I'm still trying to figure out how I feel about this morning's hearing on HF 23, which @jdavnie supported on grounds that don't make a lot of sense and @JimNashMN opposed on grounds that make even less sense. (thread)

Rep. Davnie indicated that the impetus came from a constituent who claimed that medical bills were the one kind one could still count in getting in hardcopy form, with utilities and banking often online. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, this were correct.

The existing rule already provides for online bills, so the online status of utility bills and bank statements isn't a problem. And as @MNSteveSimon delicately pointed out, the list of acceptable bills is set by rule-making and could be extended that way. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/8200.5100/#rule.8200.5100.2.B.1

Meanwhile Rep. Nash's objection is that medical bills aren't intrinsically tied to a particular geographic location. He seems to be contrasting with certain utilities—electricity, water, gas, landline phone—that are delivered to a point of service.

The existing rule isn't clear about service address vs. billing address, and neither is necessarily where one resides. But also, what about cell-phone bills? Like the medical bills, those could be sent to one's parent and leave no trace where one resides.

And of course a bank or credit card statement sent to one's parent's address doesn't provide any real clue where one is living. Ditto for student fee statements—there's nothing to show whether "the student's valid address in the precinct" is or is not at the parent's address.

So existing bills really aren't necessarily better at establishing residence than the medical bills would be. In all cases, they just provide some corroboration to what at its core is the voter's oath sworn under penalty of perjury.

And then just to make it all even more strange, Rep. Nash points out that drivers' licenses have the same problem. His son has continued to use a parental address on his license while living and registering to vote elsewhere.

Kudos to the son for correctly swearing to where he really is living rather than pretending to reside where his license says, which he could have gotten away with. Just as under HF 23, he'd be able to get away with using the medical bill, but again would presumably be honest.

So I don't understand Rep. Nash's objection. The extended rule would rely on his son's honesty no more nor less than the existing rule or even the proposed voter ID bill, which largely relies on drivers' licenses. But I also don't understand why Rep. Davnie needed the #mnleg.

Here, for reference, is what the bill would provide. (I ought to have included this at the outset. Sorry.) https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF23&type=bill&version=0&session=ls92&session_year=2021&session_number=0

Also for reference, here is the video of the hearing.

Also, I do give Rep. Nash credit for staying on a germane topic, even if I considered it misguided. Other members went much further afield.