How will you vote on voter ID, and why?

Jon Gordon October 30, 2012, 5:00 AM Oct 30, 2012

168

MPR News is sponsoring a series of debates in St. Paul’s Fitzgerald Theater this week. Tonight, it’s voter ID. Today’s Question: Which way will you vote on the constitutional amendment that would require voters to present photo identification at polling places, and why?

About the blogger

Jon Gordon

jgordon@mpr.org • @jongordon • 1-651-290-1024

Jon Gordon was the director of digital news for MPR News.

Bob

No. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

Kurt

Yes. Requiring photo ID a reasonable requirement and, contrary to the claims of the Left, there IS voter fraud. Acorn was all about it and there have been instances of it in this election already.

The Left casts this as being about “disenfranchisement”. They don’t give a rat’s a** about that. It’s all about their side winning and, as those least likely to bother getting a photo ID are almost certainly part of their constituency, they are naturally opposed to the measure. If you take voting seriously-take voting seriously!

Kay

No. I feel this should be decided by the legislature and not by constitutional amendment. Technology will evolve and some day photo ID will be replaced by something else. BTW my disabled mother is VERY concerned about proposed limits on voter assistance in the voting booth. This proposed amendment is a solution in search of a problem.

Duane

I am going to vote YES, since I feel the system is broken. We just need to look back at the past senatorial election to see that it did not leave everyone satisfied that we have the correct senator representing us. Also with over 12 million illegal immigrants in this country, are we sure they are not casting a vote?, and, as mobile as this country has become, students as well as young families, how do we know if we are voting in the correct precinct? Than we need to keep in mind some people will try to ‘game’ the system in favor of their candidate.

Rich in Duluth

No, for four reasons:

1. A number of voters may be denied their right to vote, simply because they do not have their ID. This would be an outrage.

2. The actual amount of voter fraud is insignificant. A law is not needed.

3. It would cost additional tax money to implement.

4. To fight the Right’s attempt to limit the number of Left leaning voters.

This is another hypocritical attempt, by a party that preaches limited government and cutting spending, to add another unneeded law and expense to the books.

Emery

More candid Republicans might admit that these laws are all just part of the turnout game that both sides play. They help Republicans, just as generous absentee- and early-voting laws help Democrats. But a qualitative difference exists between laws that encourage citizens to take part in choosing their rulers and laws that discourage them from doing so. I will be voting no.

JMM

NO, it’s just a 21st Century version of a poll tax, a solution in search of a problem, unless you want to keep “certain” people from voting.

Richard

No.

Of course, both parties play the turnout game. Democrats would prefer hordes of voters on college campuses and in inner cities; Republicans would prefer the opposite; both sides do what they can to get as many of “their” voters to the polls as possible. But when tactics turn from encouraging one’s own voters to vote and setting up legal barriers to prevent the other side from doing so, that is something much nastier—particularly when those most directly impacted by these legal barriers were similarly barred from voting by “legal” barriers for most of this country’s history. Eventually, and sooner rather than later, demography will make this sort of strategy unworkable for electoral reasons. Until then, we ought to recognize it for what it is: deliberate voter suppression, and a betrayal of democracy.

reggie

Bob and Rich in Duluth said it well. There’s no problem for this costly and problematic solution. The puzzling disconnect is that the right-leaning, small government folks seem to have no trouble ratcheting up government regulation where it limits others’ rights.

There’s no hope for America if we start to create constitutional amendments because people like Duane “feel” the system is broken, never mind the near-complete lack of evidence.

Linus

The actual amount of voter fraud is insignificant?

Take a look at the previous vote count for now Senator Al ( NBC Saturday night Live comic) Franken. He was way behind when polls closed, then they “found” boxes of votes in a trunk and 2 years later confirmed that they had more_ voters then there were residents in at least two districts in MN.

You can’t buy smokes or alcohol without an ID. You were NOT allowed to enter the DNC convention without a photo ID. Therefore, the Democratic Leadership DO support photo ID for everything except_ voting? Hypocrisy?? You decide.

Elaine

No.

Imagine it: “Democrats announce nation-wide plan to provide government-issued photo IDs to all.”

Republican response?

linda

I will vote “NO” on both amendments. Voter ID does not belong in the constitution. Why are we voting on an unfinished product? It has to go back to the legistlators AFTER it is passed? Why should I limit someone’s right to vote today so someone can limit my right to vote tomorrow? NO NO NO

Brian

I am voting yes twice. There is only one God. If we start to interput the Bible for other than what is then we are losing more than a right.

I don’t understand the harm in having identification to vote. We give more than that for most daily purchases. Better to know than not.

Bear

I am voting YES. In today’s world this is just plain common sense. The democrats obfuscate the issue with feckless arguments. The days of the poll monitors knowing everyone in the community are gone. You should welcome proving who your are and that you HAVE the right to vote. Voting fraud is real. The reason it is not caught and reported is because it is so easy to do and so very hard to catch. Acron anybody?

And “students” voting at their temporary residence is a farce. Vote where you live for the people who represent your interest and issues where you really live.

Mike

I’m voting No.

For me, the questions are: Which choice harms the fewest people? What events are the most/least likely?

The current system may not always prevent votes by people who should not be voting but it does a very good job of screening voters and provides a tested means of eventually identifying those who have falsely presented their eligibility; the legal punishments are substantial.

The incidence of such crimes is very small; still, the proponents of the photo ID referendum make a valid point that in a close election such illicit votes can make a significant difference.

The opponents of the photo ID referendum have presented anecdotal evidence of individuals who should be able to vote but whose life circumstances present hardships that are real obstacles: physical, financial and/or time-related.

Again, for me, it is a question of how many other-wise qualified voters would be prevented from exercising their constitution rights.

Because of historical changes, this is more of a problem for older citizens, since they are somewhat less likely to have birth certificates (some home-birthed children never had one submitted) or may have had such records destroyed by some disastrous event, either local or wide-spread. The older we get, the greater the statistical possibility of that happening gets.

Current and future generations may have a better opportunity (for good or ‘Big Brother’ ill) of having life-long, substantive identification. Even so, there’s the potential of computer malware wiping out any such databases.

Our founding fathers certainly did not foresee this particular current conundrum. They did give the individual states the right to determine how to establish voter eligibility.

All that being said, it seems to me that depriving otherwise legitimate voters from exercising their franchised constitutional right is a greater evil than those few votes cast, by design or ignorance, by illegitimate voters.

Steve the Cynic

No. The only kind of fraud voter-ID would deter is voter impersonation. It’s not happening, becasue the stakes are too high. The price for casting one false ballot is to commit an easily caught felony and be sent to prison. There are easier ways to steal elections than by a massive, easily detectable campaign of voter impersonation. Other types of election fraud are harder to catch, and voter-ID does nothing to prevent them. You don’t need an ID to stuff a ballot box, or “lose” one.

That, and I get nervous about government agents having more opportunities to say, “Show me your papers.”

kim

No. I’m with the “solution in search of a problem” crowd.

I’ve served as an election judge and my experience left me impressed with what a great, common sense system we have in place. I’m convinced that most voter “fraud” results from things like convicted felons voting undetected and they probably don’t even know themselves that they’ve lost the right to vote. I think we have WAY more trouble GETTING people to vote than we do KEEPING them from voting. Last, but not least, there have been times in my life when I moved often. (I can remember one stretch when I moved 19 times in 10 years.) There was no way I wanted to pay to update my DL, knowing full well I’d be doing it again in a few months. When I was in college, I lived where I lived, not in my home town. I just think this is a not very well thought out solution to a problem that’s not much of a problem.

