Automatic Voter Registration - Terrible News!

How The STATE OF MINNESOTA DRIVER AND VEHICLE SERVICES BUREAU Has Continued To Dig Itself A Deep Legal Pit as They Literally Misconstrue Everything You Are Doing 

By: James Allen Homyak, a retired free inhabitant 

September 19, 2026

Why is it that STATE OF MINNESOTA DRIVER AND VEHICLE SERVICES LICENSE BUREAU automatically locks a credential card address update application as registered voter and to then automatically or programmatically force the record to reflect Voter Yes for a state resident who DOES NOT request to become a registered voter? 

In fact in the midst of giving attention to the error right on the spot, a ridiculed frown came over the faces of nearby agents within earshot?

Why is it that the first request made at the STATE PUBLIC COUNTER to ask for information that belongs to neither the Applicant nor The State Actor who does not have a legitimate need to know? It's all a fraudulent attempt to assert consent where none had existed.

Why is it that a private individual is barred from developing another means of positive verification rather than information which presents FRAUD OF ITS FACE? It's all a fraudulent attempt to assert consent to being governed by bad public policy where none had existed as actual law at the outset.

Why is it that bringing up an articulate yet multi-faceted grievance to this call center (651) 201-7777 turns into deer in the headlights, stammering, delays, hold times and more ongoing ADMINISTRATION circle-jerk?

Under Minnesota law, the implementation of Automatic Voter Registration (AVR)—which was enacted by the state legislature (color of law) and signed into law (public policy) in 2023—fundamentally shifted how voter registration is handled during interactions with Driver and Vehicle Services (DVS). Rather than requiring applicants to proactively check an "opt-in" box when applying for or renewing a state-issued driver's license, instruction permit, or identification card, the system automatically initiates voter registration or updates for eligible individuals who provide citizenship-affirming documentation (such as a U.S. passport or birth certificate). Even if the Applicant claims to have evidence to prove U.S. Citizenship has never actually existed for 60 years of the man's life. Yet the evidence was not welcomed at this time. If fact the important detail was shunned by the inexperienced agent. 

This policy is designed to maximize voter access and keep voter rolls accurate by modernizing data transfer between state agencies.

Consequently, when a resident or free common man submits a credential card address update or renewal along with denial of qualifying citizenship documents, the system processes the record under the assumption of eligibility, placing the burden on the individual to affirmatively opt out after more leadtime to commit further commercial crime rather than to opt in.

To ensure that individuals who do not wish to be registered are not forced onto the voter rolls, the process includes several safeguards and multi-layered verification steps:

• Opt-Out Notice: Once DVS transfers the verified information to the Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State and county election officials, a written opt-out notice is mailed to the resident's address. Noting this amounts to thousands of dollars charged against STATE BUDGETS to manufacture more voters.
• The 20-Day Window: If the recipient returns the opt-out form within 20 days, their registration is canceled, and they will not be added to the voter rolls. Where is to provision to fully uphold privacy laws by completely removing a NAME that does not consent to any of these shenanigans?
• Post-Registration Controls: Even after registration is finalized, voters maintain the legal right to request that their voter record be inactivated at any time. This man giving rise to the controversy had done all of his permanent writing over 16 years ago. 

This Minnesotan man had became understandably agitated while cordially and firmly, demanding the reservations of all of his rights, over this flawed practice, pointing out several due process crimes and civil rights violations and voter registration fraud occuring on top of the following list:

1. Theft of identity for unrelated political purposes,

2. False claims in commerce aledging the Minnesotan consents to being governed by forcing the Minnesotan into a 20 day window to again withdraw any or all voter records beyond a mere inactivating a record. Holding of such record is adamantly DENIED and thus NEVER WANTED in the first place,

3. Aggravated voter fraud by construing a registered voter where none is present by intention, 

4. The license application process agent (ready to force this fraud by accepting a $26 fee) was able to revise, correct, edit, update and renew every data point available on the program-generated document such as height, weight, eye color, home address, medical alerts and more, yet was forced to leave "Voter Yes" in the database and in print, thus leaving the applicant no choice but to write a line through the word Yes, and manually ammend the document to read No.  Patron was asked, "Given your issues, are you still wanting to complete the transaction?" 

