Where do you stand on requiring Minnesotans to produce a photo ID to vote?

A constitutional amendment requiring Minnesotans to show a photo ID when they vote could be on the ballot this fall. Backers say it will cut voter fraud. Detractors say it could keep more than 200,000 Minnesotans from the polls.

Today’s question: Where do you stand on requiring Minnesotans to produce a photo ID to vote?

  • Laurie Gustafson

    This unnecessary proposal is a barrier to voting and will only affect those who are most vulnerable and those in transition such as the elderly, students, homeless, military, etc. There is no information on a picture ID that would disqualify someone from voting.

  • Larry Sanderson

    Whenever I get into one of these complicated positions, I asks myself, “Self, what would Jesus say?” and Blam! Like a light from the sun, it strikes me! And, I hear Jesus speaking as if off from a distance, you know, not far enough that he has to shout and I have to strain to hear, but still off in the distance. And so I asked him, “What about voter ID laws, Jesus?” And Blam! He answered me.

    “Just as I said in the Bible, put not your faith in God, my son, but put your faith in your photographic government ID card. It shows you the path of righteousness and makes it easy to identify you both when you vote, fly on a plane, and when you enter into heaven.”

    So ever since then, when I vote, when I fly, or when I’m in an accident on the highway, I firmly grasp my photographic government ID card, and I am comforted.

    Now I hear them Mormons got some special underwear, and Jesus, … And, Jesus, I swear I will give up drinking after this bottle.

  • kurt

    It is a small thing to ask. Democrat sypathizers object under the guise of “fairness and compassion” as per usual but the real reason, of course, is that lax voting reqirements sustain an important Democrat constituency-those people not actually elligible to vote but who, if they can vote, will almost certainly vote for the big Government option and the largesse that accompanies it

  • Phil

    How much time and money has wasted on this issue? If we added it up, the people who are so concerned with the budget are blowing huge amounts of money debating and promoting this non-issue. The amount of fraud in any election is so insignificant it is not worth the cost spent on this topic. In the mean time, my 85 year old father can’t vote because he moved here from California and can’t get a Minnesota ID because he has been told he must present a birth certificate to get that Minnesota ID and the records from 1926 are no where to be found. And he is not the only one affected by this. In the long run, the number of people who are barred from voting will far outweigh the number of fraudulent votes cast.

  • kim

    I’m against it. I’ve served as an election judge. Back then, I was very impressed with the common sense shown by our system, and how well things worked. (Granted, I lived in a rural area. Maybe common sense doesn’t work so well in St Paul). Before our legislature decided to waste their time and our money on this, I wish they’d gone to the trouble of showing we had an actual problem. I think we have more trouble GETTING people to vote than we have keeping them from committing voting fraud. At a time when our state can’t seem to find the money to do stuff that’r really important, it’s inexcusable to waste resources on a non-problem like this.

  • hiram

    Voter Id is another Republican attack on the poor, the victimized,the elderly and the weak in our society whom in this case they seek to disenfranchise.

  • linda

    I will vote against requiring an ID to vote. I think it is an attempt to keep people from voting. Minnesota has a very good voting record. There is no need to put restrictions on people’s right to vote.

  • kurt


    So is that why Democrats offer cigarettes in exchange for votes as they did in Wisconsin a few years back-because they “care” about the poor, elderly and weak? Pathetic!

  • Rich

    Voting is a constitutional right. It is not a constitutional right to open a bank account, to have driving privileges, to use air travel, or to enter into contracts.

    Opponents of voter-ID laws can overstate their case, and are often too quick to accuse their opponents of bigotry. But the unwillingness of supporters of these laws to grapple with their effects is equally troubling. Either they will disenfranchise precisely those voters that were statutorily disenfranchised for centuries, or they will cost states enormous amounts of money (ie, from providing free voter-ID cards, from making them easily obtainable, from education/outreach to explain changes to the law, etc). Now, it could be that supporters believe that the marginal protection against certain forms of extremely rare voter fraud is worth the burden on state budgets and the risk of turning away eligible voters. But that is not an argument we have yet heard.

  • JBlilie

    I will vote no on this measure if it comes before me.

