One week before election day, candidates for Minnesota secretary of state debated Tuesday at Augsburg College in Minneapolis.
Steve Simon (DFL), Dan Severson (R), Bob Helland (I) and Bob Odden (L) have debated several times before. You can see those debates and related stories here. This debate like the previous ones focused on topics ranging from Voter ID, military participation in voting, expanded and improved business services, and early voting.
The moderator is Judy Duffy, former president of League of Women Voters Minnesota and former first vice president, United States League of Women Voters.
Susan Sheridan Tucker, the LWV Minnesota, Executive Director, cited the critical role the Secretary of State plays in explaining why LWV Minnesota chose to host this forum, “With attention focusing on this important office in recent days, we expect the candidates to come prepared to articulate and clarify their views on both voting rights issues and the role of the Secretary of State in serving as the official recorder of financial and business records in Minnesota.”
>> Good evening, everyone.
I’m Paul Pribbenow, the president here at Augsburg
College.
It’s my great privilege to welcome you to
tonight’s Minnesota Secretary of State Candidate
Forum, cosponsored by the League of Women Voters
and Augsburg’s Sabo Center for Democracy and
Citizenship.
Before we begin, I’d like to just take a few
moments to say welcome to Congressman Sabo and his
wife, Sylvia, who are here in the front, it’s
always wonderful to have the namesake for our
center here with us.
[ Applause ]
At Augsburg College our mission says that we
educate students to be informed citizens,
thoughtful stewards, critical thinkers and
responsible leaders.
And certainly the wonderful partnership that we
developed with the League of Women Voters of
Minnesota is an opportunity for us to come forward
with that shared commitment to informed
citizenship, so it’s my pleasure to celebrate that
partnership and to introduce to you Stacy
Doepner-Hove who is the president of the league
here in Minnesota.
Stacy.
[ Applause ]
>> Thank you, President Pribbenow, and thank you,
Augsburg College, for hosting the event tonight.
It is, as you, I’m sure, would agree, a beautiful
venue, and we look forward to an exciting and
informative evening.
The League of Women Voters Minnesota is a
nonpartisan political organization that encourages
informed and active participation in our
government.
Which is exactly what we are doing here tonight.
So thank you, each of you, for taking the time to
get informed about this vitally important race for
Minnesota’s next Secretary of State.
And if you do want more information about the
League of Women Voters, please stop by our
membership table out in the atrium.
I would also like to take a moment to thank our
media partner, the Uptake, they are recording the
proceedings tonight and the event will be
available for viewing later on online, as well as
streaming tonight live.
I also need to share our sincere thanks with our
co-sponsors for supporting this event.
Jewish Community Action, the Minnesota Consortium
for Citizens with Disabilities, Minnesota Public
Interest Research Group, the Minnesota State Bar
Association, and the National Council of Jewish
Women.
Again, thank you all for attending tonight.
We look forward to a great night of voter
education.
To get things started, I would like to introduce
you to tonight’s moderator, Ms. Judy Duffy.
Ms. Duffy is a League of Women Voters trained
and experienced moderator and a former first vice
president of the League of Women Voters of the
United States.
She served on the League of Women Voters U.S.
board for six years as director of advocacy and is
a member of the budget committee.
Prior to her service on the national board,
Ms. Duffy was president of the League of Women
Voters Minnesota for two terms and served many
years as state voter service chair.
Ms. Duffy also has experience on the city
council level and with various other boards and
committees.
And now I will hand it over to her to get things
started.
Thank you.
[ Applause ]
>> Thank you, Stacy, for your introduction.
Good evening and welcome to the candidates, our
audience, the organizations who have partnered in
this League of Women Voters event, to the
students, the media who are here, and those
watching or listening and especially to you, the
voters.
Thank you for being here.
This forum, as you have heard, is being live
streamed by the Uptake.
It is also being video recorded by the League of
Women Voters and audio recorded for playback later
by Minnesota Public Radio.
No other recording devices are permitted except by
credentialed media.
In addition to Uptake, video recording will be
available by searching for LWVminnesota on
YouTube or visiting the League of Women Voters
Minnesota website, as listed in your program.
All of this recording means three things.
We’ll ask the audience to please remain quiet
throughout the forum.
I will be repeating the candidates’ names, both
before and after each question, so that listeners
can identify who the speaker is, and we ask that
you be sure to silence your cell phones.
For detailed information on the rules and policies
for the forum, please refer to your program.
These rules have been agreed upon by all of the
candidates and we ask that the audience respect
them as well.
The views expressed this evening are those of the
candidates and not those of the League of Women
Voters or our partner organizations.
None of us endorse candidates.
The format for tonight is, the candidates will
have two minutes for their opening and closing
statements.
Our timers are June Stuart and Kirsten Choming.
Candidates will have one and a half minutes to
respond to questions, unless stated otherwise, and
a -second comment period will be allowed by the
first speaker to each question, after all of the
other candidates have responded to that question.
Questions for tonight’s forum were submitted
through our partner organizations through e-mail
and by the audience members who are attending here
this evening.
This event is being interpreted in American Sign
Language by Patty McCutheon and Kathy Moescher.
All questions have been reviewed by a three-person
committee composed of league members Jerry Nelson
and Barb Pearson and Marcy Harris, representing
the National Council of Jewish Women.
The order in which candidates answer questions
will alternate and they have drawn numbers to
determine the order of their opening statements.
Out of consideration for other candidates and the
audience, we ask candidates to please respect
these time limits and hold all applause until the
end of the forum.
The forum will conclude by : .
We will begin, first, by introducing our
candidates after we get through all of this.
Sitting to my immediate left is Mr. Steve Simon,
representing the D.F.L. party,
Democratic-Farmer-Labor party.
Mr. Bob Helland, representing the Independence
party.
Mr. Bob Odden, representing the Libertarian
party.
And Mr. Dan Severson, representing the
Republican party.
We have drawn lots to determine who will open,
make the first opening statement, and Mr. Bob
Helland will begin.
>> Thank you, Judy, and thank you to all of you
for being here tonight.
Thank you to the League of Women Voters, thank you
to Augsburg College, thank you to the Uptake,
thank you to everyone who’s out there watching
right now.
Thanks to all the other partners that make this
type of civic opportunity available to you one
week before the election day.
I can’t tell you how much it’s a thrill for me to
be on stage with these gentlemen, to be a part of
this race, the nine-month effort that we’ve put
forward, and every day it’s a surprise, every day
it’s exciting, it’s fun, and I feel I’m doing
something that’s important for the state of
Minnesota.
I may strike many of you as a very different
candidate, not only am I a third party, the third
major party in the state, the Independence party’s
candidate, but I’m also years old, and I’d be
the youngest statewide elected executive in the
nation.
I have a little bit different appearance than most
people expect of politicians.
But I think that’s something that’s important.
We are changing the culture of elections in
Minnesota.
We have a fabulous election system that provides
access and we have our legislature over the years
to thank for those types of privileges.
You’re going to hear me talk about different
aspects of the office of Secretary of State.
It’s important for me that we talk about restoring
the full function of the office of Secretary of
State, which aside from elections administration
will include business services, Uniform Commercial
Code access, civic education, doing things like
preparing the students’ edition of the legislative
manual, there’s so many parts of state government
and of our civil society that this office reaches
out to and makes it easier for you to be a citizen
in Minnesota.
So, as much as we’re going to talk about
elections, I want to let you know right now that
photo identification’s going to be a big topic,
but it’s nothing that anyone up here is either
going to make happen or prevent from happening
because it’s a legislative role.
So stay tuned for a fun conversation.
And please do stick around afterwards and I’d be
happy to chat with you.
>> Thank you, Mr. Helland.
Mr. Bob Odden, your opening statement.
>> It’s Dan.
>> I’m sorry.
You are right, Mr. Dan Severson.
>> Thank you, thank you so much, particularly to
those of you who have gathered here tonight and
those who are listening to hear about the office
of the Secretary of State.
Many people don’t understand what it does,
elections and business.
And taking the time to make an educated voice —
vote in this process is fundamental to our
republic.
I want to tell you just momentarily why I am so
passionate about this issue, which is voting.
My grandfather served in World War I.
My father served in World War II and was deployed
over in Europe.
My mom welded ships while her husband, her first
husband, was over in the Philippines and gave his
life for liberty for this purpose.
Myself, I served in the Gulf War and in the Cold
War.
My son served in Afghanistan and Iraq and my
son-in-law served in Afghanistan.
For years I put on the uniform to protect the
Constitution of the United States and this voting
is one of those foundational rights.
Voting is one of those things that each of us
takes very seriously or should take very
seriously.
The second part of that, and I believe, which is
the office of the Secretary of State is
responsible for is making sure that vote is secure
and that it’s counted correctly.
You know, I had opportunity about two weeks ago to
talk with my son on the phone, and I asked him,
because I’m working on the military vote, if he
was able to vote while he was overseas.