No! But we must finish so my basics are accurate.

Here comes my 72 hour rule and automatic cooling off period to resolve the matter or cancel. 

5. The non-registered voter applicant then demanded accountability for this misappropriation of public due process by requesting contact information to reach out to STATE OF MINNESOTA DMV. The applicant made two followup phone calls to this suggested agency head office. Agents answering the calls were clearly daised and confused as to how to allow the setting to be presented at the time of renewal and set back to 'Voter No' for a 60 year old man who wrote for statewide cancelation and revocation of voter registration and removal from the statewide voter registration databases permanently during January 2010. There was never intent to revise through automated assumptions. This is a crime to force these state actor crimes via tacit procuration.

Please consider helping USOA in our research into all Federal and state laws to make these offenses actionable.

To understand why some residents (THINGS IDENTIFIED) and lawmakers (code & statute purveyors as color of law) express concern over Minnesota's Automatic Voter Registration (AVR) system, it helps to examine how the mechanics of driver's licensing and voter databases intersect with constitutional principles.

When the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) and Driver and Vehicle Services (DVS) transition from an "opt-in" model to an "opt-out" framework, critics and civil libertarians frequently raise questions regarding statutory authority, administrative error, and the protection of fundamental voting rights.

The friction points commonly cited by concerned citizens and legislative leaders generally revolve around administrative safeguards, constitutional due process, and database integrity:

• Involuntary State Action and Presumed Consent: Critics argue that government agencies should not presume a citizen's intent regarding political speech or franchise participation. By defaulting a routine administrative task—such as updating a residential address on a driver's license—into a political act (voter registration), the state alters a person's public record without explicit, affirmative consent at the moment of the transaction. The state pierces its outer veil of sovereign immunity by stepping into a commercial procurement entity to manufacture voters.
• Administrative Errors and False Positives: During the initial rollout of Minnesota's AVR system, state officials manually reviewed over 100,000 records and temporarily inactivated approximately some indeterminate number of those applications due to potential discrepancies in names, addresses, or citizenship verification. Critics point out that if such administrative hurdles or classification errors occur, they risk placing erroneous data onto official voter rolls, which can lead to voter confusion or provisional ballot complications at polling places.
• Noncitizen Driver's Licenses and Eligibility Risks: Because Minnesota permits individuals regardless of immigration status to obtain standard driver's licenses, lawmakers and watchdogs have voiced concern that administrative cross-matching errors could mistakenly route non-U.S. citizens into the active voter database, creating vulnerabilities that require intensive backend auditing by state officials to rectify. A non-statutory unconsenting Minnesotan at birth is not even capable of consenting to become a statutory 14 Amendment or 16 Amendment U.S. Citizen, an act which requires a meeting of the minds with an individual which has reached age of majority and presented with full disclosure of the true nature of the commercial endeavor.
• Due Process and Notice Timelines: While the state provides a 20-day mail-in window to opt out after registration data is processed, critics argue that relying on physical mail for notification opens the door to missed notices due to recent moves, postal delays, or household clutter, thereby enrolling individuals against their wishes before they are aware the action has taken place. Be sure to ensure this matter moves to LAND and SOIL jurisdictions by sending the opt-out by registered return receipt postal mailing.
• Frightening our state men and women who very likely never take the time to question STATE OVEREACH and extra-judicial crimes.

The concern regarding the theft of identity for unrelated political purposes touches upon core debates surrounding data privacy, government overreach, and the compelled use of personal information.

When a state agency like DRIVER AND VEHICLE SERVICES (DVS) collects personal data—such as a resident's FULL LEGAL NAME, residential ADDRESS, date of birth, and citizenship or political status—that information is gathered under a mandatory administrative mandate required to legally operate a motor vehicle. It says noting at all about your private car which may actually be NOT FOR HIRE. Do some homework of your own to ensure we aren't hallucinating herein.

HOW SOON BEFORE YOU ENCOUNTER THE ACCUSATIONS THAT THESE ARE ALL FRIVOLOUS ARGUMENTS FOUND IN SOVEREIGN CITIZEN IDEOLOGIES?

According to legal scholars and privacy advocates who study administrative law, repurposing mandatory identity records for political activities like voter registration or political status declarations without explicit, affirmative consent introduces significant civil liberties concerns.

In legal treatises examining the boundaries of state power, scholars note that administrative data matching can blur the line between regulatory compliance and government surveillance or compelled speech. It also turns into multi-agency data sharing and commercialization of YOUR NAME thus re-enforcing YOUR BUSINESS STORE FRONT RESIDENCE MAILING ADDRESS held by the fully commercial United State Postsl Service and other follow-on business entities doing their marketing drives. 

When an individual private common man--who doesn't want his car impounded and his bodily function interfered with via the harassment of LEO PERSONNEL-- participates in the compelled buying of STATE ID CARDS, merely believing it must truthfully be some enacted and registered law on the books (vs. Legislative Fiat) that requires one to present at a Officer/ Stop/Encounter, as his sole reason to provide certain data solely to secure a driving credential, using that same data profile to automatically enroll them in a political database can be perceived by critics as a misappropriation of identity data—effectively using a citizen's compulsory administrative profile to populate a political status registry as one who gave written evidence granting unequivocal consent to being governed rather than a self-governing steward on the land or a free inhabitant.

From a constitutional standpoint, opponents argue that forcing citizens into a system where they must actively decline participation—rather than choose to join—infringes upon personal autonomy. The legal philosophy underpinning this grievance highlights several key issues:

Compelled Association: Critics argue that automatic registration bypasses individual volition, associating a citizen with a political franchise system and public party rolls (or general voter lists) without their direct, contemporaneous authorization.

Database Co-mingling: Merging high-security identification databases (used for driving privileges) with public voter rolls increases the exposure of sensitive personal records to third-party data requests, political campaigns, and public list-serves, raising fears of data exploitation.

Erosion of Consent: In standard consumer and administrative law, the collection of data for one specific purpose (licensing) generally requires explicit secondary consent before being leveraged for another purpose (political registration). Automatic "opt-out" models invert this standard, treating silence or administrative compliance as proxy consent.

A Silent Fight To Preserve Chain of Title over something THING the STATE ADMINISTRATION has actively collateralized: 

Once registered, (homes, cars, sons, daughters, business, assets, etc.)  all rights nearly and completely waived and switched to revocable or suspendable privileges! Is that what Minnesotans want our illustrious legislatures to be doing "for us" to accelerate the pilfering and equity stripping? The crime spree runs deep in state rackets.

The grievances concerning forced consent windows and manufactured voter records strike at the heart of administrative law and the legal definition of voter fraud. When a state agency automatically registers an individual who explicitly did not request or desire registration, critics argue that the state is engaging in a legal fiction: treating silence, administrative compliance, or an unread piece of mail as affirmative consent to enter the political franchise.

From a civil rights perspective, critics point out that placing the administrative burden entirely on the citizen—forcing them to jump through hoops within a strict 20-day window to reverse an action they never authorized—inverts the fundamental relationship between the individual and the state.

Instead of the government requiring permission to alter a citizen's public and political status, the citizen is forced to petition the government to undo an unwanted change. This creates what legal scholars describe as compelled participation, where the state presumes consent where none exists and treats a citizen's non-response as a legal agreement.

Furthermore, critics argue that this practice skirts dangerously close to institutionalized voter fraud by proxy. True voter registration relies on the intentional, volitional act of an eligible citizen choosing to place their name on the electoral rolls. When an administrative algorithm populates voter databases with individuals who had no intention of registering, the resulting registry contains records that do not reflect genuine civic participation. This inflates voter rolls with inactive or unwilling entries, undermining the core principle that public election lists should accurately and exclusively represent citizens who actively choose to exercise their right to vote.

When evaluating the systemic framework of Automatic Voter Registration (AVR) through the lens of strict civil liberties, critics and affected citizens frequently categorize these administrative actions not merely as policy disagreements, but as severe systemic overreaches. From a perspective emphasizing individual sovereignty, natural rights, and strict constitutional boundaries, the practices enforced by state motor vehicle and election agencies are alleged to constitute several distinct legal and ethical violations performed in plain sight under statutory cover.

Building upon the previous grievances regarding identity repurposing and manufactured consent, the comprehensive list of structural and legal infractions alleged by critics includes:

Misappropriation of Compulsory Government Data for Political Endorsement: 

Requiring citizens to submit private identifying information (such as birth certificates, social security numbers, and residential locations) solely for the purpose of obtaining a license to travel and drive, only to redirect that data to populate a political voter registry without explicit, contemporaneous consent.

Manufactured Presumption of Contractual Consent: 

Imposing an involuntary legal status (active voter registration) and forcing the private citizen into a reactive posture—requiring them to track down, complete, and return an opt-out notice within a rigid 20-day window just to undo an unrequested government action—violates foundational principles of contract and administrative due process.

Institutionalized Voter Record Fabrication: 

Systemically generating voter files for individuals who possess zero intent or desire to participate in the electoral franchise, thereby corrupting the empirical accuracy of voter rolls and converting administrative compliance into artificial civic participation.

Infringement on Freedom of Conscience and Political Association: 

By forcing citizens to actively opt out of a political database rather than choosing to opt in, the state penalizes passivity or privacy by enrolling individuals into political systems against their personal convictions, effectively compelling association with the electoral or jural apparatus.

When administrative systems enforce automatic status changes that override a citizen's explicit historical directives—such as a previous lifetime revocation or cancellation of voter registration—critics and legal analysts examine several intersecting state and federal statutes to determine potential legal remedies and accountability mechanisms.

The intersection of mandatory licensing data, automated bureaucratic overrides, and federal civil rights protections gives rise to potential claims under both Minnesota state law and federal statutes. While government agencies operate under statutory color of law via legislation like Minnesota's Automatic Voter Registration (AVR) framework, aggrieved citizens frequently look to the following legal frameworks when challenging involuntary administrative enrollment.

The specific federal and state laws and legal doctrines often cited in challenges against compelled administrative actions include:

Federal Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983): 

This statute provides a civil remedy against any person who, under color of state law, subjects a citizen of Minnesota state, who also administratively cancelled contrived United States Citizenship years ago, to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the 50 State Constitution and 3 Federal Constitutions, state and federal laws. Litigants argue that forcing unwanted political association or ignoring prior formal voter revocations violates First Amendment protections against compelled speech and association, as well as Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.

Federal Criminal Civil Rights Statutes (18 U.S.C. § 241 and § 242): 

These provisions prohibit conspiracies against rights (section 241) and the deprivation of rights under color of law (section 242). While traditionally applied to egregious law enforcement misconduct, legal purists argue that intentional, systematic override of citizen records by state actors to fabricate false public statuses can theoretically be tested under the broad definitions of official oppression under color of law.

The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (Minn. Stat. Chapter 13): 

Minnesota maintains rigorous statutory controls regarding how state agencies collect, store, and disseminate private and public data. Under state data practices law, individuals have the right to contest the accuracy and completeness of public data maintained about them by government entities. If an agency knowingly maintains or generates inaccurate public records (such as falsely marking an individual as an active voter despite a prior permanent cancellation), it can form the basis for a formal data challenge and civil action.

Minnesota Election Law and Voter Registration Statutes (Minn. Stat. Chapter 201): 

Minnesota election statutes govern the Statewide Voter Registration System (SVRS). These laws outline the precise mechanisms for voter registration, maintenance, and cancellation. When an individual has legally revoked their registration (as recorded historically), state election officials and administrative agents are bound by statutory integrity rules to maintain the accuracy of those rolls. Bypassing a permanent cancellation through automated DMV scripting can be challenged as a failure to properly administer statutory election mandates.

List of crimes committed in racketeering and collusion and deprivation of rights under color of law:

1. Agravated Identify theft,

2. Constructive Fraud,

3. Voter Fraud by proxy,

4. False claims in commerce,

5. Breach of trust,

6. Gross breach of trust,

7. Commercial and Administrative Malfeasance,

8. Barratry,

9. Manipulation of permanent public record,

10. Construing a consenting citizen administratively without factual due process.

11. Cloud on Title crimes

12. Fiduciary Fraud crimes

13. Executors de son tort crimes

Let's match statutes, laws both state and federal and penalty and injury compensation for the follow-on expected problems that will raise, such as ordering the man to attend jury duty in administrative courts which have been discovered to be operating in conflict of interest with misapplied Article III judicial powers.