    This is a “solution” looking for a problem. Show me that there is any significant voter fraud in Minnesota. You can’t because there isn’t.

    This is a cynical GOP ploy to disenfranchise voters who predominately vote Democrat. Period. All other talk is baloney. (Kind of like the Republican claim that Planned Parenthyood spends more than 90% of its funds on abortions.)

  • Leif Hansen
  • David

    I’m not worried about the burden of obtaining a photo ID. My concern is that a photo ID requirement makes some disenfranchisement of those with ID inevitable and open for abuse. First, it’s not uncommon for ID information to differ from voter registration information. Mitt Romney may have registered to vote as Mitt Romney but his driver’s license may say Willard M. Romney. The address on my driver’s license is not the address I registered to vote under. Second, photo verification gives poll workers discretionary authority. All they would have to do to turn a voter away is to say “That doesn’t look like you.”

    I’d still support photo IDs if there was a major fraud problem. But balancing negligible fraud against inevitable disenfranchisement even for those with ID, and I think the interest of democracy disfavors the photo ID requirement.

  • Bob Moffitt

    My home state of Indiana has a strict photo ID law, but that doesn’t prevent voter fraud, as its supporters claim.

    Case in point: A 42-year-old Indiana man convicted last week of 6 felonies, including perjury and voter fraud. He’s seeking an appeal, claiming that the state’s voting laws were “just too complicated” for him to obey.

    I’m speaking of Charles White, the (now former) Secretary of State for Indiana.

  • Bill Wesen

    These proposals all over the country are a concerted effort to tip the scales by preventing legal voters from voting. The likely illegal disenfranchisement is 1000 times as numerous as any fraudulent voting that the measure would prevent. As we see democracy spreading in other parts of the world, let’s not voluntarily give up ours’.

  • Gordon near Two Harbors

    While I support the proposed voter ID law (who the heck doesn’t need a photo ID in this day and age?), there is no doubt that the GOP wants to do everything in its power to limit the voting opportunities of racial minorities and anyone else who tend to vote for democrats. Just check out the efforts in some other states where poll locations have been closed or moved out of poor neighborhoods, while being expanded in suburban areas.

  • Steve the Cynic

    I agree that this is a cynical (in the modern, not classical sense of the word) ploy by Republicans to disenfranchise poor and disadvantaged people who are likely to vote Democratic. Folks with libertarian leanings especially should be alarmed by this proposal. Requiring citizens to carry their identity documents for gradually more and more purposes is characteristic of creeping totalitarianism. If this passes and becomes the norm in most states, it will be that much easier to institute a national ID card, which could easily morph into an internal passport like the USSR used to require. It’s good for democracy for the people to be a bit less controllable.

  • Laura Askelin

    VOTER ID is a direct assault on ballot access for citizens.

    Instead of focusing on creating jobs and improving our economy, our GOP legislators are attempting to pass a bill that will create barriers to voting for all Minnesotans.

    The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the influential corporate-funded group that writes model bills for Republican state legislators, has pushed Republicans across the country to impose new restrictions on voting. Why? Just read this quote… ALEC co-founder Paul Weyrich said three decades ago: “I don’t want everybody to vote,” “As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”

    (quote source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw)

  • As an election judge for most of the past 2 decades, I believe this does not get a the worst problems — which are teaching alleged adults that they have to VOTE WHERE THEY LIVE, and getting them to show up.

    Why not criminalize failure to exercise your franchise? The last time I worked, two out of around 1400 registered voters actually made it to the polls. In 13 hours. Several others worked in the district, lived elsewhere, and did not know where their polling place was. Make your own conclusions from this.

  • Mark G in Freeborn

    Despite the nay-sayers who say that Voter ID is an attempt by Republicans to disenfranchise voters who tend to vote Democratic, I feel that Voter ID is undemocratic (small d) and tends to discourage voters of whatever persuasion from doing their republican (small r) duty. That being said, however, Voter ID does seem to discriminate against the poor, the elderly, non-drivers, and anyone else who has reason not to hold a valid ID. Hear that rumbling sound? That’s the sound of the Framers turning over in their graves at any idea that discourages voting!