And he said, you know, dad, I did vote.
I voted absentee, but I don’t think it counted
because I saw it the day before the election
sitting in a bag on the tarmac.
That’s a problem.
And that’s one of the things that we are going to
talk about a little bit tonight, how do we
enfranchise, how do we make sure that the people
not just who are serving our country, but the new
Americans who come here and are eager to
participate in this process get the education they
need to do just that, to cast the vote to make
sure that the people they elect are the people
that they want.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, Mr. Severson.
Now we will hear from Mr. Odden.
>> Long anticipated.
>> Hi, I’m Bob Odden, I’m an engineer.
I graduated from the University of Minnesota.
I was an idealist.
I read books written by liberal authors on how to
fix the problems of the world.
And you know how they ended all those books?
They basically said, well, we do not know how to
fix the problems, but we need to spend other
people’s money until we fix them.
That was — within the books they contain the
solution to those problems.
And the solution was, the government needs to turn
people loose to be creative.
And that made me a Libertarian.
As a Libertarian, I believe in liberty and liberty
is the — is freedom tempered by human rights.
No one could be against that.
And that as a Libertarian, I also took an oath not
to commit fraud and I hold others to that same
standard.
I then worked for years with helping the
employees and the public to prevent loss, injury
and death.
And I saved people from thousands of injuries and
saved hundreds of lives in doing that.
I did that by leading.
All systems, like the election process, have
inherent problems.
By analyzing data and viewing processes for their
problem causes, working collaboratively with
others on solutions, then implementing and then
following up to see that it produced the desired
results.
That’s what I did as an engineer.
To educate voters, I created my own public cable
TV access show, Libertarian Viewpoint, seen in
over cities.
The show presents nongovernment solutions to
problems.
The constitutional office of Secretary of State
requires a desire to follow the law, to look for
problems to solve them, leadership, and the desire
to educate voters, and I’ve demonstrated these
qualities.
I’m Bob Odden, thank you for attending the debate.
>> Thank you, Mr. Odden.
Now we will hear an opening statement from
Mr. Steve Simon.
>> I want to thank Augsburg College and the Sabo
Center for having this event and having us all
here.
I’m Steve Simon, the D.F.L. candidate for
Secretary of State and I’m running because we need
to put Minnesota’s interests above politics.
Particularly in this office.
And that, to me, means at least a couple of
things.
First, it means someone who’s fair, someone who
can be impartial, someone who can be and has a
record of being truly nonpartisan.
Second, it means a Secretary of State who always
remembers that in Minnesota, we should make it as
easy as possible, not harder, but as easy as
possible for all eligible voters to vote.
Period.
That has been our tradition.
That has been our culture.
And that’s why I suspect in Minnesota for nine
elections in a row, think about that, nine
elections in a row, Minnesota has led the nation
in turnout.
That is something to be proud of.
That’s not a Democratic accomplishment or a
Republican accomplishment or Libertarian or
Independent.
That’s a Minnesota accomplishment.
And, so, from day one in the legislature, where
I’ve served for ten years, where I now chair the
Elections Committee, I’ve really had a passion
for, an interest in exactly these issues that
pertain to the office, whether it’s ballot access,
or election reform or voter rights, these are the
issues that matter to Minnesotans.
And let me give just one example that I’m most
proud of.
I suspect it will come up a little bit later
tonight.
You all may know about the new law that’s on the
books known by various names, no excuses absentee
voting, or vote by mail, or vote from home.
That was my personal project and passion for seven
years.
I wrote that law.
But I didn’t do it alone.
I did it in a bipartisan way, really,
multipartisan way, you might say, by bringing
everyone to the table, Democrats, Republicans, and
others, to get something that was fair, durable,
and that would work for Minnesota and to make our
already best-in-the-nation system even better.
That’s a legacy I’m proud of.
And the way that we know that it’s truly
bipartisan is that all the major political parties
are promoting the heck out of it right now.
They’re saying, go out and vote early.
Make use of it.
Vote from home.
And that makes me proud.
So going forward, we have to continue to build on
the successes of the past but make sure we have a
true office for the st century, but it’s
about access and it’s about true nonpartisanship
and that’s what I offer.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, Steve Simon.
Our first question this evening will be directed
first to Mr. Severson.
There is a dramatic difference between turnout for
presidential elections and midterm elections.
Additionally, turnout in communities of color and
other minority groups consistently lags behind
white voter turnout in Minnesota.
As Secretary of State, what concrete steps will
you take toward closing these gaps and how are you
uniquely qualified to solve this problem?
>> Thank you.
You know, I lost the last election by about three
points.
When I lost the election in , I really figured
out that there are a lot of people down in the
inner city who really don’t have the opportunity
or the knowledge of how to vote.
I have some close friends here tonight who are
with me, and Yosef, who is a very close friend,
voted for the first time in the last election.
And we have people who have amazing stories, who
come to America because of the freedom and
opportunity that America has and they don’t know
how to break into the political system.
And, so, part of my process for the last three
years has been getting into those communities and
talking with them.
And part of that process has also been reaching
into those communities and saying, we need
participants from your community.
We aren’t asking you just to vote for us or me, in
particular, I’m asking you to raise up people from
within your community who have the heart of your
community, who really want to see their community
represented in government and then start to train
them in how do we go about this process, how do we
raise you up, how do we filter through all of the
political stuff to find out who’s really going to
represent your values.
And, so, part of my process as Secretary of State
will be to continue that outreach into these new
American communities and get their participation.
You know, when I went to a Hmong church a little
while ago, I talked to the pastor and the pastor
said, my people don’t vote.
That’s not right.
And that’s part of what we need to do in our
process and I will do as Secretary of State is to
create those relationships that actually bring
them to the polling booth.
>> Thank you, Mr. Severson.
We’ll now hear from Mr. Bob Helland.
>> Great.
Thank you.
So, there are obviously cycles within the election
system.
The question had mentioned that presidential
turnout had higher turnout than the midterms.
A lot of that plays into the amount of interest
that people have and I think I am uniquely
qualified to get people interested, especially
those that have historically lower turnout.
I see a lot of my peers out there and I hope in
the course of my campaign I’m reaching those
people, and younger, and younger, wherever
you want to cut the line, the turnout isn’t where
it needs to be and I think a lot of that just has
to be with how the candidates are approaching them
and reaching out to them and that’s one of the
reasons I really like to speak from my heart, I
like to speak from my experience.
One of my biggest points of experience is having
worked for the Department of Revenue for five
years, and in that role I was a business
registration expert talking to tens of thousands
of businesses, so not only are people of color and
new Minnesotans in the state struggling on the
voting and that civic aspect, but they’re also
struggling to navigate the complexity of our state
agencies when they’re trying to set up a business
or set up their livelihood or a nonprofit to help
their community.
So, again, I want to expand the discussion of this
office to voting and the business services and
everything that any community and any Minnesotan
will need to rely on.
So I do think I am uniquely qualified being a
young person who’s really just speaking to you
from my heart and trying to reach you.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, Bob Helland.
Now we will hear from Mr. Steve Simon.
>> We have a participation gap in Minnesota.
You’ve heard of the achievement gap.
We have a participation gap.
We are rightly proud of the fact that for nine
elections in a row we’ve been tops in turnout.
But that high turnout rate is not evenly
distributed.
And as the question supposes, it’s true, we have
real gaps and real barriers in Minnesota.
There are a few things I think we can do
particularly with new Americans.
Now, I’m the son of an immigrant.
My mother was an immigrant from Austria, on my
father’s side, my great grandparents, I like to
say didn’t just immigrate, they fled, they fled
for this country from eastern Europe because they
were mistreated.
So I know in my D.N.A. the value of a vote but
there are barriers there.
One thing we can do is just to provide more
information.
There’s study after study that says, when new
Americans, in particular, have the information
about the tools available to them, to us, to all
of us, whether it’s the new no excuse absentee
voter law that I wrote, whether it’s online voter
registration, which I also wrote, whether it’s the
host of reforms that we have in Minnesota, when
they know about that, they will use those things.
When they don’t, they won’t.
It’s common sense, but it’s true.
Secondly, I think we could do more with printing
more materials in foreign languages.
It’s something so simple.
We’ve done this for over years.
Starting in the s, we used to print ballot
information and other information in Finnish and
Swedish and French and German.
But we’ve tapered off and I think we have to do
that again in this new age.
And, finally, I think, we’ve got to cut through
sort of the cultural barrier.
There are some who come to this country from
places where voting was not prized or where the
fix was in in a corrupt system and we have to
convince people of the real use of that voice,
exercising that voice and that vote.
That matters.
>> Thank you, Mr. Simon.
We’ll now hear from Mr. Bob Odden.
>> There were problems in getting out the
information to people, no doubt.
You know, I was going to vote in the primary one
time.
