Dayton unconvinced on photo ID

Gov. Mark Dayton says a bill that would require Minnesotans to show photo identification before voting as “a solution looking for a problem.” But Dayton is stopping short of a veto threat.

A House committee is set to discuss the proposal this morning. Supporters say that requiring photo identification at the polls will ensure election integrity. But Dayton disagrees. He there’s no evidence of any significant voter fraud in Minnesota.

“I think every vote should be a legal vote in Minnesota and we should have means to measure that,” Dayton said. “But I think this has been a greatly exaggerated phenomenon by those who are dissatisfied with the political results of the last two elections in Minnesota. And I think it’s very unfortunate that they are casting aspersions on the integrity of our election process in Minnesota, which I think has been completely upheld by the last two very careful recounts.”

If supporters of the voter ID bill fail to get a bill past Dayton, they could decide to bypass the governor and push the requirement as a constitutional amendment.

  • Ginny

    This bill is a fraud. Republicans don’t give a rip about election integrity. This is a partisan attempt to suppress voter turnout. When more people vote, more people vote for Democrats. voter ID would not keep felons from voting–Felons have IDs.

    See this:

    Republicans are still using the false story about “ballots in the trunk” to push this bill:

    I wish the media would delve into the issues rather than just saying who is for what. 25% of senior citizens do not have photo ID. If they showed up at a polling place where they’ve been going for decades and the election judge recognized them, they still can’t vote without an ID? RIDICULOUS.

  • Pete

    Why isn’t the media reporting on the full impact of HF0210 and only focusing on the ID part? It would stop health care workers from assisting disabled voters. requires all challenged voters to cast provisional ballots even if the election judge has evidence they are eligible to vote, would not prevent paroled felons from voting since they have IDs, allows for wearing of campaign materials in polling places and costs more than the child protection cuts to setup a new computer voting and registration system.

    I e-mailed Rep. Diane Anderson (R-Eagan), one of the authors, to provide some information on what she was trying to accomplish with this bill, how many cases of fraud this bill would prevent, costs to implement, research done, etc., but she only responded with a thanks and asked me peronal questions. If you can’t even answer why you are doing something, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it. Media and the people of Minnesota should be holding them responsible. Maybe MPR should do a Poligraph on voter fraud claims made by legislators.

  • Charlie

    Who will check ID cards of the absentee voters? When? Where? I don’t think the absentee voter issue is even mentioned in the bill.

  • Proponents of Photo ID say the MN bill is modeled after the Indiana law. Why do we want to wade into the quagmire of the Indiana system? The Indiana Photo ID law has been extensively litigated, both at the State & Federal levels. The beneficiaries were the lawyers who got big fees.

    Those who propose radical changes in how MN does its democracy, do a dis-service to the State & its citizens,

    This bill will be costly, cause much harm & is not needed.

    It will create “taxation without representation’ by barring certian tax-paying citizens from casting a ballot. For that reason alone, it should be vetoed.