  • Emily

    First: Where is the evidence that there is actaully a problem with voter fraud? Please present it before we proceed with a “solution in search of a problem”.

    Second: Why does any solution to this yet-to-be-demonstrated problem require an amendment to MN Constitution?

    Third: It is an assault on the right to vote. No action should proceed until there is at least as much attention to and effort exercised to assure that NO additional burden is added to executing one’s right to vote for ALL eligible voters.

    Most importantly, where is the evidence that there is a problem with the current practice?

  • Bruce

    First voter ID then we will need an ID to travel across State Lines. When will it end

  • I have extremely conflicted views about this question.

    In theory and in the abstract, it sounds like a good idea. Who doesn’t want more security, more reliability in elections.

    But the more I dig at this question, the more it becomes a mess of a question.

    The amount of voter fraud proven over the years is minimal if not ancedotal. So why

    That’s what bothers me. Why do those, mostly of the conservative persuasion, want these voter ID laws so badly that they spend all this time and energy across the nation to address this non-issue.

    The answer has to be–to discourage voting by those who aren’t of their stripe. Minorities. The poor. Those who don’t necessarily have a driver’s license and might have a birth certificate…somewhere, usually forgotten.

    It is that motive, that desire to reduce turnout of those of different political leanings that poison the well for me.

  • Larry M.

    I think the proposal is clearly aimed at stopping college students and other youth from voting and is quite unfortunate. I think we should be encouraging our youth to be involved in governance, not discouraging it, for not only their own good but for the future of our nation.

  • David Wilford

    The right to vote is a right, not a privilege, and requiring a photo ID in order to vote infringes on that right.

  • Sue Hnastchenko

    I will vote no for this amendment.

    This amendment should be named the Voter Suppression Amendment because that is what it does – it infringes on the right to vote of the most vulnerable segments of our society – the elderly, poor, disabled, homeless and student population. The only thing photo ID prevents is voter fraud – which is a non-issue in Minnesota!

    Most importantly, voting is a constitutional RIGHT – not a privilege.

  • jon

    The Proposal is a fine example of how we are moving away from being a free country. Lets just switch back to white male land owners are the only ones who can vote and be done with this backwards slide. Maybe then we can start making some progress forward again.

  • david


    Stop wasting valuable government resources on stupid s#!$! If you want a smaller government, and to decrease government spending then stop imposing you fascist, purposeless agendas on people. I guess this has a purpose, but your lying as to what it is. The GOP can’t win an election fairly so you want to steal yet another one. If you want to fix the election process then make sure that travesty down in Florida where the village idiot from Texas stole the election from the village idiot from DC. Otherwise shut up because smart people aren’t buying your BS. This IS nothing more than class warfare.

    This ranks right up there as the biggest wastes of government time such as gay marriage, abortion, and anything to do with the vikings. None of which is ANY of the governments business. Get to work you morons and fix the economy! And make sure it STAYS fixed this time. Otherwise step aside and let some people into office who actually care about their constituents so we can start moving forward.

  • George Minns

    Minnesota has a long history of close elections in the state. The 2010 governor’s race between Mark Dayton and Tom Emmer had a margin of 8770* votes between the winner and loser. A mere two years earlier, the final tally for the Senate race between Al Franken and Norm Coleman was a mere 215** votes. Finally let us consider the race for governor in 1962 between Karl Rolvaag and Elmer Andersen. After a 4 1/2 month recount, Rovaag won by 91*** ballots!! It is not difficult to fudge a hundred or so votes in an election. How many felons voted in 2010?


    * MN Sec. State via Wikipedia

    **MN Sec. State via Wikipedia

    *** Tales of the Road Highway 61 by Cathy Wurzer, pg. 6

  • Jeremy Powers

    Voter ID is the poll tax of the 21st Century. When poll taxes were enacted they were done so to suppress voting by blacks and other people considered by the ruling class to be unworthy of voting. That’s what the Republican Party wants: to stop the poor, the young and the aged from voting. When the poll tax was ruled illegal, the people who wanted to suppress people from voting enacted laws requiring people to have a certain level of civic knowledge. Know the new “standard” for voting is to have a government-issued ID.