I was trying to keep it in mind.
And it was never in the paper.
I mean, you know, I read the “Star Tribune”
religiously and it was never in there.
And I was never reminded to go out there to vote.
It was just like the primary never existed or
whatever.
A lot of people in the black community probably
don’t vote because they don’t understand how they
get the candidates they’re voting for.
They should be part of the caucus system.
I mean, they should be encouraged to get there on
the first Tuesday of February, you know.
If they don’t show up, they don’t get the
candidates they want.
So, we need to work on that.
We need to get them involved.
And we need to get them involved more than just
two parties.
I mean, it’s just like Coke and Pepsi.
If you know there’s only going to be Coke and
Pepsi on the ballot, you know, you’re going to go,
I mean, you know, kind of boring.
You need something to liven it up.
You need something like root beer or a Dr. Pepper
or maybe even Mountain Dew.
I mean, that gets excitement, you know.
Just not the same old-same old.
So if we can get them involved in caucus and then
put somebody on the ballot that would actually
interest them, we could get them out to vote.
>> Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Odden.
Our next question, in what specific ways will you
engage with the business community to help ensure
the Secretary of State’s office effectively meets
the needs of business, for-profit and nonprofit
constituents?
We’ll begin with Mr. Simon.
>> Well, thank you for the question.
I appreciate that.
It’s an underreported part of the office.
A majority of the employees in the Secretary of
State’s office actually work in the business
services function.
And, so, it’s important to address those needs.
I’m proud to have recently received the
endorsement of Small Business Minnesota,
prestigious local business group made up of small
businesses and entrepreneurs who really value the
services that they get from the Secretary of
State’s office.
But there’s more we can do.
The bottom line for me is, making sure that it’s
as easy as possible in Minnesota to start a
business from a technical or paperwork standpoint,
but, more importantly, that it’s as easy as
possible in Minnesota to preserve a business.
I want our business people spending more time
running their businesses and not dealing with
paperwork.
So I’ve already talked about convening a panel of
business experts and practitioners across the
community and across Minnesota to make sure we can
streamline all the processes in the Secretary of
State’s office that we possibly can to make it as
effortless as possible.
Another thing I’m interested in doing is
experimenting with what I called a digital welcome
mat, an online web portal that would be, if not a
one-stop shop for business, something very close.
Where a business doesn’t just go to the website to
file certain papers with the Secretary of State’s
office, but could also, as many other states now
have done, get, for example, a tax I.D. number or
industry-specific information or property
information if they intend to establish a physical
presence.
The bottom line is the Secretary of State’s office
is often the first portal, the first doorway, into
Minnesota for those not here.
We should make it as welcoming as possible.
And I want to do that.
>> Thank you, Steve Simon.
Bob Odden.
>> Well, you know, you go online and then you can
see, like, five stars for something or whatever,
you know.
They’re doing a good job, you know.
People give good reviews.
Why not subject the Secretary of State’s office to
the same kind of public diligence?
Why can’t people say, this is my experience with
the Secretary of State’s office.
Why can’t we put out surveys, ask people,
especially people that have been through the
process and get information from them, on how we
could have made the process better.
Some of this can be automated, some of this can be
directly contacting people, perhaps forming
roundtables or whatever.
There are ways of addressing this.
You have to find out, first of all, where the
people are having problems.
Then you have to find out what you can do about
it, you know.
You get together and come up with ideas.
And then you try implementing something, and if it
works, well, then, you’re done.
Typically, though, you know, it doesn’t totally
solve the problem and you keep working on it.
That’s the engineer in me.
But people have a good idea what needs to be done.
People as — well — a group, they can come up
with good decisions.
And we should respect that.
>> Thank you, Bob Odden.
Bob Helland.
>> Thank you.
Great question.
I’m glad that it’s getting out early on in the
gates here.
I’d have to say as the guy who’s been walking
around for eight months saying, I’m the business
services candidate in the race that I’m kind of
the Mountain Dew when it comes to lobbying up this
issue.
So, what did I do for so many years at the
Department of Revenue?
I was a business registration expert and a tax
compliance expert.
So I was on the other end of that line issuing tax
identification numbers, and it never made sense to
me why people were so confused coming from the
Secretary of State’s office to the Department of
Revenue.
There’s so much confusion out there and that
problem’s only magnified when there are
communication barriers or cultural barriers, and
that’s something that I worked through in my
experience to overcome and help people, help young
people, help new Minnesotans, help women,
everybody deserves access to these systems.
What’s not happening is exactly what Mr. Odden
said.
That they’re not listening, you know.
As an employee that was screaming about this issue
for years, I didn’t feel listened to and that’s
what prompted me after five years to say, if I
don’t perceive leadership on this issue, I have to
become the leadership on the issue.
And that’s why I’m in the race today because I
think I can make a difference and the fact that
this issue’s getting that much more
acknowledgement than it has in the past is really
critical.
So a couple things that I want to do is the
biggest, one of the biggest things we can do is
get into colleges and high schools.
People are paying $ , for a business degree
and they come out, you say, what does the
Secretary of State do?
They have no idea.
We need to change that.
>> Okay.
Thank you, Bob Helland.
And now Dan Severson.
>> Thank you.
You know, and if you go to my website,
Danseverson.com, I’ve got my first -day plan on
there and part of that first -day plan is to
take some of the private sector successful
business leaders, bring them in with the new
Americans that are coming into the country and
starting businesses and have a roundtable and
basically say, what are the barriers that you’re
experiencing?
Particularly, licensure and certification.
Be able to identify those and then take those to
the legislature for resolution.
I just want to tell a quick story.
I was down in a state fair down in southern
Minnesota.
And I was talking to a businessperson down there.
And he said, you know what?
I’ve got this drywall business and I’ve been
working at this for seven or eight years.
All of a sudden, about two years ago, I get a
notification from the Department of Revenue that
I’m two years behind in my taxes.
What had transpired is some of the regulations
that were applicable to his business had been
passed at thethe legislature but he hadn’t been
notified.
That should have been the Secretary of State’s
responsibility to help in that process, working
with the Department of Revenue to say, you know
what?
Here’s a little bit of change in your business
status, you need a heads-up on this.
Consequently, he almost lost his business because
he didn’t have enough revenue to make up those
taxes and had to really scramble to keep his
business afloat.
We need to be much more proactive, go a single
source, out of the Secretary of State’s office
where we can take the database, basically allow
those business owners to sign a nondisclosure that
says, you know what, you can share the information
with the other departments, give them — us that
authority, Secretary of State, and we will share
that information when it becomes pertinent and we
will make that bridge to the businesses, it needs
to happen, so you aren’t waiting in line at a
department agency.
You’re doing business.
>> Thank you, Dan Severson.
We’ll now have a series of questions that have
been addressed to each of the candidates
specifically and then I will ask the other
candidates to respond to the same topic.
This first question is for Mr. Odden.
Minnesota’s primary election was moved from
September to August to increase voting access for
overseas citizens, specifically service members.
You have mentioned in previous forums that this
change negatively impacted third-party candidates
who need time to gather signatures.
As Secretary of State, what steps would you take
to balance these interests?
Mr. Odden.
>> Well, what happened was is that — when they
moved the primary date, for some reason, the
petitioning period is tied to the primary date.
No minor party can be in a primary.
It is not allowed.
So, tying the petitioning period to the primary
date makes absolutely no sense.
So it used to be, like the first couple weeks of
July, which was great.
Now it’s like the last week of May, the first week
of June.
You know, you get some cool, wet weather, you
know, you’re going to be standing out there in the
middle of the street soaked, trying to get
signatures.
And then there was an attempt to move it even
further, which would have put it into March.
That would have destroyed third parties.
You can’t get signatures with frostbite.
It just isn’t possible.
It’s a significant concern.
And first of all, none of this was brought to the
attention of third parties.
No, we weren’t even asked, even though on the
audio record that I guess — well, Steve Simon
said that we were in favor of it, which was
totally not true.
Also, the period of two weeks is really — it is
conceivably short.
And legally, I think we would stand a good case of
suing the State to lengthen that period of time.
>> Thank you, Mr. Odden.
Mr. Dan Severson.
>> Thank you.
And as I referenced the Overseas Military Act, and
that was the Move Act that was passed in and
that was supposed to extend the primary to an
earlier date so that our troops had the
opportunity to actually get a ballot days
before the election.
It was the right move to do but it’s still highly
inadequate.
Just as I referenced with my son, watching his
vote sitting on the tarmac out there, it’s not
working.
We’ve had a number of years to actually get some
results in.
It’s been a marginal improvement.
But our military is still, in a presidential year,
only voting at about % participation.
That’s abysmal.
In a nonpresidential year, about to %, that’s a
national issue.
We as Minnesotans have a technology and an
innovative edge that should put us in the front of
this.
And, so, what I’m recommending is that we do
online voter — voting with our military.
They have access to secure networks through the
D.O.D., and they have secure I.D. cards.
They can go online, they can put their vote in, it
will count immediately and then they can do a
follow-on hard copy ballot to make sure it counts.
But we have to, we have to reach out to these
military people who are putting their lives on the
line and we have to have a solid solution.
Arizona already does this.
Nevada’s just getting ready to get on board and
there are four or five other states that are ready
to position themselves for this.
It’s proven technology.
We have the technology now.
And, so, for us not to do this, I think is wrong.
>> Thank you, Mr. Severson.
Mr. Steve Simon.
>> Well, one of my proudest accomplishments in the
legislature was writing the law that moved the
primary.
If you remember, for many decades, our primary was
in mid September, which was a tremendous
disadvantage to Minnesotans overseas, mostly
military, but not only, students, diplomats,
business people, missionary, people of all kinds
from Minnesota.
Because that eight-week window was simply too
tight.
So I wrote the law that moved it to August.
I wanted it to go to June but we had to settle for
an August primary.
I still favor a June primary, with this sort of
exception.
I agree that we should not impose undue burdens
and a heavy hand on third parties.
I think that’s wrong.
And, so, I would support legislation that would
move the primary earlier, but would, at the same
time, accommodate and help third parties so they
aren’t out in the cold having to get signatures
and that might mean playing with the day a little
bit, it might mean playing with the volume of
signatures that are required.
I don’t know.
But I think that is a fair accommodation.
You always have to balance those interests and
what we did in moving the primary, I think, was
the right thing to do.
It still in some cases is inadequate in the sense
that there are still ballots that don’t get there
on time.
And I’d like to move it earlier, and I think
that’s the best way to go.
>> Thank you, Mr. Simon.
Bob Helland.
>> Chapter Section Subdivision of
Minnesota statutes is the definition of major
party.
When Steve Simon mentions a heavy hand on third
parties, this is what we’re talking about, the
definition of major party status, and I am a
representative of a major party, but I want to
take the opportunity to acknowledge the effort
that Mr. Odden and all of the third-party
candidates, Green Party, Grassroots, Legalize
Cannabis, they all went through a much greater
effort to get on the ballot than I had to.
And that’s something we need to be aware of.
There’s a privileged class of candidates in our
political system that stems from this one
definition of major party.
The difference being, Mr. Odden was out in the
cold at times or in the rain at times gathering
signatures and I and the other two candidates on
the stage were able to pay $ to become a
candidate on your ballot.
So when we’re talking about third parties and
access in the primaries, I’m going to get the
information out there to those third parties, let
them know what they need to do, when they need to
do it, I’m going to set an example as someone
outside the two-party system that shows, that’s
blazing a trail for how you can do this.
Again, the minor parties in our state have to go
through much more rigamarole to get on the ballot
and then at that point, it’s still harder for them
to get into debates because the culture of our
elections grants media outlets the privilege to
say, we won’t let you have an opportunity to speak
because you don’t meet this definition.
But they’ve done a lot of great work.
>> Thank you, Bob Helland.
Thank you.
Our next question is directed to Mr. Simon.
And I will again ask each of you to respond to
this.
Minnesota already leads the nation in voter
turnout.
On your website, you say, early voting removes
another barrier to increased voter participation
while reducing congestion at the polls.
Will the added cost of implementing early voting
result in an increase in voter turnout and by what
margin?
Will early voting jeopardize the integrity of
election results?
Steve Simon.
>> Well, I am a strong supporter of straight-up or
true early voting.
What we have now is the next best thing.
That’s no excuses absentee voting, which I worked
on for seven years, as I mentioned earlier.
But I’d like to see us move in the direction of
what states already have, including every state
that surrounds us, Wisconsin, Iowa, North Dakota,
South Dakota, which is true early voting.
Meaning a period of a week or two before election
day when voters can actually cast a ballot that is
processed that day, as opposed to being put in an
envelope, stored, and not fully processed until
after the polls close.
There are a lot of advantages.
One of the advantages is cost.
It is a net cost saver in everywhere that I’m
aware of that has tried it.
The reason for that is the absentee voting
process, which is necessary and vital and
important is also expensive.
There are all sorts of costs involved from the
two-way postage to the so-called absentee ballot
boards that all counties and jurisdictions have to
convene.
There’s a lot going on.
There’s a lot of moving parts when it comes to
absentee balloting.
Not so, necessarily, for early voting on a
consolidated basis where counties would have the
choice about what polling places would remain open
at particular times and states have done it,
red states have done it, blue states have done it,
and it’s been tremendously successful.
It’s just another overlay on the great system that
we already have to make Minnesota’s first in the
nation and best-in-the-nation system even better
and that’s what I’m committed to.
>> Thank you, Steve Simon.
Now Bob Odden, same question.
>> We could vote early in this state now, is it
days in advance.
And then that’s truly benefit the Democrat party.
There’s always the fear that maybe it might snow
on — like election day and then their voters
don’t turn out.
So, by voting early, you get nice weather, you
know, people will turn out.
It’s ridiculously early, though.
A lot of things can happen in days.
This debate you’re hearing right now is seven days
prior to the election.
You may have already voted prior to — you know a
lot of people who have already voted without
actually hearing everything that they maybe should
about the candidate.
A lot of things can happen in the economy, a lot
of things could happen in the world and have in
the past just prior to an election.
So voting days in advance, I think is crazy.
It’s more than any other state in the union.
A week, maybe that would be good.
Whether it increases voter participation or not is
out there for debate.
A lot of people forget, you know, they keep
putting it off and then they don’t vote.
>> Thank you, Mr. Odden.
Now Bob Holland.
>> Helland, thank you.
>> Helland, excuse me.
>> No problem.
Not a problem.
I need to use this opportunity to distinguish
myself from Representative Simon.
What he just told us was he spent seven years in
the legislature to achieve his principal signature
act.
Seven years in the legislature.
That’s where Constitution Article III Section ,
the division of powers, enters my frame of mind
and says, if I’m elected to a four-year executive
term, I’m not going to spend seven years in the
legislature.
I’m also not going to get up on a bully pulpit and
try to do the work of the legislature.
They have their job, the Secretary of State has
theirs, and I’m going to use my four years to
prioritize what Minnesota is not doing best, which
is those business services.
Absolutely we are going to keep the tradition of
maintaining the highest voter turnout, we’re going
to reach younger voters and all of our new
Minnesotans, we’re going to improve our
technology.
That’s my background, my experience.
But this was a great question.
The question was, what is the marginal benefit
effectively of the effort of getting this
legislation passed?
And, honestly, I don’t think it’s in the best
interest of Minnesota.
We have other priorities, civic education,
business services, the Safe at Home program, those
are all things that demand the attention and I
would be remiss if I spent my time as an executive
trying to be a legislator.
That’s a fundamental difference between
Mr. Simon and I.
So I hope you consider that.
I don’t think that early voting will lead to
fraud.
I don’t necessarily think it will marginalize
third parties.
Again, we need to get them involved in other ways.
Thanks.
>> Thank you, Mr. Helland.
And now from Dan Severson.
>> I think one of the distinctions we need to make
between absentee voting and early voting is that
if you absentee vote and I’ll use the unfortunate
example of Senator Paul Wellstone, who died just
about ten days before the election, if that
absentee ballot goes in, the individuals that
voted for him still have the opportunity to claw
that ballot back and say, you know what, I want a
revote because I’m not sure who’s filling that
spot.
Now in early voting, if that goes in, and that’s
within that ten-day window of early voting, that
ballot is cast.
You’ve lost your opportunity to revote.
And, so, that’s one of the drawbacks of early
voting.
Having said that, I do support faster, easier,
safer the way we can get — the best way to get
people to the polls is to make it to the easiest
way we possibly can and to accommodate them to do
that, I would support about two weeks prior to the
election day for early voting.
So much of what happens in politics happens in the
end game.
And, so, people need to take the time to
understand, as you are doing here tonight, which
is admirable and is what every Minnesotan should
be doing, is learning what the issues are and how
the candidates stand on those issues.
And I think with that in mind, whatever form it
takes in order to allow people to participate is
what I would be pushing for and, again, talking
about relationship and the real, the real gains
will be made in that participation when we reach
into these new American communities and begin to
communicate with them their civil responsibilities
as well.
>> Thank you, Mr. Severson.
Our next question is directed to Mr. Helland.
Throughout your campaign, you have focused on your
qualifications and plans for the business side of
the Secretary of State.
But you’ve said little about the voting
responsibilities.
What specific skills qualify you to be the state
chief election officer?
Mr. Helland.
>> On the contrary, the premise of the question
stated that I’m not very vocal on voter issues,
and I think I’m really expanding not — we’re
getting too caught up in photo identification.
Minnesota spoke on that issue several years ago
and we said we didn’t want it.