And, to the people worried about this because of close elections and recounts…….well, I think we should have had President Gore, but that doesn’t change how I feel about this amendment one bit.

Matt

No. Minnesota has a best-in the nation election system. We would disenfranchise tens of thousands of people who have voted for years. And we would find disproportionately little fraud using ID. The very few cases of fraud in MN have involved felons who voted before their civil rights were restored. This amendment would not address that issue, as people with felony can possess an ID well before their civil rights are restored. It’s just not worth it.

Clark

Understand that Obama learned everything about politics in Chicago where the democrat’s policy was vote early, vote often and insure your dead grandparents also vote, which swept JFK to the presidency in 1960.

Given I believe most if not all democrats are habitual lying liars and will stop at nothing to “win” elections, any law that will limit their eventual goal of one party rule must be a good solution or they would not opppose voter ID.

Sandy Tracy

I am voting NO twice because the language of both of these amendments does not belong in our constitution.

SKC

Rich in Duluth has got it exactly right. Also agree with JMM that Voter ID a poll tax by another name. Those of you who believe voter ID is such a great solution to the “problem”, google Nathan Sproul. Yep, somebody out there is engaging in voter fraud but it’s not those derned illegal aliens (who we all know are secretly trying to vote in droves) and not even the evil Democrats. What? Nathn Sproul was working for the RNC? Really? OK, sure, they fired him — when he got caught. And by the way, voter ID would not have stopped Mr. Sproul’s bad behavior. My prediction is that Voter ID will pass in MN because unfortunately it is a simple concept that requires a conversation of more than one sentence to refute. When it passes the Republicans will then use this opportunity as a platform to further expand their attemtps to disenfranchise voter segments which tend to not skew in their favor. .Finally, putting in place impediments to the one precious right that differentiates us from tinpot dictatorships is a very serious matter. I take voting seriously.

Robb

The Voter ID amendment is a crass political move to change the outcomes of elections to favor the people who wrote this poorly and ill-defined amendment. It was introduced as a part of a national campaign to disenfranchise voters. Estimates show it will add $50 million in costs and do nothing to affect fraud. And what this amendment does is introduce pass state laws that give government huge powers to deny voters their basic rights to choose their elected officials. Because it is government over-reach and a power grab, I will definitely VOTE NO!

Ticket

No. The constitution was not written for the some, but for the all. Voting is a right, not a privilege, and it should not be denied to certain folks in order to propel a certain political party into office.

Vote no twice: for this and for the amendment that would limit the freedom to marry.

Melody

I’m voting No.

This seems like a common sense thing to want–if people want to vote badly enough, they should be able to at the very least produce some kind of voter ID, right?

Wrong. The right to vote is the right to have rights. It would only prevent voter impersonation, which is EXTREMELY rare and has NEVER affected the outcome of ANY US election. Only ten cases of voter impersonation have been recorded since 2000. The percentage of people caught vs the number of people disenfranchised by this system is hugely disproportionate, not to mention the amount of money spent trying to stop a crime that hardly ever occurs.

The kind of voter fraud we should spend our precious resources on is stopping voting machine fraud, especially in swing states, like Ohio, Florida, etc. This kind of voter fraud DOES have the ability to swing an election, especially in larger precincts.

Robert Moffitt

The “Yes” commenters are not doing much to further their cause by insulting people, failing to grasp the significance of this change or saying they don’t care when a another citizen is denied their right to vote.

Keith

I’m one of those apparently rare voters who traditionally votes Democrat but will vote yes on voter ID. Ever since I started voting (many, many years now), I’ve always been amazed that I can just walk up, sign my name, and vote without having to prove who I was. Had the election judges not known who I was, I could easily vote multiple times without a problem. While I do not think this is a chronic problem, I still think it’s a reasonable requirement to vote. The main issue is what will constitute a valid ID and what will be necessary to procure one of these IDs. But I think that if this thing passes and the details have been worked out, a reasonable period of time before it is enforced needs to occur – perhaps 2 years – which should give everyone the time to get their ID affairs in order. If they can’t get it done within that amount of time, then voting is obviously not very important to them.

Kevin Whelan

I am voting NO. The amendment is too costly and will hurt too many legitimate voters including the elderly and military service members.

I was there when the legislature was working on this and it’s no exaggeration to say they were making it up as they went along. That’s no way to write a constitution!

Susanna Patterson

Voting is a right, not a privilege.

In a democracy, we need to do more to encourage 100% voter participation — not to erect barriers to the electoral process.

Amendments that restrict our freedoms do not belong in our constitution.

Taxpayers’ money should be spent to solve existing, demonstrable problems and to provide for the public good — the proposed amendment does neither, and at great expense.

The proposed amendment also leaves too many unanswered questions: What happens to absentee balloting? How will we pay for all of this? How will provisional ballots be handled — how much time will voters be allowed in which to “redeem” them?

My grandmother was 35 years old before women were even allowed to vote; she never had a driver’s license and she had no birth certificate — but she voted in every election. Under the proposed system, she would find it difficult and costly — if not impossible — to acquire the necessary documentation to vote. She and my mother were dedicated League of Women Voters members, adamant about getting every eligible voter to the polls for every election. They would be shocked and horrified that our state — Minnesota, of all places — would be scheming to disenfranchise its own citizens on the basis of what has rightly been called a whisper campaign of lies, myths and distortions.

Barbara

NO and NO. These are not constitutional issues, whatever one’s position on them. This is a crass political ploy.

Correct name: Voter disenfranchisement amendment

Correct name: Marriage discrimination amendment

Jim G

I’ll be voting NO. First of all, voter impersonation just doesn’t happen here. There is not even one documented case of a voter impersonation in my living memory, and I’m old, NOT ONE. They’ve tried to find them, but there just isn’t this kind of voter fraud to be found in Minnesota. And yet, this is one of the Republicans’ primary reasons given for passing this so-called Voter I.D. amendment. Yes, felons have voted before their probation was terminated, but those felons (@ 38 statewide, if my memory serves me right) were found and prosecuted.

Secondly, it hits women harder than men. In our culture women can and do change their names when they marry. If you will, take my wife, please: (My apologies, Mr. Dangerfield)

Born in California, she needs her birth certificate from California.

Married to husband #1 in California, she now needs a wedding license too. It’s a different County.

Husband #1 dies. Now she needs his death certificate from Minnesota to prove she’s eligible to marry.

Husband #2 taken in wedded bliss, she’s now Mrs. G and she needs a marriage license from Hennepin County. Are you counting? That’s four documents she needs to come up with to register to vote.

She has had three last names in her lifetime, and she needs to document each change in status. So, although the government issued I.D. is supposed to be free, the underlining documents are not. This is expensive and not inconsequential for moderate income folks. Each of these documents costs money, time and effort to collect. So I’d be correct in interpreting this amendment as a POLL TAX on women. Now, women don’t just have fewer bathrooms in every location, they will have to pay more to just enter the voting booth.

Thirdly, this is blatant attempt to disenfranchise voters who historically vote primarily for the DFL. So, there is NO proven fraud, it’s a POLL TAX, and it’s kick them DFLers in their voters where it hurts hardball politics. Vote NO to Voter I.D. or as we liberals call it, Voter Restriction, and send the message to the Republican Leadership that we just don’t do things this way in Minnesota.