    Even the so-called Republican test in Stillwater showed just how uncaring they arte. There you had to “swipe” your driver’s license to get through. Even the presumption that EVERYBODY has a drivers license shows they only want people who are just like them to come to their caucuses. You’re blind, so sorry. Rely on public transportation and pay everything in cash? What are you, anti-American?

    There is virtually no voter fraud in the whole country and Minnesota is better than most other states meaning that our voter fraud is in the realm of nil.

  • Alison

    I can see both sides. I really think it should be required, but I understand there are people for whom getting an ID would be difficult, particularly the elderly in nursing homes. I really wish those opposed to the law/amendment would put in half as much effort identifying and helping those few people get their IDs. They’d probably appreciate the help getting the ID and the chance to visit with someone.

    One thing I am sure about, both sides are blowing this out of proportion in order to rile up their bases. I’m completely sick of it! You sound like my kids bickering. The problem is I can’t just send you to your rooms. You both need a time out!

  • kennedy

    I am with the fiscal conservatives on this one. We should be looking to reduce government programs and government infringement on personal liberty. Before creating another government program and spending tax dollars, provide data documenting the problem and how the program will fix it. I haven’t seen that, so I can’t support voter ID.

    Spurious claims of election fraud by a losing candidate are not data, but sour grapes.

  • Sheila

    I am against this. There is not a problem with voter fraud and it is the Republicans way of singling out those who may not be able to present a photo ID for one reason or another. Voting is a right for all citizens and should not be taken away.

  • Patrick Ness

    This is a solution looking for a problem. Actually, the problem is a partisan one (Republicans losing close elections), and their solution appears to be creating barriers to voting for people they believe are part of their “problem”.

    There are very real and pressing challenges in our state. Please get back to the real work of the people.

    Paraphrasing Jay-Z: I got 99 problems, but voter id ain’t one.

  • Patrick Stevens

    Voter ID is a way to marginalize voters. It is senseless government regulation and intrusion into our lives. It is a Republican ploy to try to work up their voter base when they don’t have any real issues to run on this year.

    For a party that touts less government regulation as its mantra, this is an affront to reason. We have no reason to demand photo ids at the poll.

  • Bear

    Step into the modern world. Fear mongering liberals promulgate this will result in the US slipping into communism; get real and sober up you’ve drunk too much liberal propaganda. The framers of the constitution would be turning in their grave at a lot of modern voting practices. I mean non-landowners voting; what a ridiculous notion. If you want to wind-back-the-clock, then do it on all fronts not just selectively; heck let’s move back into caves.

    When the constitution was framed every landowner knew everyone else in the voting precinct, ID’s were unnecessary. Today neighbors don’t even recognize each other; it is pure common sense to require voters to establish their residency via modern technology: the photograph. Hate to shatter your world Pollyanna but some people lie and some people cheat. No ID’s required are a vestige of another time and it has outlived its purpose. Here’s to extending the amendment to allow only landowners to vote.

  • Bob Vandenakker

    @George Minns – You do know that all of the dozens of felons who registered and voted in 2008 and 2010 had valid government issued IDs? Even Dan McGrath of Minnesota Majority has stated on video that Photo ID won’t stop felons from voting because they have photo IDs. There isn’t a single government issued ID that proves citizenship, residency and felony status. Foreigners have Drivers Licenses. Passports don’t have an address. Nothing shows felony convictions. All photo ID stops is voter impersonation, and there has never been a case in Minnesota of a voter showing up to the polls and finding someone voted for them. There hasn’t even been a case of a dead person voting.

    Close elections does not mean fraud. It means a divided electorate. When Mary Kiffmeyer was Secretary of State, she found 14 felons out of 2,800,000 ballots cast, or 0.0005% of the electorate. Compare that to the rate of voter Fraud amongst Secretaries of State, which is currently at 2%.

    My great grandmother is 100 years old and she was born without the right to vote. She doesn’t have a birth certificate because she was born at home. She’s been married 3 times and had 4 different last names. She’s in a nursing home, and doesn’t have the money to go to Iowa, find someone to vouch for her being born there in order to have a birth record created, and then travel to the 3 different counties where she was married to pay for copies of her marriage certificates (if they still exist) just so she can stand in line at the DMV for a photo ID so she can cast her absentee ballot later.