If we want it again, it’s going to go through the
constitutional channels, which is through your
elected representative, through the legislature.
It’s going to be their responsibility, not any one
of the four of us, to get that passed, if that’s
what the people want.
So, I am really speaking about access in these
elections, and I think it’s gone unnoticed,
actually.
Everyone’s talking about voter access and how that
pertains with photo identification requirements,
but, again, we really need to address candidate
access as part of our culture of elections.
We are — we talk about Democracy and how great it
is to hear everyone’s voice and have an
opportunity to do so, but there are situations
where people are not being invited to participate
in debates, they’re not getting the fair media
coverage in many cases, and I’m raising the issue
to go not just for voters but for the candidates.
In terms of how I’ll excel in the function, it’s
going to come down to personnel, the partnerships
we make with our federal and local partners and
the technology that we use to facilitate this.
I have actual experience in fraud detection and
fraud prevention, and I think that’s critical not
talking about legislative priorities but actual
real-world experience.
>> Thank you.
Mr. Severson.
>> Would you mind repeating the question for me,
please?
>> Throughout your campaign, you have focused on
your qualifications and plans for the business
side of Secretary of State.
But you’ve said little about voting
responsibilities.
What specific skills qualify you to be the chief
elections officer?
>> I think, you know, targeted towards Bob Helland
on that question, but I also want to talk about
how do we make it faster, easier, safer for people
to participate.
And, so, one of the things, if you go to my
-day plan, you’ll see that one of the things
that I’m pushing forward is express lane voting,
and that is really freeing up the lines for those
people that want to voluntarily use photo I.D.,
they can go to half of the designated lines, which
are designated for that purpose, and the other
conventional — the other lines would be dedicated
to the conventional, the way we do it now.
Now, the beauty of that is, some people don’t have
the time, some people just, particularly down in
high-congestion areas, they only have a marginal
amount of time, a small amount of time to be able
to cast their vote.
And, so, if they go in to the voting place and
it’s right after work, they have to get home to
cook dinner for their kids, particularly for
single moms, this is one of those things that we
have put barriers in front of them.
And what this would do is they can go into the
express lane, they can be in and out in five to
ten minutes.
If they don’t, if we don’t have that, and people
are being disenfranchised now because they don’t
have the time to participate, they’re standing out
in the cold, they’re waiting to cast their ballot,
and many people who are in this position have to
have baby-sitters, they have to be someplace very
quickly, this gives them the opportunity, and,
again, this is voluntary, this is not mandatory,
it gives them the opportunity to get through the
process quickly and then get home and do the
things that they need to do.
>> Thank you, Mr. Severson.
Mr. Simon.
>> I’ve really put my heart and soul into these
issues for a decade in the legislature.
As I mentioned, I’m chair of the Elections
Committee now and that’s really given me a
front-row seat into this whole area of policy.
One of the things that I’m really proud of in this
campaign is I’ve made a special effort as I’ve
traveled around the state to meet separately one
on one wherever possible with elections officials,
usually called by the name county auditor,
sometimes auditor/treasurer and I’ve learned a
great deal from them.
The actual practitioners, the front-line folks who
really are the spine of the system.
And they tell me that we have a good thing going
in Minnesota.
Always to be improved upon and reformed, yes, but
we have a good thing going.
And one of the reasons we have been number one for
nine elections in a row in turnout is exactly that
continuity and that quality in Minnesota.
So there’s more we can do.
Straight up true early voting is one.
Another is sort of automated voter registration,
like other states have experimented with, which I
think is a good idea.
Cost effective, saves a lot of money and is very
popular where it’s been tried.
But, you know, I have to caution us on some of the
solutions that seem to be solutions in search of a
problem or at least those that would have an
adverse effect on people.
I really don’t support this idea of sort of a
Lexus lane for voting, or so-called express
voting.
It seems to be a separate but equal system.
All I have to go on is Dan’s own words when he
characterized on tea party TV show in the spring,
he said, if you don’t want to show an I.D., be my
guest, you can go over to the side and wait in
line two hours in the cold, that’s fine, end
quote.
I don’t think that kind of sentiment has any place
in the Secretary of State’s office.
And it doesn’t even make sense in the sense that
% of people have I.D.s.
So wouldn’t that be the long line?
And wouldn’t the people without I.D.s be the
short line?
I don’t think it’s very well thought out.
>> Thank you, Mr. Simon.
Mr. Bob Odden.
>> Just as an aside, was it Georgia had their
voter I.D. law challenged and, you know, while it
was being challenged, it was in place for a number
of years, and judge finally threw out the
challenge because the Democrat party could not
find one individual that had ever been
disenfranchised by the law.
They couldn’t name one individual.
Really important to the third party, all you ever
hear is Republican, Democrat, they write the
rules.
Like there are three ways to become a major party.
Two of them in years have never been tried
because it’s impossible, it’s never been done, it
will never ever be done.
When we were formed as a territory — as a state
in , you only required % of people signing
the petition that had voted for governor.
It’s % now.
That’s , good signatures done in a very
short period of time.
It’s not possible.
% would be , .
Now, it’s a large number still.
But we — we basically got — was it something
like , to get five people on the ballot.
It’s doable.
And if the state would simply change the rules,
we — we represent about % of the population as
Libertarian.
They need a voice.
>> Thank you, Mr. Bob Odden.
Our next question has been directed — pardon me?
>> Do I get a rebut on that?
>> Certainly, you would like to speak to that,
Mr. Severson?
>> Well, just about the separate but equal
statement that Representative Simon had mentioned
in this.
And I don’t think that’s appropriate in this
process because, really, what we’re talking about
is new ideas and how do we accentuate these new
ideas, how do we probe into finding how we can
make the system better.
When we begin the race baiting of separate but
equal and the whole type of deal, I think we
degrade the conversation and we need to keep it
above board.
Minnesotans are tired of confrontative politics
and I think it’s time just to let’s talk about the
issues without being insundry.
>> Thank you.
Mr. Helland, you wanted to speak?
>> Well, just touching on the photo
identification, it’s not a cost-effective measure.
We’re in an odd situation here, another
fundamental difference between both Steve and Dan
and I is they represent themselves in the official
capacity of what they do.
I’m prohibited by law from doing so, but we need
to understand what goes into a system of producing
photo identification, how much that costs, and,
you know, the separate but equal idea for voters,
we do have that for candidates as well.
So, consider those.
Please do.
>> Mr. Simon, would you care to speak to that?
>> Well, since it’s early enough in the debate, I
want to talk about the idea of insundry politics.
I agree, it has no place in this office.
I’m not the one, Dan Severson was, on election
night , who said Minnesota’s vote for Obama
was immoral.
I’m not the one, he was, who said last year that
our schools in Minnesota, our public schools, are
teaching socialism to our kids.
I’m not the one who two weeks ago at a press
conference said that our Commander in Chief was
intentionally, intentionally, that was the
question, interfering with the military vote.
That’s insundry and that has, indeed, no place in
this race or this office.
>> Thank you.
Mr. Odden, would you care to respond to any of
this?
>> Ah.
[ Laughter ]
Feel a little left out of the conversation here.
[ Laughter ]
You know, voters rejected voter I.D.
So, you know, as far as I’m concerned, it’s out
the window.
You know, it’s not in consideration.
But we do need to determine the eligibility of
voters prior to voting.
Because once they vote, the vote goes in and it
can’t be taken out.
And a lot of times we don’t even know who the
people are who are fraudulently voting because we
didn’t determine it in advance.
>> Okay.
Thank you.
This question has been directed to Mr. Severson.
On your website your express lane voting proposal
states that, quote, maybe . % of the voters may
not have an I.D. card and can still use the
conventional method, unquote.
You’ve also suggested that express lane voting is
faster and easier for voters.
The other . % of those in line on election day.
Based on your own numbers, why do you feel there
is a need for an express lane?
What will it accomplish?
And at what cost to taxpayers?
Mr. Dan Severson.
>> I think the cost is minimum.
We’re already approving poll books by this last
legislature.
So there are some things that we would need to
tweak right there.
But the issue really is, how do we better
accommodate people, and I was a poll watcher for
the first time in the last election because I
wasn’t on the ballot, and I was at the polling
place, watching the line languish outside, in the
cold, wet, people who should have not been
standing in line were standing in line for a long
time.
That’s admirable.
They want to exercise their civic duty.
But we can do it faster, easier, safer.
And with the technology that we have today, and
let me say, we are in the th century
technology in elections.
It’s cumbersome.
We can go through the polling books, through the
electronic process, swipe the card, identify
immediately and you can even move into ERIC, which
is Electronic Registration Information System,
which is currently being used in a number of
states, and we can get same-day registrations
verified right there, and, so, all of this is new
technology that we should be implementing.
Now, the absentee voting is great, it’s been great
in the past, but it’s last year’s technology.
It’s way back there.
And, so, we should be moving forward in this
process, particularly paying attention to those
people who have time constraints, who we are
disenfranchising right now because they simply
can’t take the time to vote.
That’s the other, you know, the percentage that we
can improve on and that’s what express lane voting
is about, easier, faster, safer, voluntary.
>> Thank you, Mr. Severson.
Mr. Bob Helland.
>> What are the costs of these changes that are
being proposed through legislation?
What is the cost of express lane voting?
I’m not going to go into details commenting on it
because I don’t really think that legislation’s
going anywhere and it’s not something I see
happening, express lane voting, in the next cycle.
So — but we need to address the cost of these
things.
I come from state employment, where I’ve worked
for many years, for ten years before that I worked
in the software development arena.
So I’ve been involved with very large technology
projects for the State.
I left one agency that was a $ million project
to go to another one that had a much higher
project and then we also have things like
Mnsure.
So when we’re talking about the numbers, I know
Steve Simon has proposed on his website using a
Delaware model for the state of Minnesota for
automated D.V.S. registration, but that’s
completely out of touch with the demographic and
geographic reality.
He uses an example of a $ , system that we
would be able to implement here in our state.
If you compare the two states, we have
counties, cities, to three counties in
Delaware with four D.M.V. offices, we have over
D.V.S. locations which aren’t actually state
employee-run facilities.
So the reality of these proposals is not being
forecast in terms of how much it will cost and no
one’s making a case that it’s going to add that
much benefit to the system that’s already the best
in the nation.
Let’s focus on other priorities.
>> Thank you, Mr. Helland.
Mr. Bob Odden.
>> Express lane, you know, with early voting and
the early absentee ballot voting, you’re going to
have fewer people, obviously, on election day in
lines trying to vote.
So I think, you know, we do not even know how that
works yet.
And I have a feeling that that might be a
self-correcting problem.
The problem, though, people standing outside in
the rain, in the cold, that’s a problem, a failure
of the Secretary of State’s office.
You know, was that facility big enough?
I mean, wasn’t there any room for people on the
inside?
What was going on that was maybe slowing things
down, causing a delay?
I mean, these are things that need to be
investigated and looked into.
If it was like in the Somali community, was it
because they needed translations?
Whatever.
You know, we need to know the particulars of why
they were standing outside and couldn’t get in
right away to vote.
So, the express lane, you know, admirable idea,
but, you know, it may prove not to be necessary.
>> Thank you, Mr. Odden.
Mr. Steve Simon.
>> I think the real issue here is congestion at
the polling places on election day.
Particularly in presidential election years.
I think one solution that will not work is express
lane voting for a lot of reasons.
One of which is, it doesn’t make sense.
I suspect that’s why no jurisdiction that I know
has done it.
If % of people have an I.D. and % don’t, the
long line will be the one with the I.D.s and if
it’s voluntary and evens out over time, as
anything would, say, a long line for Sweet
Martha’s cookies at the state fair, if the lines
even out over time, then, really, what the
proposal is, is an extra line, not an express
line.
Just an extra line.
But I think the real key to unlocking the problem
of congestion is, number one, what we’ve already
done, with no excuses absentee voting, which I
predict over a cycle or two or three will have
exactly that effect, as more people vote from the
comfort of their home or their kitchen table,
there will be less pressure on election day.
Second is early voting, true early voting, which
will enable people not just on election day, not
just on one day, hours a day, one-shot deal,
kind of th century, but will, rather, enable
people for one-week or two-week period that cast a
ballot that counts, that is counted that day,
that, too, will alleviate congestion.
We’re part of the way there, most of the way
there, with no excuses absentee voting, which I’m
proud to have worked on for a long time, but we
can go that extra step and get there through early
voting.
Those are the solutions that are tried and true
and work in other states.
>> Thank you, Mr. Simon.
Mr. Severson, do you have any comment?
Further comment?
>> Yeah.
Part of the idea is, go to your grocery store, go
to the supermarket.
They have express lanes there.
The marketplace has already proved this works.
And when we’re talking about why do people get
bottled up in a particular area, they only have so
many election judges and if you put all of those
election judges doing same-day registration, all
of a sudden you’ve created a choke point.
So if there are people standing in line that are
willing to use their I.D. card and go up to the
other two lines and swipe through, the real issue
is, it’s faster, it’s safer, and it’s more secure.
>> Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Severson.
Our next question, what is your position on voting
by those living in the community on probation or
parole from a felony conviction?
Would you support restoring voting rights once the
term of incarceration is concluded as our neighbor
in North Dakota does?
Mr. Bob Odden.
>> I assume that what that means is that, you
know, once the prison sentence or whatever is over
and they’re released to the community, even though
they’re on parole, should they have the right to
vote.
Some states do that.
Our constitution says that felons can’t vote.
Now, exactly what that means, maybe a judge would
have to come up with a meaning.
But I guess once they’ve been released into the
public, why can’t they vote?
And we have all these — we have all these
victimless crimes that people, we make it into
felonies and they haven’t harmed anybody.
I mean, why is that a felony?
Why is that even wrong?
If they haven’t harmed anybody, they were just
doing something that for some reason, for reasons
of morality or whatever we think they shouldn’t be
doing, but you can’t outlaw everything that you
don’t like.
What kind of society would that be?
We need to do away with victimless crimes and that
would do away with a lot of felonies, quite a
substantial number.
And, so, these people wouldn’t have these records
and especially in the communities, minority
communities, where they are being arrested for
victimless crimes, they wouldn’t be
disenfranchised.
>> Thank you, Mr. Odden.
Steve Simon.
>> I think we should move in the direction of
reform in this area.
I think it’s a hot topic, a real emerging issue.
You know, Minnesota is still in the majority of
states that says that you don’t get your right to
vote back until your entire felony sentence is
done, both the prison part and the so-called
on-paper part.
But there is a movement to go towards what North
Dakota and another dozen or so states have, which
is to say that if you’re in prison you can’t vote,
but the minute you step out, even if you’re
serving the remainder of your sentence on paper,
as it’s called, that you can vote and then there
are some outlier states that allow for voting
always and some outlier states that allow for
voting basically never for certain felonies.
But I think moving in that direction, there are
some exceptions that I think are important to be
observed but generally speaking, this is a civil
rights issue for so many of us in Minnesota.
And I think the question we have to ask ourselves
is, is anyone harmed?
Is anyone harmed?
Is it a public safety issue when someone across
the street who served their time in prison is
voting?
I think that’s the key question.
And I think the rest of the nation is moving in
this direction and I think Minnesota will as well.
The key thing, though, is, it has to have
bipartisan support.
Many of you know that the last two governors, one
Democrat, one Republican, have both said that they
will only sign election-related laws, bills into
law if they have bipartisan support, so, too, for
this law.
So I think there will be some negotiations but in
the end moving in that general direction is I
think what we can expect.
>> Thank you, Mr. Steve Simon.
Mr. Dan Severson.
>> This is the separation of powers issue.
This is — I was in the legislature for eight
years.
We have the ability to make law.
We don’t have the ability to change the
Constitution.
Article VII Section of the Constitution says
these people shall not vote and it says felons who
have not fulfilled their felony conviction.
Whether they’re released or not is not the fact.
The fact is that on paper, if they have fulfilled
their felony conviction, then they are restored
their civil rights.
So, for the office of the Secretary of State, it’s
a moot point.
It goes to the people.
You, the people, make that decision.
You have the discussion, your legislators have the
discussion, you talk about the pros and cons and
then the legislature’s put a constitutional
amendment before you, the people, and say, we
believe that or do not believe that their felony
conviction should be set aside once they’re
removed from incarceration and they should be
restored their civil rights.
The Constitution is there for an anchor for us.
Not because we feel about something a particular
way.
They put that there to give us guidance.
So, it becomes the will of the people in order to
change the Constitution through a constitutional
amendment, and I would as Secretary of State do
whatever the people of Minnesota wanted me to do
in that particular arena.
>> Thank you, Mr. Severson.
Mr. Bob Helland.
>> I do support the restoration of voting rights.
That’s a personal philosophy of mine.
It’s something I think a lot of my peers share.
I think it’s something that a lot of people in
this room may share.
I don’t know, I tried this once before, but please
do raise your hand and show if you do support
reinstating voting rights.
I know I certainly do.
As Mr. Severson said, it’s exactly that.
It’s a constitutional channel that’s going to go
through you, the people.
It’s going to be the will of the people.
So, I’m not going to stand up on a bully pulpit as
Secretary of State and demand that this type of
legislation gets passed to change our
Constitution.
It needs to be the voice of the people.
And I can facilitate, I can facilitate that
discussion.
I’m going to be talking to a lot of people about a
lot of different things as Secretary of State and
I’m sure it’s going to be a question that comes up
when I’m visiting colleges or schools or who knows
what type of arena I might be in to approach an
audience and say, oh, you have a concern that you
want to pursue and see get done at the legislature
or get see done in your government.