Jeb

I’m voting no. I want voter ID, but I want to know exact details on how it will work to make sure that whoever the prevailing party is in 2013 won’t intentionally disenfranchise voters. I also don’t want to find us seeing that we wrote the amendment in such a way that unduly disenfranchises voters or has massive unintended consequences, with us not able to change it easily.

Let’s go back to the drawing board, make a law requiring voter ID, and have the ability to change and modify it until we find the best balance of increased integrity in our elections and low disfranchisement.

Josh Ruhnke

I am voting no, because the constitution should secure rights for citizens, not take them away. Voter ID laws tend to disproportionately affect minority, elderly, low-income groups more than others. With minimal proof of voter fraud out there, this is a solution looking for a problem.

Jef

NO.

This is tantamount to a poll tax, and it’s an example of big government: unfunded regulations should be avoided, not enshrined in our constitution. A Driver’s license is a privilege. Having a say in our government is a right.

Ben

I’m voting no on Voter ID, because putting more hoops to jump through in order to vote will make it that much more unlikely that ALL our voices are heard. Plus, it would be costly to implement and operate, and I’d rather have my tax dollars go to making sure we have roads and schools and health care for the most vulnerable Minnesotans.

Lars

I’m voting NO. Most of the reasons have already been articulated very well by other comments. In addition:

Mississippi is the only other state with a constitutional amendment requiring photo ID for voting. That’s hardly the company we want to keep when it comes to voting rights.

David

I will be voting no and no. I am my own frigging identity, I have a voice and a vote and I may marry whomever by consensual choice.

Lance

YES, because of the following:

Minnesota’s election system, which combines Election Day registration with vouching, is among the least secure election systems in the country. We’re one of only two states that allow this, and one of only 6 who don’t employ provisional ballots.

Minnesota now leads the nation in convictions for voter fraud with 200 recent convictions of ineligible voters. Minnesota’s Statewide Voter Registration System contains thousands of challenged entries due to undeliverable official election mail called postal verification cards. Over 6,000 Election Day registrants provided names or addresses that could not be verified after their ballots were accepted and counted in the 2008 election.

This is not a poll tax. Every state that has a photo ID requirement to vote also makes suitable ID available to voters at no charge. Minnesota’s Voter ID proposal is no exception.

When the League of Women Voters, the NAACP and Common Cause sued the state of Georgia to stop a new Voter ID law based on claims of disenfranchisement, the judge upheld the law. In his ruling, he said that the League’s failure, despite their efforts, to uncover anyone “‘who can attest to the fact that he/she will be prevented from voting’ provides significant support for the conclusion that the Photo ID requirement does not unduly burden the right to vote.”

The Voter ID amendment provides a free ID to anyone who cannot afford one. Sometimes an individual may lack certain documentation such as a birth certificate or marriage license normally required to obtain a state-issued identification. In other cases, a person may have religious objections to being photographed for a state-issued identification. Minnesota already has a variance process for obtaining state-issued identification in situations such as the lack of documentation or religious objections. The fact is no one who needs an ID will be denied an opportunity to obtain one.

P. Nielsen

NO. This is an attempt by conservatives and others to limit certain groups from exercising their right to vote, most of whom are not supporters of their right-wing agenda, be that on social issues or on fiscal issues, and the role of government in general. This is a group which would like to return to the Gilded Age of the late 19th and early 20th centuries when the role of government was much less, there was no safety net, nor regulation of corporations. It was the age of the Robber Barons, and we certainly see much of that again don’t we. For the life of me, I can’t figure out how dumb many Americans are to fall for this line of thinking.

Lawrence in Mankato

Lance described the facts well for Minnesota. Please read his comment.

as for this interesting idea: “I will be voting no and no. I am my own frigging identity, I have a voice and a vote and I may marry whomever by consensual choice.” Posted by David | October 30, 2012 9:48 AM

Years back on the border, or just ask anyone who works for our CBP, illegals use that same refrain when caught_ I am my own f_ing identity.” Then we have those in California that advocate for MAMBLA weddings let alone abolishing sex crimes..but hey_ Marry whoever you want because there is no moral structure left under this administration anyway_ cover ups, executive priv to do more cover ups.

History moment: “As Rome burned to the ground, Caesar fiddled” ( Hmm_ Obama and his 104 rounds of golf in 38 months, sat behind his fund raiser excuse the day after Benghazi attack, lied about it some more, refused to send help to our SEALs and Ambassador_ cowardice of that proportion would have resulted in Impeachment proceedings if it had been Bush. True. and all you want to do is talk Voter ID? Seriously??? Really? come on_

Kurt Nelson

Absolutely voting no for this misguided, racially motivated solution looking for a problem.

I will vote no, but even if it passes, most likely it will be tied up in court for years (I can only hope), and will not have any real effect regardless of passage. To think that the legislature will design the rules around implementation is a joke, and to think that those supporters believe this will be a zero cost program is a bigger joke. but when the bill comes due, those supporters will be the loudest voices about the cost. if only we had known there was actually no fraud, and it costs how much every year to implement – I’m outraged

For those spouting the fear that fraud already happens, then prove it, right now with some actual facts. Not just I think it is happening or that Faux news tells me its happening, but actual hard facts, with names, and details – I’ll wait.

Can’t prove it, didn’t think so.

This is a poll tax, plain and simple, designed to ingrain fear into the small minded, and it seems to have worked.

Tami

No because I don’t believe in passing things like this via amendments. You should work within the structure of the govt, voting change into that govt via elected officials. I don’t want to live in a state like California where everything is flipping back and forth based on voter’s whims.

stephanie

No, this is an unfunded mandate.

If the Republicans do not want to raise taxes, then how does this expensive mandate get paid for when implemented?

By raising taxes on the top 2%?

GregX

Voting NO. The voter ID card is a small, small, small issue. The greater issue is the VAST UNSPECIFIED CHANGES to the election system that will be DECIDED BY LEGISLATURE LATER – if the amendment passes.

In letter format

Dear Legislature(or) … If you were too busy to finish the work on this law … it shouldn’t have been put on the ballot. Specify ALL of the details so voters can actuall determine what they are voting on.

RUBBISH !!

Bear

@ GregX … kind of like the healthcare reform when Nancy Pelosi said vote for and we will figure out what’s in it later … if she was doing her job she would know the provisions of the bill before voting for it.

GregX

bear-

“@ GregX … kind of like the healthcare reform when Nancy Pelosi said vote for and we will figure out what’s in it later ”

BINGO! on the nosey…. congress has deserved its label … guess the legislature is aiming lower.

Mary

I will be voting NO for this reason. My father fought in WWII defending our freedom and our rights. He is still alive and if he didn’t have Alzheimers he would loose his right to vote. His drivers license expired years ago and he doesn’t have a state ID or the ability to go get one. The thought of taking away his right to vote is so un-american and just plain wrong. There has been no evidence produced yet to show voter fraud is a problem.

kevins

NO and NO, no lie Clark.

Britta

No, absolutely NO. This is nothing more than a modern day Jim Crow law that will disenfranchise the elderly, young, poor and minority voters.

You will once again have to pay to vote– how is that even remotely Constitutional?

Paul

No. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

Peggy L

I’m voting NO. I am voting no for many reasons, many already mentioned. One main reason I’m voting NO is becase The Constitution should protect the rights of the people and should not be used to limit rights.