    How many legitimate voters like her is okay to strip of their rights to vote in order to feel good about our election process? I will fight so she doesn’t die without the right to vote.

  • Sue de Nim

    The rationale behind the voter-ID movement is completely spurious. There are easier and more effective ways to steal elections than by a massive program of voter impersonation, which is why it’s not happening and isn’t a significant problem.

  • nt

    Dear MPR,

    This has been studied. Please report on the number of cases of voter fraud in the most recent election in Minnesota. As I recall, there were two identified cases. Astonishingly, there may be something less important than the Vikings stadium.

  • nt

    Dear MPR,

    This has been studied. Please report on the number of cases of voter fraud in the most recent election in Minnesota. As I recall, there were two identified cases. Astonishingly, there may be something less important than the Vikings stadium.

  • Jim G

    Warning! For the satirically challenged, what follows is a satirical post.

    ” Not only should we have voter I.D., This I.D. should be written on your forehead or palm of your hand for you to vote or do any business in this state. Oh, wait a minute, that sounds familiar. Isn’t that found in the Revelation?”

  • Greg

    I am against this. However if we are going to require ID”s to vote, then ID’s should be free for everyone. And every time someone moves, their ID should be replaced for free as well.

  • Denny Ulmer

    THis is simply an effort by the right to suppress voter turnout. Fact is low turn-out they benefit, High turn-out = we all benefit.

  • Mary Lou Bonnifield

    I will vote against photo ID. The only thing a photo ID will do is prevent voter impersonation; no one has ever been convicted of voter impersonation in Minnesota. The only convictions for voter fraud in Minnesota were due to felons voting before their civil rights have been restored. A more economic approach to that problem is to inform the felon that their voting rights have been taken away and will be restored after their probationary period is over. The path for doing this is already laid down through probation officers who monitor people on probation.

    I don’t hear my fellow Minnesotans sit at the dinner table talking about the need for a photo ID. They talk about schools, many of which are contemplating going to 4 day schedules. They talk about the need for better roads, and the need to lower taxes.

    The cost of photo ID would be millions and millions of dollars, that doesn’t take into consideration the costs to individuals to obtain secondary documents to obtain a photo ID such as birth certificates and marriage licenses. A provisional ballot system would need to be created and implemented. The public and election staff would need to be educated about photo ID and provisional ballots. More election judges would be needed at the polls on Election Day.

    With the economy in Minnesota as it is spending millions and millions of dollars on a non-existent problem is an extreme waste and is not responsible government.

  • GregX

    That it doesn’t go far enough. What we need is a total federal ID based on biometric measures (retinal-scans, DNA, fingerprints) with a coordinated and assigned federal ID #. this tracking system will permit far tighter control over all of the “identity-validation” transactions including personal business and financial transactions, voting, criminal processing, seeking criminals based on DNA, library cards,

  • Mark Cline

    It is a completely unnecessary waste of our government’s time & money, and will have the effect (whether intended or not) of disenfranchising many times more eligible voters than any illegal voters it prevents. With adequate penalties for illegal voting, there will be almost no incentive to do so. Pulling off any conspiracy is incredibly difficult (someone always talks); doing so by using illegal voters to “steal” an election would be virtually impossible. Not only are very few elections so close as to be affected by a few illegal votes, but the disincentive (both for those who vote illegally, and those who encourage them to do so) provided by our legal system is sufficient to discourage this behavior.

  • It would be easier to let our guests vote. If we wish to rule the world, we must let the world vote.

    We can take thumb prints to retard multiple voting if we deem it necessary.

  • Bob Haider

    I stand very much against it. It seems to make sense on the surface; however, it is actually a solution looking for a problem. It’s a thinly veiled attempt by one party to disenfranchise key voter blocks that don’t typically support them… college age voters, the elderly and the poor.

    For example: in the case of students or young people and the elderly, why would we put up road blocks that will keep them from voting? The elderly help build our country. The young people are our future. At a time of severe budget crisis as a state, this is a ridiculous reason to spend additional money; it’s very expensive to the state, counties and cities. Requiring Minnesotans to produce a photo ID to vote would be obscene.

