Watch the full Daily Beltway report
Minnesota Election Officials Trained to Reject Voter ID at Polls
Election judges in Carver County, Minnesota received training in 2024 that explicitly barred them from asking voters for identification. The instructions told poll workers to verify voters using only a name, address, and signature.
The training video obtained from Carver County makes the policy clear. Election judges are told: “Do not ask them to see an identification card.” If a voter volunteers to show identification anyway, judges must thank them and explain that “an identification card is not required if they are registered.”
I FOUND IT!
This is an Election Judge training video for Carver County, Minnesota, from 2024.
“Do not ask to see an identification card.”
“If a voter presents identification, thank the voter & inform them that an identification card is not required if they are registered.”… pic.twitter.com/IWgP59jPnW
— ThePersistence (@ScottPresler) August 18, 2026
Poll workers were instructed to announce this policy out loud so other voters in line would not feel pressured to show identification. The message is deliberate. Minnesota does not want identification used at the polls.
The Process Requires Almost Nothing
Under the training protocol, election judges ask the voter for a name and address. They locate that name on the roster. They point to an oath at the top of the page. They instruct the voter to sign the line. That is the entire verification process.
The signature can be electronic or on paper depending on local equipment. The training makes no mention of comparing signatures to previous records. No step requires the voter to prove they are the person whose name appears on the roster.
The system depends entirely on the accuracy of the roster and the honesty of the person standing in front of the judge. Anyone who knows a registered voter’s name and address can walk in, provide those details, sign the oath, and receive a ballot.
Identification Allowed Only in Rare Cases
The training video carves out narrow exceptions where identification might help. A voter with a difficult name to spell can show identification to make it easier for the judge to find the name. A voter who has trouble speaking can use identification to communicate.
Even in those cases, the training stresses that identification is not required. Judges must make that clear. The policy treats any use of identification as optional assistance, never as verification of identity.
Vouching Removes Even More Safeguards
Minnesota law allows voters to register through vouching. Under that system, a registered voter can vouch for someone else, allowing the second person to register and vote on the spot without providing documentary proof of residence or identity.
The Carver County training aligns with that framework. Once a name is on the roster, the voter’s own statement is treated as sufficient. The training offers no instruction on what to do if a judge suspects fraud or impersonation.
Critics See Obvious Vulnerability
Conservatives have pointed to Minnesota’s procedures as evidence that election integrity has been abandoned in favor of access. The training video shows poll workers being conditioned to accept minimal information and trust that voters are who they claim to be.
The gap is obvious. A bad actor who obtains a list of registered voters and their addresses can impersonate any of them. The system has no mechanism to catch this unless the real voter shows up and discovers someone has already voted in their name.
Even then, the training provides no clear protocol for handling such a situation. The assumption built into the system is that fraud will not occur because people are honest.
Federal Reforms Gain Support
Legislation such as the SAVE America Act has been proposed to establish uniform voter identification requirements nationwide. Supporters argue that states like Minnesota demonstrate why federal standards are necessary.
Requiring identification would close the vulnerability the Carver County training openly describes. Voters would need to prove they are the person registered under a given name before receiving a ballot. The change would not prevent eligible voters from casting ballots. It would prevent ineligible voters from casting ballots in someone else’s name.
Minnesota officials have defended the current system by arguing that voter fraud is rare and that identification requirements disproportionately burden certain populations. Critics respond that the absence of verification makes it impossible to know how much fraud occurs.
The Carver County training video provides a concrete example of how minimal the barriers are. Election judges are trained not to ask for proof of identity. The roster and the signature are treated as enough.
That approach may prioritize ease of voting, but it sacrifices the integrity that gives voters confidence their ballots matter. When anyone can vote using only a name and address, the system invites abuse. The training video proves Minnesota has chosen to accept that risk.