Mary

NO! I agree with the Bi-partisan analysis–There is no problem with voting as it is now, the implementation will be very expensive and it could disenfranchise too many elderly and disabled voters. Any necessary changes should be made by the legislature so that we remain flexible to consider improvements in the voting system. The amendment is an outdated solution is search of a problem.

Kevin

I will be voting no. This amendment is nothing more then an attempt to keep some of the largest groups of democrats from voting. If we support this amendment, we are restricting many poor of the young, and the elderly from voting. This is nothing but a Teanderthal attempt at trying to give the Tea party an edge.

Cathy

I am voting NO. I oppose making it difficult for anyone to vote. This amendment has unintended consequences – GregX said it best “The greater issue is the VAST UNSPECIFIED CHANGES to the election system that will be DECIDED BY LEGISLATURE LATER – if the amendment passes.”

Jennifer

I’m voting NO for two reasons.

1. I don’t believe in providing a yet to be determined legislature a blank check to write new guidelines for the most essential process of our democracy when we don’t know any of the details of how exactly they plan to do so.

2. I can’t support spending tens of millions of dollars on an unproven problem (ID doesn’t address felons voting, virtually all of our current fraud cases) when our state owes more than $2 Billion to our K-12 schools.

Lynn

I will vote “no” as the amendment is not needed, is costly and will deny the RIGHT, to vote to some people. It is a complicated system that does not accomplish it’s purported purpose–to prevent ineligible individuals from voting.

Cheryl Kranz

I will vote no. Asie from the fact I do not think we have an issue, and know that it is a national push by Republicans to get their supporters out to vote, I believe we should first REVIEW the problem collaboratively among all sstakeholders , establish guidelines that do not disenfranchise existing voters, consider alternatives other than PHOTO id – a 19th century invention that is already not being used in late 20th/early 21st century because it is not reliable or fraud proof…then submit resulting [proposal as a law – not as a Constitutional Amendment.

Lawrence in Mankato

Voting NO means you probably are racist because you think blacks aren’t savy enough to take a few minutes to get free photo ID? Ignoring factual stories of cover-ups and incompetence such as the Benghazi attack, at the hands of our Obama is also racist; i.e. the news media thinks a bi racial president isn’t smart enough to be held responsible. So the media covers for him instead…ssshhhhhh, lets ignore the story and hope it goes away. Ever notice that NPR has had under 4 minutes of the Benghazi coverage since 9/11/2012? But they spend hours on trivial things like “save Big Bird”and other trite stupid irrelevant stories. If you really want to talk about the merits of photo ID for voting, why not ask this, ” How did Obama get a social security number from a state( CT) he never lived in and in January, 2009 why did he seal all his passport records for himself and his mother? Why? Why isn’t anyone asking that. No other president ever did that..so why?? What would those passport records show? Figure it out because the media is till playing mommy coverage for him and won’t investigate.

Craig

I am voting No. Having been an election judge for over a decade now, I see no need for a constitutional amendment on this issue.

This is massive overkill on a “problem” that will 1) not address many forms of the issue (felons voting is not solved by having everyone shove a driver’s license in someone’s face), 2) has a limited impact on any substantial voter fraud effort (a real campaign to commit fraud couldn’t afford to create fake IDs?), and 3) is the wrong way to accomplish such a thing in the first place… the photo should be in the roster book, not in the potential fraudster’s hands.

An incomplete, poorly defined solution implemented in an overkill manner for what is by all indications a minor problem. In my opinion, this deserves a No vote.

SKC

First, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the vouching system as it is executed in Minnesota. For those who are interested in facts, not fiction or hyperbole, here is an interesting read: http://mnbenchbar.com/2012/08/debating-voter-id-voter-fraud-the-impact-of-voter-id/

Bench and Bar is the official publication of the MN State Bar Association.

Second, voter fraud in MN is practically nil. Contact the Secretary of State’s office for FACTUAL information on this topic. And here is another link for thoughtful voters: http://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2012/09/how-%E2%80%94-and-why-%E2%80%94-i-made-my-decision-voting-amendment

Voter fraud! is a talking point of the “Protect” my vote people (also MN Majority) an organization whose real goal is to eliminate same-day registration and force those who are not registered to vote on election day to use provisional ballots, 30% of which are typically not counted, among the other problems with provisional voting. http://www.startribune.com/blogs/166567416.html.

And finally, requiring a voter ID is in effect the same thing as a poll tax. It’s not about money changing hands; it’s about people create an artificial impediment to voting in hope that their target voter segment will either be disenfranchised behind the scenes (as in providional balloting) or will get discouraged and not vote in the first place. Voter ID is the intellecutal and functional equivalent of a poll tax.
Robert

Republicans George W. Bush, Norm Coleman and Tom Emmer each lost the popular vote by a squeaker.

The Republican organization American Legislative Exchange Council then came up with a plan to convince people that voter fraud exists. Facts are available proving it does not, and that voter ID will suppress the Democratic vote.

The Republican plan is to stop losing elections by a squeaker.

The real fraud here is the Republican proposal for Voter ID.
jockamo

You leftists brought this on yourselves……..

…….when you decided to use the machinery of Government to manipulate the election system to elect more Democrats to public office.

When you decided to force people to register to vote in order to get Welfare from the government.

When you ripped off the middle class taxpayer by taking his money and giving it to ACORN and other leftist organizations, who then hired Barack Obama and others of his ilk to “organize the community” by registering people to vote in the hood (ONLY in the hood) where those registered would vote 98% Democrat, yes, stole the taxpayers money to do Democratic Party business, buying votes with the unwilling taxpayers dime.

When you turned a blind eye to the guys, employees of the government, who helped mentally ill people get absentee ballots and then they filled them out themselves, as the mentally ill could not be trusted to follow instructions and vote straight Party ticket.

When you excused the old hippie in Minneapolis from his crimes when he revved up the ol’ hippie bus every 4 years, went down to the local 3.2 joint and filled the bus with guys who would, for a pack of Camels and a half-pint of Old Tennis Shoes, vote for every Democrat in sight and wouldn’t mind being bussed around to voting places all day long…..or as long as the smokes and bad whiskey lasted.

Yes, you brought it on……and now you reap the rewards of your illegal manipulation of the system.

And you squeal like little girls………

…….HarHarHar
linda olson

I will be voting NO on both constitutional amendments for the Minnesota ballot next week because they are bad bills that are very wrong-headed. These bill sprimarily distract us from remembering just how lousy and ineffective our elected officials were last session, and emotionally manipulate voters with stupid legislation which could not get through both the House and Senate on their own merit.

Voting is a constiutional right. Are Photo ID’s ?

Barriers which prevent anyone from voting, especially considering how long it can take this state to deliver a photo ID, are wrong. Will our DMV pictures be printed in the fat books on the election judges tables? Who pays? Will municipalities have to buy or lease tablets or laptops and tap into a State Photo ID database for every election? Who pays? Where is my data privacy protection? Who pays? Well duh – local property taxes of course!

Seniors in nursing homes with no birth certificate or drivers license should still be able to vote, or are we writing off Great-Grandma? College students (consider school starts in September) and those who have moved recently should not have to go through extra grief at the ballot box. What if the addresses don’t match? Back to utilitiy bills? Will overseas and Soldiers mail-in ballots be considered Provisional? I have no problem with better voter verifcation and security at the polls, but tacking this half-baked legislation on the Consitution is just wrong.