  • Sheri Smith

    Here is a new report about the wealthy funding behind those who would try to block many of us from voting. This is a bigger issue than it appears. It is about power in our democracy.


  • Mark

    I would only support something like this if it explicitly stated that everyone (poor/middle class/rich) would be given a state ID at the state’s expense. Since the current bill only states what it will do, not the how it will do it, I can’t support it.

    As it is it seems like a brazen attempt to disenfranchise several groups:

    -The poor who can not spend the time or money to get an ID.

    -The elderly who may not even have all the paperwork required (my grandmother is 90, I doubt she has a birth certificate from the 1920s).

    -College students who may live at school for the majority of the year but have their current address as their parents’ home.

  • Stop the madness

    This reminds me too much of every old world war 2 movie where the nazi is screaming “Your paperz! Show me your paperz!!!”

    Zellers is a German isn’t it? Hmmmm….

  • davidz

    The proposals in MN are a mockery of law. The stipulated reason for the law is to prevent voter fraud, but there is very little fraud in Minnesota elections. The few cases that have been proven in the last several years wouldn’t have been prevented by these new proposed requirements.

    Therefore, I am convinced that the real reasons for proposing these laws lay somewhere else. I won’t presume to speak for the motivations of others, but I am skeptical (at best) because their actions and their words don’t match up against the reality that is in place.

    MN has a great election process. It should be the envy of the nation in terms of participation. There is no need for this proposed voter ID requirement.

  • Mary

    Another example of Republicans underhandedly trying to suppress the vote. If voter fraud was really a problem in Minnesota it could easily be taken care of by putting a felon designation on state issued I.D.s. I will not vote for this. This isn’t an issue for Minnesota and that’s been proven.

  • Mary Jo Wimmer

    This is a solution looking for a problem.

  • Dan D

    Ultimately, I do not want it because it slows the process down. It won’t be the ID that keeps people from voting but rather long lines.

    My side thoughts:

    I do not look at this as Republicans trying to suppress people from voting but rather the Democrats reliance on people who do not have ID.

    I am independent voter but if you need an ID to buy beer at Buffalo Wild Wings, you should need an ID to vote.

    Are these people driving to the polling place without a license? Do they not have insurance either? Asking to prove who you are is not that burdensome in today’s society.

    I do realize there are elderly who have gone the last 0 years without any identification. I imagine they are a small sample.

  • Sharon in St. Paul

    Ultimately it’s about control. Technology has gotten to the point where RFID and data mining mean that once everyone has to carry ID, they can put RFID in the ID, and know where anyone in the country is, and who they’re with. Libertarians, be very afraid.

  • John P II

    Does legitimacy flow from the people to the government or is it the other way around?

  • Steve the Cynic

    No, Sharon in St.Paul, it won’t be RFID in the ID card; it will be RFID implanted under the skin, or maybe tattooed QR codes, all in the name of preventing “fraud” but really enabling Big Brother and/or Big Business to have more control over everyone.

  • KKat

    I’m an election judge. I won’t be an election judge if this passes.

    I know who will be disenfranchised in my precinct: elderly people that no longer drive. I have no intention of taking the job to tell them that because they didn’t get an I.D. or they forgot to bring it with them then they cannot vote. Keep in mind that it takes some of these people 5 minutes just to walk into the building from the handicap spot in the parking lot and that they had to find someone to drive them to the poll.

    I’m not too concerned about college students. They are used to having to provide an I.D. They are the ones getting carded at Buffalo Wild Wings so I’m sure they’ve got something they can use.

  • Adam

    This is a poor solution looking for a non-existent problem.

  • Greg

    The irony of the party of deregulation and spending cuts pushing a bill that would increase regulation on voting (a most basic right in the US) and include the state purchasing ID’s for everyone who is currently without, is not lost on me. And when the amount of election fraud is so low as to be almost non-existent, I am forced to question Republicans’ motives, which begin to seem either paranoid or power-hungry.