It’s the Secretary of State’s job to help people
learn how to navigate those processes.
Things like using the legislative manual, which
for students has been four years out of date.
We have not even given our students the best and
current up-to-date content.
All I can do as Secretary of State is encourage
you to be a part of the civic process and let you
know the proper channels.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, Bob Helland.
Our next question has to do with rank-choice
voting.
Rank-choice voting is often discussed as an
alternative to our current election system.
As Secretary of State, would you support
rank-choice voting and efforts to expand local
control to enable all Minnesota communities to
adopt R.C.V. if they choose to do so?
Mr. Bob Helland.
>> It’s a great question.
I’m very happy to hear we’re talking about R.C.V.,
rank-choice voting.
Other people use I.R.V., instant run-off voting,
type of thing.
So make sure you understand the terms and the
jargon that’s being talked about.
I hope you’re kind of familiar with the issue, I
don’t have too much time to explain it all.
But for me, I feel we need to expand the
conversation of rank-choice voting to all levels
of government.
Representative Simon will talk about the local
options that gives municipalities and those
candidates an option to run in a rank-choice
voting race, but for some reason he’s not
interested in having that in his own race for a
statewide constitutional office.
I think we should have that discussion.
Again, separation of powers.
I won’t author the legislation and I won’t stand
up on a bully pulpit making sure it gets passed.
There’s other priority of this office.
But rank-choice voting is growing, it’s coming,
great work by organizations of Fair Vote, Fair
Vote Minnesota.
So if you’re not familiar with what rank-choice
voting is, please do go out and look online or
find one of the candidates afterwards.
We can explain it to you.
But it is important and we need to talk about —
there’s not just one right way to do elections.
We do it very well.
But rank-choice voting has a lot of possibilities.
>> Thank you, Mr. Helland.
Mr. Bob Odden.
>> I’ve done some reading on it, I have no
objection to localities, you know, wanting to do
rank-choice voting.
If a city wants to do that, I guess that’s fine.
It’s purported to help third parties, and then,
yet, like in Australia where they’ve been doing it
for decades, there are only two parties.
There is no third party.
Rank-choice voting is supposed to help get rid of
the negative ads and in some cases it does and in
other cases it doesn’t.
Some cases people still go after each other.
It’s confusing to voters, they don’t really
understand the results sometimes.
They keep wondering, how did this person get
elected?
And — but it doesn’t loan itself to a manual
recount.
It has to be done by computer.
And, unfortunately, computers can be hacked.
They can be manipulated, you know, either the
software, the programming that it runs on or the
program itself.
And, you know, who’s maintaining these things.
These machines get complicated.
And it goes beyond the ability of local people to
actually test these machines and certify them and
then it has to be done by a special somebody —
well, gets appointed by a lobbyist.
>> Thank you, Mr. Odden.
Mr. Simon.
>> I do believe in choice when it comes to
rank-choice voting.
And for many years, I’ve carried the legislation
that would simply allow cities, just allow them,
not command them, but allow cities to experiment
with rank-choice voting.
Under current law in Minnesota, one class of
cities, typically the biggest cities like
Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Duluth, they already
have authority to implement rank-choice voting if
they or their city councils or their people want
it without anyone’s permission.
But the other cities, which is most cities, they
don’t.
They have to come on bended knee and beg for
special permission and special legislation from
the legislature.
And that never seemed right to me.
Why should Red Wing or Roseville or any other city
that wants to try rank-choice voting, which we now
know from the Minnesota Supreme Court is
constitutional, is within the lines and within the
rules, why should they be prevented from at least
trying it on the municipal level?
It doesn’t seem fair to me.
So I’ve offered that legislation, and I would do
what I can as Secretary of State to lend a voice
to that.
I do think it’s the job of the Secretary of State,
by the way, to be a leader when it comes to
election policy.
And although there always should be respect for
separation of powers, the Secretary of State has
never asked for and received a vote, that
separation of powers enough, but I think the
Secretary of State should not shrink away from
advocating for solutions that are best and for
helping the legislature to get to yes and to get
to bipartisan solutions, this is one of those.
So more choice for more communities at the
municipal level to experiment with rank-choice
voting.
Let’s not do command and control politics from
St. Paul.
Communities know what’s best for themselves.
>> Thank you, Steve Simon.
Mr. Dan Severson.
>> It’s good to hear Representative Simon say he’s
for choice on voting here.
I think he was moving towards my direction on
express lane voting.
The deal with the rank-choice voting I think has
been experimented with in Minneapolis, and I think
those are some good proving grounds in which we
can discern whether it’s going to be effective or
not and expensive.
And I think the expenses that are being incurred
are far and away larger than they had anticipated.
It tends to be somewhat confusing.
But I tend to agree with my colleagues here in
that local control is the most important because
government that is responsive is local government.
And, so, if the individuals that are facilitating
this or that are actually going through the
process of rank-choice voting feel that it’s a
fair way in which to elect their officials, you’ll
hear within a couple of election cycles whether
they’re thinking the results are rigged or whether
they’re really actually legitimate.
So, I’m an avid supporter of local control because
I believe that government is best run when it’s
attune to the local ears of its constituency.
I would have some issues with it at the
legislative level and I think there may be some
drawbacks in that process because for the most
part you want to have a majority that are electing
that representative of the voice of that district
into that particular office and those would be
things to look at.
>> Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Severson.
One other question here has to do with another
program administered by the Secretary of State.
Over , Minnesotans participate in the state’s
Safe at Home address confidentiality program.
As Secretary of State, how would you strengthen
Safe at Home program and ensure the continued
success and improvement of the program?
Mr. Dan Severson.
>> Well, I think the program is working all right.
I think we need to beef up its security aspects in
terms of ensuring that the information that is
held by the Secretary of State office is secure.
You know, we’ve had the Home Depot, the Target
information invasion that’s taken place, and we
need to ensure that the information is secure
through that process updating that.
One of the other things I’d like to see as well is
more participation from the community in terms of
some of the support services from the police,
fire, some of these other organizations where they
would come together and create a support network
for this particular program to ensure that the
privacy of not just abused men and women who have
been in this, but judges and other people who are
subject to this program have the ability to
maintain their confidentiality through the
Secretary of State’s office.
>> Thank you, Dan Severson.
Mr. Steve Simon.
>> Well, I’ve been proud to author a number of
bills that are now law to preserve and protect and
strengthen the Safe at Home program.
That program, by the way, provides address
anonymity or confidentiality for victims of
domestic violence.
It’s tough to get into.
Only those who are truly, you know, under threat
of bodily harm or worse are allowed in the
program.
And it essentially means that the Secretary of
State’s office acts, among other things, as kind
of the mailbox for folks, whether it’s voting or
magazine subscriptions or utility bills, they’re
the screen, they’re the filter.
And it’s protected and probably saved many lives.
So I introduced the legislation, it’s now law,
that would automatically enroll the minor children
of domestic abuse victims in the program so they
wouldn’t have to separately petition.
But going forward, I think there are a number of
ways that we can strengthen the program.
One is, is just looking at the eligibility
criteria.
Simple things, like in greater Minnesota, in rural
areas, sometimes there’s a problem with someone
who has suffered domestic abuse getting to the
person, to the counselor or the physician or
others who can properly certify that they are
under fear of bodily harm or worse and, so,
allowing easier ways, perhaps a telephone
interview or perhaps other ways of observation to
clear the process so that they can get enrolled in
the program and save themselves and their family.
That’s one thing that I know others have been
discussing with great seriousness over the years
and I think we ought to take a look at that.
The bottom line is, we’ve got to protect the
participants, protect the women in the program.
It’s a good thing.
Minnesota was a leader.
>> Thank you, Steve Simon.
Bob Helland.
>> I try to be as optimistic as possible in
thinking about where this government and where
this state’s going, but when I hear that number of
, individuals, unfortunately, that seems low
to me.
I think there’s a lot of people out there that
could use the benefits of these programs.
Steve did a great job of describing what it does.
Had some great points on how it can be improved in
enrollment.
Dan had great points on technology.
So, I think the biggest thing and the biggest role
of the Secretary of State right now is to make
sure that this is a well-known program.
In all the solutions I really push they come down
to three components.
The people in the office and they need to be
trusted, they need to be highly trained because
they’re in a very secure environment using secure
technology, that technology needs to be very
secure and, again, that’s kind of a hallmark of my
experience, and we also need to make sure our
partnerships are effective.
I think we probably have effective partnerships
with local law enforcement and those types of
things, but I know a lot of people in social work
programs or that work in the social work area or
work with people in the juvenile justice system,
in child welfare system, and everyone I’ve talked
to about the Safe at Home program has never heard
of it.
And that’s really the biggest thing that the
Secretary of State needs to do is make sure that
people are aware of this program, the benefits
that it provides, the protection it provides.