I strongly resent the politicians who ‘balanced’ our state budget on the backs of cities and municipalites through claw-backs, shut down the state goverment and told state employees to file for unemployment WHILE THEY PAID THEMSELVES, and stole cash from the public schools through defferred payments into trying to make us think they are acting in our best interests.

I don’t trust tweaky legislation through the Constitution.
tracy

Voting NO. Its the Republicans revenge for the election of Obama in 2008.
Catherine D.

My vote is NO !!! for 3 reasons:

1) I am an Election Judge. It will create more work & headache for us & the elections staff that work all year long to put on our elections. The Provisional Ballots really concern me – how much cost? how much voter confusion? how many currently eligible voters won’t be able to or can’t vote? and HOW MANY WON’T BE COUNTED?

2) it sets up a dual, unfair system for college students. U of M, MnSCU & Community college students go to government supported schools. Their college ID’s are ‘government issued’ according to the provisions of the Amendment. BUT, students at private colleges (Macalester, St. John’s, etc) have private issued ID’s. Those won’t be recognized as a valid ID according to the Amendment.

3) Cost. This is a blank check. We the taxpayers, particularly homeowners will have to pay. My propety taxes are already unaffordable. The unknown cost of this, in every year we do elections, is adding insult to injury.

This Amendment is SO ‘unMinnesotan’ !
Sue de Nim

Have you ever gone to your polling place, only to find out that someone else has already voted under your name? Has it ever happened to any of your friends or acquaintances? Have you ever heard of it happening to anyone, ever? No, because it’s not happening. And that’s the only kind of fraud that would be prevented by a voter ID requirement. I’m voting no.
Jan Gerken

Definitely voting NO! If it’s not broke – why fix it? There is literally no voter fraud in MN. It’s a lie brought on by the Republicans to get more votes – and spend our tax dollars.
Josh D.

I’ll vote no.

1. There is little to no voter fraud. Voter ID a medicine without a sickness.

2. It will cost a ton of money to cure nothing, creating government waste…something the Republican party claims to be against.

3. I honestly believe that the Republican party, on some level, is using it primarily as a tool to suppress the vote of specific groups of people that tend to vote Democratic, under the guise of stopping voter fraud.
Mary Lou

No !!! It’s not needed, it’s too expensive and it will disenfranchise too many people.
Duane

Most of the opposition to this amendment want to ask the question, “How do we know there is voter fraud?” I would like to turn the question around and ask, “How do you know there is no voter fraud?” Prudent legislation would be enact laws to prevent possible fraud; and since the Governor would veto any law passed to accomplish that objective, we needed to use the amendment process to see if the majority of Minnesotans want to our vote to meets the will of the people.
Linus

I just did an independent private survey of 298 teachers within 7 suburban school districts in MN.

Results: 87 % say they have changed their view on presidential choice and have switched to now being against their own union endorsements on all issues. Two reasons were prominent: 1. The Benghazi scandal where the facts show help was requested but the President looked the other way for his agenda and refused and then 4 Americans died. More recent facts about the President’s refusal to release requested tapes and testimony added more fuel to the growing anti-Obama trend in MN.

2. The stifled economy where more women are jobless, more on food stamps, higher food prices, doubled cost for fuel for cars and home utilities have escalated beyond typical inflation, affecting mothers with children. Voter ID will pass and Obama will not be re-elected in MN if the survey results carry over to the rest of the state.
Steve the Cynic

Where is that survey published, Linus?
Joey

It’s not clear to me that voter fraud poses a significant problem. It is clear to me that voter id will prevent some people from voting. So I will vote no on an amendment that as far as anybody knows for sure only causes a problem.

Somebody asked why the flip side isn’t compelling: How do we know there is *not* voter fraud? We don’t, but if we follow that line of thinking we could disenfranchise voters for any reason we like and then demand somebody to disprove it. As a silly example you might ask, “How do you know aliens from another planet aren’t masquerading as lawful US citizens and hijacking the election?” and then try to pass an amendment that requires all voters to prove they are really human beings. Or perhaps more believably, that they haven’t been convicted of a felony. Or that they haven’t already voted in another state.

In general, if we are going to do something that prevents lawful voters from voting, then I think we should at least be sure we are doing it for a good reason.
Rich

Listening to the Voter ID debate tonight on MPR was like listening to a virtual game of whack-a-mole. Mary Kiffmeyer would make one conflicting statement after another and react with indignation when her claims were met with challenges.

The whole case for the Voter ID amendment is built around the idea that felons are fraudulently voting in Minnesota. But the amendment does nothing to stop this alleged fraud. Kiffmeyer says each precinct will have lists containing names of ineligible voters that will be cross checked against voter IDs. She also claims the cost of implementing this amendment will be about $1.5M. So first off, who is producing and distributing these lists of ineligible voters to the thousands of precincts for free? Because you know the $1.5M isn’t going to come close to covering the cost of this one facet of implementation.

Now assuming the lists get published and distributed, how are election judges going to tell the difference between John Larson, felon and John Larson, upstanding citizen? How many valid voters are going to be challenged on Election Day as a result of these lists? And what about felons who have moved? They won’t be on the list at the local precinct. Will we let them vote in their new district?

This amendment is half-baked. At best it needs to go back to the legislature for rework. Vote no on November 6th.
Cindy

Absent from the photo ID debate are important technical details. It’s clear most Minnesotans have limited understanding of the checks and balances outlined in current state law. The loudly voiced belief that our registration system allows any person to vote in any precinct without restrictions is misguided. Laws are already in place to protect your vote.

Each registered voter has only one record in our statewide system. Each voter record is regularly subjected to electronic verifications against databases maintained by the MN Dept of Public Safety, the MN Dept of Health, the Social Security Administration, MN Courts, MN Corrections, and the United States Postal Service. These databases cross-check for death, citizenship and felony status, age, and residence.

New voters and voters who have changed their name or address must update their record by re-registering. In a large election year as many as 500,000 Minnesotans use the Election Day Registration process. These persons are known as “new-registrants” even though a majority are simply updating current voter records. Under our current law, every new registrant must already present photo ID and proof of residence, and attest to eligibility by signing the Voter Registration Application. Providing false testimony carries a sentence of five years in prison, or a fine up to $10,000.

Persons who have already voted in a specific precinct do not show a photo ID. These “pre-registered” voters attest to their eligibility by signing their name. Advocates of photo ID believe that voter impersonation is an undetected problem and that we have “no way of knowing” if this ever occurred. The evidence is quite to the contrary. Not only is voter impersonation not detec ted – it is not alleged. Voter impersonation is a felony. What incentive is there to risk a felony conviction for attempting to cast a single vote in a room where everyone present is a neighbor of the person you are impersonating?

After every election all voter records are updated with history, and the statewide system is checked for persons voting in more than one precinct. All voter records, including Election Day Registrants, are again matched against the aforementioned government databases. If irregularities are detected, election officials must investigate and refer potential violations to the County Attorney who is required by law to investigate. The fact that convictions rarely occur is not because election officials are not looking for wrong-doers. Convictions are rare because Minnesota’s current laws work to prevent fraud.

