Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message

Have we discussed Minnesota’s controversial voter “vouching” law?

Posted on 8/17/26 at 10:29 am
Posted by loogaroo
Welsh
Member since Dec 2005
43492 posts
Posted on 8/17/26 at 10:29 am


quote:

CAUGHT INSIDE MINNEAPOLIS POLLING BOOTHS: Minnesota Poll Workers Tell O’Keefe, Dressed in Muslim Garb, & @camhigby, in a Burka, That They Can Vouch for Eight Unregistered Voters Without ID, Allowing Them to Vote in Minnesota Primary Election Election worker says, “You’re the ID,” referring to the registered voter serving as identification for the people they are vouching for. Election worker confirms O’Keefe’s question about unregistered voters being vouched for: “I can vouch for them. They are not registered… That’s okay. That’s fine. Yeah!” Election worker explains that a registered voter in the same precinct can vouch for up to eight people: “If you’re all in the same precinct and you are already registered, you can vouch for them as ID. Eight people.”
Posted by Bernie Bierman
Member since Mar 2019
2280 posts
Posted on 8/17/26 at 10:48 am to
Can I get a big brained lefty around here to explain how this does anything other than facilitate fraud?

None of you can, so none of you will.
Posted by SallysHuman
Lady Palmetto Bug
Member since Jan 2025
25264 posts
Posted on 8/17/26 at 10:50 am to
Great. My vote = 9 muzzie votes.
Posted by Bard
Definitely NOT an admin
Member since Oct 2008
60235 posts
Posted on 8/17/26 at 11:28 am to
I spent a little time reading up on this and the truth is stranger than you think.

What the poll worker is talking about is a 2013 which limited (yes, LIMITED) the original 1973 law from someone being able to vouch for 15 to "only" 8.

The original bill was put into law because of another bill which allowed voter registration on election day (prior law established a voter must be registered prior to election day), more specifically for people who recently moved and hadn't had time to change their registration. The voucher also had to sign a legal document (no idea if that's still the case).

In other words, it was a MASSIVE over-correction for an issue which likely impacted only an extremely small amount of people.
This post was edited on 8/17/26 at 12:35 pm
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram