Poll: Do you support a voter ID law?

State Republicans want a “Voter ID” constitutional amendment on this November’s ballot. What do you think?

We’ll discuss the issue tomorrow at 9:00. Kerri’s guest are Keesha Gaskins and

Hans von Spakovsky.

Stephanie Curtis, social media host

  • I once helped homeless communities across Minnesota register and then turn out to vote (over 1000 people).

    If this ID requirement were in place, most of them would not have been able to vote. Some had no address, for others it changed frequently, still others secured housing but wouldn’t have had the time nor resources to prioritize having a current ID.

    http://speakforwe.com/i-can-take-no-election-for-granted-after-organizing-with-homeless-who-turned-hundreds-out-to-vote/

  • Olaf

    As has been established just today in Wisconsin with a similar bill, it is unconstitutional.

  • Stephanie

    Here’s a story about that Wisconsin ruling.

  • David Ganske

    It was interesting how important Mr Zellers thought it was that one persons vote could be canceled out by a fraudulent vote, but he has no concern about the 1000’s of votes that will be blocked for lack of photo ID. Trust me, Repubs know exactly which voters don’t have ID.

  • Marty

    Keep in mind, the majority of voter fraud is committed by election officials, not voters. This is a solution looking for a problem!

  • Melinda

    On Monday, a guest made the comment that even one instance of voter fraud was unacceptable. What priorities! LOTS more people die every day due to drunk driving than voter fraud but we don’t have anything like the same preemptive zero tolerance toward drunk drivers. Why not make drivers take a sobriety test each time they get behind the wheel?

    This is legislative make-work. Maybe our legislators need to find real jobs.

  • David

    Right now, the Wisconsin law has been struck down twice based on their constitution. If Minnesota amends its constitution, then that line of “attack” wouldn’t work – it can’t be unconstitutional under the Minnesota constitution if it is amended. What will be telling is whether measures such as this run afoul of the U.S. Constitution. Given such laws have been striking out at the Federal district court level, it’s still possible if those rulings stand.

    If this amendment were to pass, we’re going to see a situation similar to that seen by South Dakota and their attempts to encode strict abortion limits into their constitution. It will cost the taxpayers money while potentially disenfranchising them at the same time. And it could all be for naught.

    The Secretary of State has proposed a solution (electronic poll books) that, based on MPR’s reporting and some of my own research, seems to deal with the (overblown) concerns regarding voter fraud and protecting the integrity of the elections process. I am disgusted, but not surprised, that the GOP (led on this issue by the former Secretary of State now-Representative Kiffmeyer) has not come on board with this solution that would garner bipartisan support and seem to solve the “problem”. The fact that they are unwilling to drop the amendment (and the multi-million dollar campaign that would inevitable result from it being placed on the ballot) in the face of this solution suggests a continuation of the GOP’s “my way or the highway” approach that led to the shutdown last year. We won’t even get into ALEC and the Koch brothers.

  • Ann Richards

    Speaker Keller stressed the concern of someone feeling their vote was canceled…….my elderly father is in assisted living facility, he has no picture ID yet is registered to vote. He can not get out to get a picture taken, now he votes absentee. I have written to bill authors asking how he would be accommodated, no response so far.

  • Sarah Gleason

    Remember that this is not just about having a photo ID that shows who you are–only certain IDs, with current address, would be accepted. People who have moved, are living in student housing, are currently homeless, will all be disenfranchised. The only kind of fraud it would prevent is someone pretending to be someone else–and we have seen none of this. It’s wrong to prevent eligible citizens from voting.

  • Susanna

    This is a mean-spirited bill, meant to exclude people, mostly democrats, from voting. Voter fraud is a fraud. If it exists, which is questionable, it has no effect on our elections. It seems our legislators whole agenda is about excluding people. Gays, voters, who’s next?

  • Pat

    We already identify ourselves when we vote. I see no need for the state to demand that I produce a photographic ID to continue to exercise my right. This is a push by Republicans because they know that many poor people, some minority group members, and the elderly will have trouble getting an ID. Anyone who is from out of state or a naturalized citizen and does not have a birth certificate, may have trouble getting an ID. Anyone who is in a nursing home or otherwise incapacitated will have a probelm getting an ID.

    Republicans are betting that 1-2% of the folks who generally vote Democrat will be disallowed by the need for photo ID. That is the only reason they are pushing it.

    There is no reason for photo ID and I consider the demand to be an infringement on my right to vote!

  • Nancy

    who is going to take my 98 year old Mother to the court house to get an ID to vote. She was born in the country and takes great pride in voting. She is house bond and on limited income, so which one of these law makers going to come and pick her up and pay for the ID.

  • Mary Lou Bonnifield

    In the recount in the close elections here in Minnesota every ballot in Minnesota was scrutinized. Fritz Knaak, Norm Coleman’s, stated that they were “looking for fraud and they didn’t find any”. We don’t need photo ID!

  • Olaf – [As has been established just today in Wisconsin with a similar bill, it is unconstitutional.] *** Incorrect, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld voter ID laws with a 6-3 decision in 2008…the Wisconsin case is a Dane County Circuit Judge trying to illegally impose his will rather than following precedent. Any court with an ounce of respect for our legal system will strike down the Dane County Circuit Judge decision within a minute…this is what we call an activist judge especially when we have a clear, recent precedent from the highest court in the US.

  • Malik

    As a new citizen I believe this will scare away seniors form voting. Most East African Seniors in the cities that vote democrat will be disenfranchised if this bill passes in the state.

  • Sue

    Last year my bank information was stolen, a check/debit card created and used in Texas, all while my card was in my possession. Phony cards are easy to create for anyone who knows how to do it and it happens all the time. What’s to prevent phony voter ID cards from being made? The whole idea of a voter ID card ridiculous and most of us know know exactly why the nationwide push is on.

  • Dennis hagstrom

    I have been wondering about this since voter id issue arose: If every citizen of the us has a right to vote, what about homelss citizens. As far as I know there is no requirement that one have an address to vote. The only legal requirement is citizenship not an address.

    The address only indicates where you should vote.

    This is a basic right and it seems to me that the government has the bruden of showing that one doesn’t have the right to vote

  • john rundahl

    this conversation should be framed different-why are republicans and the heritage foundation in favor of voter ID?

    The demographics of people without ID don’t vote for them or support them. This is dirty politics and an effort to shave votes locally and nationally in order to secure more republican seats.

  • Michael Griffin

    I agree with John Rundahl. Since it is well established that voter impersonation is not a problem in our elections, the obvious question that news organizations should be asking is: “What are the motivations of those pushing for Voter Photo ID in the absence of voter fraud?” We are largely lacking this sort of clear-eyed journalism. As with so many issues, journalists seem so fearful of accusations of political bias that they not only shy away from asking hard-hitting questions, but shy away even from logically pertinent inquiry.

  • Don

    Isn’t it funny that the same people who want small government and less government intrusion in our lives also support picture ids which appear to do the opposite?

  • Catherine

    The national effort to write & pass Photo ID/Voter ID laws is from ALEC – American Legislative Exchange Council. This is a corporate funded “lobbying” organization who is responsible for pushing the controversial legislation we are seeing in many states. Photo ID, right to work, definition of marriage are just a few examples of ALEC’s work to erode the rights of citizens, advantage corporate/special interests & create an ultra-conservative social agenda.

    VIew a list of model bills at http://www.alecexposed.org

    In Minnesota, the bills we’ve seen in the Legislature are incompatable with our current election system. The proposed Photo ID bills are a complete overhaul of our election proceedures. Our current election system is known as one of the best in the nation. It has numerous checks & balances and works in conjunction with County Attorneys & many other levels of government. Photo ID is not needed, costly & harmful. It deserves to be defeated in the Nov 2012 election.

  • Jim

    State Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer (R-Big Lake) is the state co-chair of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in Minnesota. She did her utmost as MN Secretary of State to suppress voter turnout. She’s back at it again, working for ALEC.

  • Rod Nordberg

    This idea should be defeated merely for the enforcement costs it would impose on precincts (townships) and counties at election time, not to mention the cost to the state to provide (as promised) IDs to anyone who needs one.

  • Bob Vandenakker

    @Jefferson

    You are comparing two different sets of Constitutions with different sets of protections. The Supreme Court of the United States updheld Indiana’s photo ID law, because there are ways around having a photo ID, say by being over 65 and signing an affadavit as to your identity, and they also left it open to future challenges. They never said that it was okay in all cases for all reasons.

    The two judges who struck down the Wisconsin law did so based on the Wisconsin State Constitution. The first judge who issued the temporary injuction did so based on the fact that there were several dozen United States Citizens and registered voters who were unable to obtain an photo ID or had to pay money to get the necessary documents to get one, which has been shown time and again as in Missouri to be a de facto poll tax. The second judge issued a permanent injunction based on prior Wisconsin case law that the legal, executive and legislative branches of government can not create arbitrary voting requirements. The eligible citizens are defined in the state consitution, and no where does it say “those who possess government issued photographic ID cards.” As he stated, even with incontrevertable proof of identity, residency, citizenship and eligability, a voter without a photo ID would be turned away.

    Now, Minnesota’s constitution has a protection that Indiana does not. Our constitution says that no amount of property ownership shall be required for eligability of any voter for any election. This is to prevent exactly what the Republicans are trying to do, which is turn voting into a privilage for the wealthy.

    Do a little research and constitutional law study before you go about saying that the judges in Wisconsin acted illegally.