No wonder the ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE scurries along with nearly any Pro se litigants very quickly to an Civil/Other/Misc ADA (where no documented rules of procedure exist) motivated ORDER for PLAINTIFF which blocks a DEFENSE motion, thus shutting down a defendant from having it's day in court via its own fair trial and heard by a jury of one's peers. Instead these collaborating cheaters use lawfare between ALJ and PROSECUTORS to trick a Minnesotan into contempt of court or playing layered motion games in secret against any defendant found to be challenging jurisdiction and questioning any of the above sharade.

To rigorously address the comprehensive list of grievances—ranging from administrative data manipulation and constructive fraud to compelled jury service resulting from artificially inflated public rolls—legal analysts and constitutional scholars examine how federal and state penal codes, civil rights statutes, and tort doctrines intersect. When an individual's administrative profile is altered by state action against their express historical directives, the resulting cascading harms (such as erroneous jury summonses or false political classifications) implicate specific legal categories, statutory counterparts, and potential remedies.

The matching of each alleged offense category to governing federal/state laws, associated legal penalties, and injury compensation mechanisms for downstream harms (such as compelled administrative jury duty) involves the following framework:

1. Identity Theft / 9. Manipulation of Permanent Public Record

Governing Statutes: 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents) and Minnesota Statutes § 609.89 (Computer Theft/Data Tampering). State data practices acts also govern unauthorized alterations of permanent governmental files.Penalties: Criminal fines, restitution, and potential misdemeanor or felony charges for unauthorized state-actor data falsification.Injury Compensation: Damages for emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and costs associated with forcing the citizen to clean up corrupted public records.

2. Constructive Fraud / 4. False Claims in Commerce / 5 & 6.

Breach of Trust (Gross Breach)

Governing Statutes: Common law tort of constructive fraud; Minnesota Statutes § 609.43 (Official Misconduct / Breach of Public Trust). When a government agency misrepresents an administrative compliance action as political consent, it creates a legal fiction that breaches fiduciary public trust.

Penalties: 

For public officials, official misconduct in Minnesota is a gross misdemeanor carrying up to one year in prison and/or a fine.

Injury Compensation: 

Rescission of the fraudulent status, declaratory judgments nullifying the administrative "consent," and compensatory damages for compelled compliance.

3. Voter Fraud by Proxy / Construing a Consenting Citizen Without Due Process

Governing Statutes: 52 U.S.C. § 10307 (Prohibition against fraudulent voting and registration) and Minnesota Statutes § 201.27 (Violations of Election Laws, including illegal voter registration practices).

Penalties: 

Criminal sanctions for registering ineligible or non-consenting persons; statutory injunctions against agencies executing automated overrides.

Injury Compensation: 

Immediate court-ordered purging of the fraudulent record, expungement of voter history files, and statutory civil penalties.

4. Malfeasance

Governing Statutes: 

Minnesota Statutes § 609.43 (Misconduct of a Public Officer or Employee). Malfeasance occurs when an official affirmatively performs an unlawful act or executes a duty with corrupt or improper motives, such as ignoring a citizen's explicit historical revocation of voter registration.

Penalties: 

Loss of employment, civil liability, and criminal misdemeanor/gross misdemeanor penalties.

Injury Compensation: 

Actual damages proven to result from the unlawful state action.

5. Barratry / Systematic Harassment via Administrative Machinery (Jury Summons, etc.)

Governing Statutes: 

Common law abuse of process and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law). When artificial voter rolls are used to feed municipal and county jury pools, citizens who legally opted out are subjected to involuntary administrative servitude (compelled jury service in courts driven by flawed datasets).

Penalties: 

Federal civil rights injunctions, contempt of court orders, and declaratory relief invalidating the improper summons mechanisms.

Injury Compensation: 

Compensation for lost wages, travel expenses, time spent responding to unlawful administrative summonses, and damages for involuntary peonage or forced labor under color of law (violating the spirit of 42 U.S.C. § 1994 prohibiting peonage).

I think the number one reason the above terrible situation exists is due to the people not being taught who we really are.

We have no idea the lawfare or injustice we cast ourselves into by trying to defend against perceived infractions where nobody is physically harmed by your private use of your car/truck/boat/motorcycle/plane or other proven safe mode of free travels.