  • JasonB

    During some of the most contentious budget battles in Minnesota legislative history we have all this talk about amendments to the constitution. Sounds like the new tactic of distraction from our real problems.

  • Jeb Rach

    If done properly, it could make life easier and help reduce fraud. Done improperly, it could do the opposite.

    Have a credit card-like machine at each polling place, which reads the magnetic stripe on the photo ID. That can verify that the ID is valid and that person is or is not allowed to vote there, much like a credit card can verify whether I have money in my account or not. If the card is not valid, there should be an override option if the card is not invalid (for example, a felon who is trying to vote before his/her rights are reinstated) with why there is an override (change of address, college student, etc.) They show that paperwork (utility bill or student ID) and they are allowed to vote.

    If voter ID passes, then I would expect them to integrate the photo ID directly into the voting system, so that as soon as I change my driver’s license or ID, I can vote in that new precinct. No changing my voter registration or any of that additional hassle. For most people, that would make it easier to vote.

    If you still have to register separately to vote, or if you do not have some sort of override option, that disenfranchises voters unnecessarily. Without the verification to the central database, it’s essentially useless, as someone who actually wanted to commit fraud could create fake IDs, whereas people who truly want to vote but don’t have IDs have to go through unnecessary hoops.

  • George Davis

    Requiring a photo I.D. to vote in Minnesota is unnecessay and will discourage people from voting. Perhaps that is the idea behind the proposal?

  • Jamie

    Just as they have been doing in other states, the American Legislative Exchange Council (comprised of uber-wealthy individuals and corporations and Republican state legislators) are pushing this voter-ID proposal to limit votes for Democrats. Republicans know that people who are disabled, elderly people, students, and people who are poor mostly vote for Democrats, and those are the same people who would have a hard time getting the required ID cards.

    Even if the cards are free (costing the state millions), many people will have to spend money to get birth certificates and other required documents, if the documents exist at all. ALEC and our state Republican legislators know this. That’s the only reason they’re pushing it. They also know that there’s no voter-fraud problem in Minnesota (nor in the rest of the country).

    There’s a good chance that they can get this amendment to the state constitution passed and put on the ballot, and they’re counting on the vast numbers of uninformed and misinformed people around the state to vote for the amendment. So we who oppose it must be very active in educating people about what the real reasons are for this proposal.

  • DCM

    Mocking the integrity of those who vote you into office is a bad way to get re-elected.

  • Roberta Blomster

    I am truly against Voter ID. All 5 of the Constitutional Amendments on this issue are going by the list of ineligible voters in our state’s Constitution, and plain as can be is “a person under guardianship”. If any of these 5 makes it onto the ballot and alot of people vote yes, there can be people like myself who lose my right to vote for good! The GOP legislators and those in favor of Voter ID want to undo all of the positive work that was put into the 2005 Voter Rights Bill for people under guardianship and their right to vote which states ” a person under guardianship has the right to vote unless a court order revokes that right”. We have to remember to keep these folks like myself in this fight as well.

  • Ginny

    NO to this amendment. Minnesota already has all kinds of id requirements to register. On election day at the poll you sign an oath under penalty of a felony. We have the best voting system in the country. This additional id requirement would be costly. And it would prevent thousands of legitimate, legal voters from voting. Voting is the most fundamental right in our democracy, protected by more amendments to the U.S. constitution than any other right.

  • RL

    NO TO THIS AMENDMENT. Another way to get the people who need to vote the most out of the voting is what I see. This is a RIGHT for all here. Minnesota is loaded with citizen’s who wish to keep their right to vote without additional republican/corporate walls to knock thru. This is another crap tax and for those affected will NOT be able to afford, therefore stripping them of their rights to vote. WRONG.

  • Terry Streich

    The proposal is wrong-headed. What should be on the ballot are IQ tests. Score over, say 105, and you can vote; score less, you have to run for office. But you have to show your report card either way.

  • Douglas Burt

    Just trying to reduce this discussion to a single phrase: Has anyone attempted a balanced cost/benefit analysis of this proposal?

  • Steve the Cynic

    Of course not, Douglas. Cost/benefit is irrelevant. The proponents of this measure just want to control who gets to vote.