This amendment adds nothing to the system that doesn’t already exist. It burdens our state both socially and financially. I challenge the electorate to set fear aside and consider the delicate balance between access to the ballot box and integrity of our elections from a more educated perspective and then vote NO on this divisive, expensive and wholly unnecessary amendment.
Bill

If you believe in fairness and respect democracy, you have to vote no for this cynical, poorly conceived, politically-motivated amendment. If you want to waste money and prevent more legitimate voters than fraudulent voters from voting, vote yes.
Shawn Tweten

Has anyone considered what would happen to voters who had their voter ID stolen (as in the case of stolen wallets) or misplaced? My wife had her wallet stolen the day before the 2010 election and if the id law would have been in pace she would have been prevented from voting.
Connie

Another Yes vote here. When we have to have an ID to buy liquor, cash a check, make a simple purchase a valid ID is the least we can do to assure that every legitimate vote is counted. BTW even the liberal press says there were convicted felons who voted in the elections. It’s not the GOP that has an agenda, it’s the liberal DFL who are worried their supporters will not bother to get an ID.
vicki

NO, it’s much too cost prohibitive and, the number of fraudulent votes are so few they don’t affect the election.
Leanne

After reading the actual language that would be in our Constitution, I’m voting no.

If passed, the enacting legislation would have to comply with the Constitutional language. That language requires “all voters” to undergo same process, which allows no exception to our military serving over seas, no exemption for seniors who may not have govt proof of birth, and college students who have their permanent address on their DL but still eligible to register & vote where they reside while attending school.

The lack of such exemptions are one of the main reasons Governor Dayton vetoed this language when introduced as a law. Rather than tweeking the language, they have put over-simplified language on the ballot.

The “free ID” included in the language does not address the means to obtain such ID, no guarantee all citizens will get ID for free if they do not have access to certified docs

to prove their DOB, etc.

It totally changes our absentee voting system since a pho govt issued ID will still be required to be verified before

ballot may be counted.

It also changes same day registration. I am an election judge, and we have a great system in MN. Improved procedures have already been put in place for challenging felons who may think they can vote while on parole. This proposed amendment will not address the type of fraud that may exist.

Lastly, the constitutional language includes an implementation date of July 1, 2013. That means the legislation would need to be written, passed and all costs covered in CURRENT budgets of local government prior to July 1, 2013. What happens if legislation doesn’t get written/passed by then? What happens if citizens file with courts over possible violations of Federal voter protection laws?

It’s just too messed up and was done in haste. It should be legislated, so I hope it failed and gets sent back to be fixed. The proposed language would be the most restrictive in the country. Other states have appropriate exemptions, this language prohibits such exemptions.

Vote no & send it back to the legislature!

Oh, and I was disgusted to learn that approx 90% of the $$ (pushing for this to pass) comes from 1 person! That is not one person = one vote.

Vote no!
Jefferson

Shawn Tweten – [Has anyone considered what would happen to voters who had their voter ID stolen (as in the case of stolen wallets) or misplaced? My wife had her wallet stolen the day before the 2010 election and if the id law would have been in pace she would have been prevented from voting.] *** So much misinformation…you can still vote, you just vote using a provisional ballot which becomes a normal ballot once you prove who you are (such as getting a new ID or showing up with a birth certificate/SS card). As far as the idea that voting is a right, that’s fine but so is hunting (for food for my family), getting married and purchasing a gun (to protect my family)…all of these “rights” require that I show a valid government issued ID. I will be voting YES! BTW, I will also be voting NO on the marriage amendment.
Jen B.

I will definitely vote no on the voter suppression amendment question. There is no voter fraud in Minnesota; this is just a desperate partisan attempt to suppress the vote because they’ve run out of actual ideas.
Earl

Republicans pushing this bill are under the delusion that it is impossible that more people would vote democrat than the increasingly racist, sexist, and apocalyptic republican party.

It’s just another level of their delusions.
Erin

I will be voting NO . The voter ID is an unnecessary, poorly-written piece of legislation that will have far-reaching effects. It will make it difficult for our most vulnerable citizens to vote, it will be extremely expensive, and it will create mass confusion about the voting process.
CB

I’m voting NO to both. The Constitution was written to protect our freedoms, not restrict them to if’s and’s or but’s.
Kimberly

I’m voting NO on voter ID, for 2 reasons:

1) The language of the amendment as written is full of unanswered questions that will require a future legislature to address. In essence, we are voting on something before we are exactly sure what it means. That makes no sense to me.

2) Voter ID in and of itself might not be a bad thing, in my view. But unless the new law is phased in with teams of people working around the state to find people and help them get IDs – a state system truly invested in finding every voter to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to vote, and ensuring that we have in place exactly what is needed to cover other circumstances in a fair way (such as those who need to vote absentee) – then this is actually a way to disenfranchise some people while privileging others.
Stephanie Hayes

I am voting no. Voter i.d. in itself is not such a horrible idea, but this law is convoluted and very expensive. It doesn’t do nearly enough to prevent the fraud so many pretend to worry about, but it makes it a lot more complicated for people to vote. And no, not just “lazy liberals,” but also senior citizens and active military. They need to send this back and redo it in a way that is workable and cost effective. As it is now, it’s ridiculous and I’m not sure how anyone reading it would give it a yes.
Joshua

I am definitely voting no for a variety of reasons, but mainly because of the cost benefit analysis: it costs a lot and gets few if any benefits to the state.

Our state has an extremely good track record of fair, honest elections. The implication in the law is that we don’t or that we can’t trust our system.

The other fact that people who are in favor of the law tend to ignore is the effects that the law will have on people who have migrated from other areas of the country. While most have IDs, small groups do not have picture ID and getting birth certificates etc from other states is not the easiest thing do to.
kali

I will be voting NO, with an exclamation point. Requiring a gov’t issued ID at the polls prevents certain citizens from voting and, therefore, is discriminatory. If you don’t believe me, volunteer sometime at the Project Homeless Connect and take a look at the line for obtaining state IDs. It is always the longest line. Some people JUST DONT HAVE IDs.

As for the argument that you need an id to cash a check, or buy beer, or any number of other things… it does not hold up. Not everyone has a bank account. Not everyone makes purchases that are restricted to non-minors.
Tina Murphy

Voting NO to the Voter ID law. It is too prohibitive to elderly, minorities, military and expats overseas and collage students.
CyndiB

I have already voted NO. I have been a Lead Election Judge for several years in a Mpls suburb so I actually know the process. We don’t have a problem with voter fraud or the voting process in Minnesota. If this passes it would be a problem for the elderly, minorities, the poor and college students. There is NO PROBLEM so LEAVE IT ALONE! This is a non-issue created by the Republicans to suppress voting.
Kevin Johnson

I’m voting “NO” because it’s my opinion that if we allows this to proceed, we are showing how little we care about anyone else’s voice but our own. We would be telling people that they matter less.
Dave

Yes – to voter ID – not sure on the 2nd one. It is a Voter ID amendment people – not a “voter restriction” as Mark Richie tried and failed to rename it. I have seen cases where for whatever reason – accident or on purpose – someone in my polling place voted for someone else. Last election – the person in front of me was denied the right to vote – because when he gave his name and address – the election judge said “You already voted” – Needless to say there was heck to pay. The judge called over another judge to consult – they both looked at the man’s id, name, address, etc and determined that he was who he said he was – they showed him the log and sure enough there was an unreadable signature by his name. They could not / would not let him cast a ballot – because as the judge said – we have no way of knowing which ballot to pull out of the box – that was cast improperly. Their only option for him was to call the attorney general and county attorney and report it – he said what good will it do? they can’t prove who did it or if they intended to do it or if it was an accident.
Joshua

No way would I vote Yes to this. I AM a college student, and so are all of my friends. Granted I live in my jurisdiction as my permanent address, and so many of my friends live on campus but their permanent address is Way on the other side of the state, and there is no way they can go home on a Tuesday just to vote. And my grandparents, neither of them can drive, so they have let their licenses expire. Where would that leave them. I am positive that the only reason they put this on the ballot is to weed out the competition of voters.
John Snell

What happened to smaller Government and less spending.This is a bridge to nowhere!!!
Trenne

I will vote no.