I do believe it does save lives.
And we need to make sure, just like voting,
everyone who’s eligible to vote, we need to make
sure that everyone who’s eligible for this
protection and if we need to expand that, that’s
something we should push at the legislature.
>> Thank you, Mr. Helland.
Mr. Bob Odden.
>> I agree with a lot of what I’ve been hearing.
But I always have an additional question in my own
mind.
When people get into trouble, the relationship
doesn’t turn out the way they wanted it to, and
they get out of it and hopefully they get into the
program if they need it.
But, you know, you’re going to want to form
another relationship at some point.
And are they getting any counseling or whatever on
how to make better choices?
People have a tendency to pick up the same type of
relationship that they had previously.
Not knowing — they don’t know exactly maybe why
they’re attracted to a certain person or whatever.
And this requires people — counseling, be
helped — go through this thought process.
So I wonder, you know, how many people that are in
the program.
I know the , , if they’ve had kind of, so to
speak, a repeat problem, which would be obviously
terrible.
So, you know, if I was going to look into the
program, I mean, that’s one definite thing that I
would want to check into.
>> Thank you, Mr. Odden.
That had to be our last question.
We will now move to closing remarks.
And we will begin with Mr. Dan Severson.
>> Well, I want to thank you so much for being
here tonight, hearing the debate and the greatest
thing that I would want to communicate tonight is,
please go out and vote.
Exercise your right to vote.
It’s been paid with for an enormous — with an
enormous price.
And we are one of those countries where people
still, for the large part, trust that our system
is working and that it is responding to the voice
of the people.
It’s been my honor to travel across the state with
my wife and meet with different groups and talk
about the — just the imagination and the
innovation that Minnesota fosters.
And it is that imagination and innovation that
brought Medtronics and M and created businesses
in this state that have become world players.
And, so, part of that innovative and the
excellence that is Minnesota is brought out in
ideas and ideas are the thing that dreamers do.
And dreamers have the ability to become
visionaries and visionaries leaders.
And, so, part of our process tonight has been,
let’s talk about some new ideas, let’s talk about
where Minnesota can go.
And it’s been my honor to talk with you tonight,
to be part of that process, and I’m hoping that as
you go out and you vote, you encourage others next
to you to do the same.
Because as we voice our opinion, the goal is that
the people that we elect would have the best of
Minnesota at heart in this process.
I am asking for your vote, obviously, but I even
more than that ask that you would honor our
patriots, those who have gone before us, by going
out and doing your civic duty, whether you vote
for me or not.
It is America.
It is why we are the greatest country in the
world.
>> Thank you, Mr. Severson.
Mr. Bob Odden.
>> I guess I want to start out by thanking the
sponsors of the debate.
It’s rare for somebody in the minor party to be
allowed in a debate with major-party players.
First of all, what do I bring to the Secretary of
State’s office?
I know how to increase voter participation with
meaningful and believable elections, for
meaningful elections, for instance, eliminate the
control of elections by Democrats and Republicans.
This is equivalent of having the fox watching the
hen house.
This would provide more choice on the ballot,
which means more voters and definitely more
excitement.
The mainstream media, if they won’t provide
coverage for other parties, well, then voters need
to be directed to providers that will.
Finally, make sure that judges are no longer
appointed.
We don’t really elect our judges in this state.
Address potential fraud to make elections
believable.
Start by determining voter eligibility prior to
the person voting.
We really need to know who’s voting.
Reduce the ability of the major parties to abuse
our frail elderly and disabled voters and voter
fraud schemes.
Set up election processes so smaller parties can
compete as effectively as possible.
Keep our election procedures within the grasp of
local citizens and out of the hands of lobbyists.
Finally, I’ll work with citizens and organizations
that make accusations of voter fraud until they
are resolved.
I will not pretend they don’t exist.
Ideally, everyone looking at the ballot needs to
understand what they’re doing and who they are
voting for.
It should be one of the greatest endeavors of the
Secretary of State’s office to help facilitate
that outcome regardless of party politics.
My name’s Bob Odden and you people asked for a
third-party candidate, well, here I am.
In order to, you know, get different results, you
have to vote differently.
So, remember me when you go to vote on November
th.
>> Thank you, Mr. Odden.
Mr. Bob Helland.
>> It’s been a strange journey getting here, being
an employee of the State for five years and seeing
a problem, perceiving these systems.
I’ve always been a systems thinker, thinking about
the — how things work, tinkering around.
But I’m a different guy.
You haven’t seen me up here on the stage before.
I’m trying to come at you completely unscripted.
I know in my heart what my beliefs are.
I know in my mind what my experience is.
I read the law.
And it’s important for me to come out here and
connect with you in an authentic way.
I don’t want you to vote for me on any polished
talking points or anything like that.
I want you to really understand what the office of
Secretary of State does.
And I would challenge your imaginations to think,
what if there were no parties?
Who is the best candidate in the race for
Secretary of State?
I do agree with Mr. Simon on many areas, Safe at
Home and the elections, he’s done great work in
our legislature and I like to take these
opportunities to thank him for improving our
election systems in the proper role of the
legislature.
I think we’re not doing as well on the business
services side, and I will continue to impress that
upon you because that’s my experience, and that’s
the real deficiency I see in state government, is
people aren’t concerned about that one day in
November, they’re concerned about their
livelihoods and the livelihoods of their children
and the qualities of education that they’re
getting and that they have a government that’s
responsive and it’s efficient with how it provides
services and it provides them in an equal way to
all Minnesotans.
So, that’s me, speaking from my heart, just a guy
up here with long hair and a beard, years old,
saying, what if there were no parties?
The last thing I’d leave you with is — you
already stole my dreamer thunder, Dan.
But I like to say, for those who say that a vote
for Bob Helland is a wasted vote, you may say that
I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.
And I think we know that.
Join me on election day, get out to the polls and
vote.
Bob Helland, Independence party, thank you so
much.
>> Thank you, Bob Helland.
And we’ll now hear from Mr. Steve Simon.
>> Well, I too, want to thank Augsburg, I want to
thank the Sabo Center, I want to thank Congressman
Sabo for being here.
I got my start, in part, through him.
I was his summer of district office intern.
So, it’s great to have him here and be in his
presence.
[ Applause ]
I want to be a Secretary of State for all
Minnesotans.
Now, anyone can say that.
And talk is cheap.
Particularly at election time.
But I hope people will look at my demonstrated
record of success and of bringing everyone to the
table.
That means being honest, that means being fair,
that means inspiring the trust and confidence of
people who don’t agree with you, maybe especially
the people who don’t agree with you or don’t vote
for you, and I think I have that and I’ve
demonstrated that.
And it also means opening the doors of opportunity
for voting and registration wide open for eligible
voters and not slamming them in people’s faces.
I’ve talked a lot about no excuses absentee
voting.
A project I worked on for seven years and we got
done in a bipartisan basis.
That’s the kind of thing I’m talking about.
That brings people together, unites us and makes
us even better.
So, I’ve spent my career doing those things and I
think this election really gives us a clear
choice, a choice between someone who wants to make
voting easier for eligible voters and perhaps one
or more candidates that want to make it tougher.
Between someone who’s been an honest broker,
someone who’s inspired that trust and confidence
of people who don’t agree with him or someone who
is more of a partisan flame thrower.
I think people have to think about that contrast
when they think about this office.
I’ll leave you with one thing that I saw at a
parade in Rochester early this summer.
It was a woman who was wearing a T-shirt and the
T-shirt said, failure to vote is not an act of
rebellion.
It’s an act of surrender.
Those are very true words.
I hope everyone in here exercises their right to
vote.
I hope no one in this room surrenders their right,
a right that so many have fought and bled and died
for, and I hope we can all agree on one thing.
Let’s vote, either on election day or, as we can
now do, before.
Thank you for the opportunity and thank you for
your time and attention.
>> Thank you.
[ Applause ]
These are your candidates for the Secretary of
State for the state of Minnesota.
Thank you all for your attention at this debate.
And thank you to all of the candidates.
I know from personal experience that when you run
for public office, you’re putting yourself out
there for public approval.
And we thank you very much.
It’s hard work.
And thank you for putting your name forward.
For those in the audience, there are tables in the
lobby with candidate information for you to pick
up.
We thank the audience for your questions and your
interest.
Voting information can be gotten by looking at the
Secretary of State’s office at MNvotes.org.
We thank Augsburg College and President Paul
Pribbenow for their partnership in bringing voter
education to Minnesota voters.
And thank you to all of our partnering
organizations and all the volunteers and staff who
have helped make this program work.
Thank you to all of you.
And, remember, after everybody else has given
their voting pitch, let me give my own.
Remember that Democracy is not a spectator sport.
And in the words of CBS journalist Bob Schieffer,
go vote, it makes you feel big and strong.
Thank you and good night.
[ Applause ]
