularly those that involve cultural or ideological stereotypes, are discouraged. A Cross-Exam of each contributor rounds out the section. Conducted by the editors, this is an effort to further explore the nuance of each argument and provide a model for thoughtful questioning. The goal of A Good Debate is not to convince readers of any one position. No one wins or loses. Instead, the hope is that when they are presented with a variety of in-depth thought on important issues, Citizens League members, lawmakers, and the wider public will be better equipped to sort through the hollow, contrarian rhetoric that too often hijacks productive discussion. VOICE | Fall 2018 9