Voting is a constitutional right guaranteed to all of us; I don’t believe we should be legislating barriers to that right.

Voter fraud cases as a percentage of all voters is a microscopically small number. Enacting a voter ID requirement to “fix” this problem would correspond to something like using a nuclear bomb to remove a tree stump from your yard.

For a party that supposedly detests big government, the GOP is pushing this amendment like the world will end if it doesn’t pass. Details of how the law would be enacted and enforced, including how to deal with provisional votes, absentee ballots, same-day registrations, or provenance and funding for free IDs for all are NOT included in the current amendment. Who would need to fill in all those blanks? The government. Who would pay for that? The taxpayers. Who would provide those free IDs? The government! The we-need-less-government-regulation-and-lower-taxes-and-smaller-government GOP are being very hypocritical.

Passing this amendment is counterintuitive, illogical, hurtful, and would cost much more than the problem it would supposedly fix.
georges

I spent the afternoon at my auto mechanic’s shop……

I had him remove the windshield wipers, the headlights, the backup camera, all the mirrors, and, of course, the brakes.

This car has never been in an accident, so all that mechanical crap is just a solution looking for a problem that doesn’t exist.

And, being a good Democrat, I am not going to haul around all that heavy, gas-wasting, climate changing junk just because I might need it someday.

Ahhhhhh….that’s better……..I feel so much lighter, now.
Bob Scruggs

I have talked with GOP people who told me, “We don’t want the people this excludes to vote because we don’t want tax dollars spent on the things they want them spent on. Yes, we know it is not right. We just think we can get away with it.” There is it. They know that the people they are trying to exclude would vote against them. That flies in the face of everything the founders of our country set out to do with the Constitution. I think it is disgusting, thus I will be voting NO to this amendment.
Jennifer Olson

I will be voting NO on both of the hateful amendment proposals!

Regarding voter ID, voting is the right of all citizens and the claim that voter fraud is rampant in MN is just plain false! Voter fraud is just a made up argument that the GOP is pushing to limit the voting rights of lower class citizens, minorities and senior citizens.
Nathan Lind

I will vote no on this discriminatory amendment. We have a respectable election system in Minnesota – one that we should be proud of, and protect, not dismantle.
Hitler

Those people (students, the elderly, and minorities) are lucky we give them the right to vote at all.

Demanding a government issued photo-identification in exchange for that ist not a big deal. It’s not like voting a right or anything.
Chad

Minnesota has a great election system that is accurate, accountable, and that encourages citizens to participate our democracy. There is no reason to change a system that isn’t broken.
yikes

I don’t think they should ask for ID to buy liquor either. They should just trust people when they say they are old enough. Police should not ask for ID and proof of insurance either. I mean why would people drive if they were not supposed to be.
Paul McCluskey

I will vote NO. Voting is not a commercial transaction, as are all the examples that the amendment supporters list. No money or property changes hands, no one might drive drunk because they went out voting. The only thing that an ID might prevent is impersonation of a registered voter, and that never happens because there would be no point. If you are worried that someone will read your name and address upside down from the book that the election judges have and take your spot (instead of simply registering themselves) all you have to do is vote first thing in the morning, sign your name on your line, and you’re covered. The only “proof” that should be required is to establish that you are a resident of the particular precinct, and that is only because all elections are locally based.
Peter

Voting YES! All arguments that I have seen against this have been easily proven false. Why would someone object to verifying their identity unless they are not who they claim to be? Under current practice voter fraud is too simple to get away with. Just look at the number of election day registrations that have been unable to be verified.
Gene Christensen

NO, it’s discrimination pure and simple. Churches have the right to discriminate any way they choose, but they do not have the right to bring that discrimination into the public forum. All people are deserving of equal rights. To deny people the various rights we give to married people – inheritance, etc. – because of their choice of partner is no different from from the Jim Crow laws.
Gene Christensen

NO, this is more discrimination. Voter ID will not prevent felons from voting, they have ID’s. It will not prevent illegals from voting, they have ID’s. Gee, 16 year olds have their fake ID’s to buy booze. I don’t use a photo at the ATM, nor when I do business on the internet or the phone, but I do have security. So does the current MN election system – just one part of which is that postcard you receive in the mail. Perhaps someday in the very near future we’ll be able to cheaply put our fingerprint on a pad and it will recognize us, but not in MN if this passes, because our state constitution will be locked in to outdated technology. We hire people to do jobs in the state legislature. This is their domain, that’s why we pay them. It’s not something to permanently lock in place in our constitution. The people behind this amendment do not care about voter integrity, they don’t even care about our budget problems given the implementation, ongoing (provisional ballots) and court costs that will be involved in this. This is more discrimination. Think about it, who doesn’t have a MN DL? People too poor to own a car. People like my 92 year old father with Parkinson’s Disease, and students who may be attending our colleges and universities who came from outside this state. What do all these groups of people have in common? The answer is they tend not to vote the way one political party in this state wants them to. This is NOT about voter integrity. The ONLY thing it will prevent is somebody pretending to be you and trust me, nobody wants to do that. The only people who are registered to vote in MN are the people who vote regularly. If you miss two Presidential elections in a row, you’re off the roster. How do you think we manage to have the highest voter turnout in the nation. We’re constantly cleaning up the rolls. Once you’re off and have to get back on again, you’re already required to show ID. You want to talk about vouching, that’s for residency status, not ID – look it up, it’s in the statutes (211). This is just another attempt to try to incorporate discrimination into the MN Constitution. NO, it ain’t happening.
Doug

I am voting no

Why because for starter there was not enough fraud to justify this. And the one who did illegally voted were felons and since most felons have IDs this will not help that.

I think IDs will open the door for more problems like people making fake IDs

And there is a better way of doing this. I am leaning towards thumb prints. Almost every one has a thumb and it can’t be faked. so if we have to have something lets vote no and discuss our options before we rush into something we will regret down the road
Chris

Voter fraud, meaning someone who is ineligible to cast a vote does so, does occur in Minnesota. In Hennepin County alone, more than 38 cases were brought against felons whose civil rights had not been restored who nonetheless voted in the 2008 general election. However, the amendment before the voters on this November’s ballot is not a good solution—not only will it not catch most cases of voter fraud, but the costs associated with its implementation are extremely severe and the benefits do not, by any measure, outweigh the costs.

First, what types of voter fraud are there? Well, there is the issue I mentioned above about convicted felons whose civil rights have not been restored casting votes. Requiring a government-issued photo ID will not stop this type of fraud—many felons still have drivers’ licenses or state ID cards! Then there is the issue where someone with a fake ID votes. Requiring a government-issued photo ID will not stop this type of fraud—these people, by definition, have IDs, so unless the friendly retirees at the polling places are experts in spotting fake IDs, no one would be the wiser. Finally, there is the situation where one voter impersonates another at the polls. This case is the ONLY one which the Voter ID amendment can prevent.

How rare is voter impersonation? It’s difficult to say, and to my knowledge only one case of it has been found in a recent Minnesota election, wherein a woman from Andover sent in an absentee ballot on behalf of her daughter who was off at college, and the daughter also voted at her college polling place in Mankato. In this case, the problem was detected, and the mother was prosecuted. But it’s also unclear whether requiring a photo ID would have stopped this—absentee ballots already require a notary to verify the identity of the voter, so the notary in this case did not do a very good job of that verification!

So, the amendment will stop a very small number of improper votes from being cast. The benefits of the amendment are very small. The costs, however, are substantial.

The financial costs to state and especially local governments are extreme. The state must provide a free ID to any citizen who needs one. Not only does the ID itself cost the state, but the state or local government must also pay the salaries of the DMV workers who will have more customers. They would need to pay for a process to determine whether the citizen has need of the free ID (and the salaries of the people developing and maintaining the process). They would need to pay for the software and procedures to verify IDs and to develop a provisional balloting system so that someone who believes they are eligible to vote can still cast a ballot and then come back to prove their eligibility, locate that provisional ballot, and add it in to the totals. Estimates of the cost of all this exceed $10 million in the first year alone, mostly borne by the local governments, with smaller maintenance costs every year thereafter.

The financial cost to the voters is also not negligible. Sure, voters can request a free ID, but there’s the other costs of transportation to the DMV or county office, the time off of work, and the difficulty of getting certain types of people (elderly, deployed military, the poor) to the location where they can get their ID. Would you want to stop your great aunt Mildred, who lives in a nursing home and hasn’t had a driver’s license since 1990 but still wants to do her civic duty, from voting? Would you want to prevent a Minnesota soldier in Afghanistan from casting an absentee ballot because the notary at their base can’t verify the address on the photo ID, since military IDs don’t include a home address?

There are also many potential legal hurdles to the amendment being implemented. It may violate the single-subject rule already in the Minnesota Constitution, and determining whether this is true will lead to months of litigation. There is the concern raised by Secretary of State Mark Ritchie that it will end same-day registration, and whether that turns out to be the case or not, since he will in all likelihood still be our Secretary of State after the amendment is implemented, you can bet he will attempt to get that issue litigated as well. Using the court system like this costs the state and thus the taxpayers a significant amount of money.

This amendment, if implemented, will cause thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of otherwise eligible voters to be unable to vote on election day. It would ruin Minnesota’s standing as the state with the highest voter participation rate. Our voting system is the envy of the country. Why would we want to ruin that?

In conclusion: I consider myself to be a conservative by temperament—meaning, I believe one should hold high regard for current institutions and policies, and carefully consider where they may need improvements, rather than make drastic changes with potentially unforeseen consequences. (Obviously, this definition does not very much agree with the platform of the political party in the United States which calls itself “conservative!”) For that reason, I will be voting NO on the amendment requiring a voter ID for Minnesota, and I urge you to join with me and the thousands of other Minnesotans such as former Republican governor Arne Carlson, former Secretary of State Joan Growe, the AARP, and the League of Women Voters, in doing the same—and in advocating to your friends, family, and neighbors to do the same. Please do what you can to put a stop to this deeply unconservative amendment, whose foreseeable costs clearly outweigh their minimal benefits.
wendy thoren

I most definitely am voting NO. It is a ruse! A crafty wily subterfuge to deny a very basic right to targeted members of a free society. Pretty ironic that the same folks that justified bombing the people of Iraq to push a democratic government on them … to now try to restrict the right to vote on its own citizens. VOTE NO.
Bill

I will vote no.

I do not believe the number of cases of voter fraud (IF ANY) are worth taking such drastic measures.

For those of you who say “even one is one too many”, I wholeheartedly agree. Let’s work together to prevent “even one” invalid vote being cast, while simultaneously assuring that 100% of all eligible voters are offered unfettered access to the polls in order to exercise their right to vote.

Furthermore, let’s work together to ensure that every legal vote is accurately counted and reported.

This amendment does not do that.
Jason

I’m voting NO because we should be making it easier to vote, not harder.

If legislators are serious about stopping intentional voter fraud (despite mountains of evidence it doesn’t exist), put more teeth behind the law and better equip the Sec. of State to find it. Don’t punish hundreds of thousands of Minnesotans by making it harder to vote and raising their taxes to pay for it.

Vote NO.
Danielle

I am voting no.

Amending the constitution is not the way to implement stricter voter ID laws in the state of Minnesota. There needs to be legislation, so our state can figure out all the problems and how to fix them in this new voter ID protection law. It is also going to cost a lot of money because there is no such thing as a “free” ID.

Another issue is voting students like me. We should not have to purchase a new ID when we move to a new address every year and sometimes twice in one year. A lot of students are struggling to pay their bills and eat because of the increasing costs of higher education. I certainly don’t have extra funds to buy an ID every year.

Either way, the wording of the amendment leaves so many questions. It’s just not productive. Let’s send it to the legislature and make our state government do its job.
Amanda

I will be voting no. It’s wrong to put up barriers to excercising a citizen’s right to vote.
Jean whitson

When you write a

$50 check at Walmart you have to show your ID

.why should’ntyou have to show your ID for something as important as voting for the president of the USA.
John Robinson

I am voting no on voter suppression. Cashing a check at Walmart is a privilege, not a Constitutional right. Asking to buy a drink is a privilege, not a Constitutional right. Driving a car is a privilege, not a Constitutional right. To compare them is a false equivalency.

The arguments regarding voter suppression (Voter ID) have been made ad nauseum. I have one simple observation and question:

Voting is a Constitutional right for any eligible citizen. The right to vote cannot be restricted or denied without due process. So my question for anyone in favor of the Voter ID Amendment is:

If I steal your wallet the night before the next election, are you automatically no longer an enfranchised citizen with the Constitutional right to vote?
.

Facts prove that voter suppression hurts Democrats, therefore the idea of this amendment should be illegal in it’s inception since it hopes to disenfranchise voters from the Democratic party only
Deborah J. Dowell

I will be voting NO on this. First of all, I don’t like the fact it’s an amendment to our Constitution! Leave our Constitution alone! (2) This is an “unfunded mandate.” It’s just another way for the Republicans to dump costs on the smaller municipalities, and figure out how to make it work! (3) It’s discriminatory. It discriminates against senior citizens who have given up their driver’s licenses and are unable to get to a government office to obtain a photo ID. (4) It will also be more difficult for our military to vote when they are stationed overseas. (5) It removes the ability to register at the polls on election day. (6) I believe it will stop some people who are eligible to vote to go to the polls. (7) There’s absolutely no reason for it! Minnesota has clean elections already. (8) “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it!”

In addition, I have a personal experience. In 1976, my husband and I moved to Toronto. We moved back to Minnesota shortly before the election and didn’t find an apartment until a day or so before the election. If this law were in effect, we’d not have been allowed to vote!
Leslie Martin

I already voted no as I will be out of state on the 6th. One reason: it’s hard enough to vote absentee as it is, without any further impediments. My college student daughter, out of state, barely got her ballot here in time because of postal delays. We don’t need more obstacles.

Yes, you need an ID for a beer but a beer isn’t guaranteed by the Constitution. Voting is. Plus, how will we pay for this? Wouldn’t those millions be better off spent on Early Childhood Education or hunger relief programs? How will our deployed military vote? Will we fly them all back home to show an idea before we let them vote? Research has shown there is no problem to fix here. Vote no, please.
Rj

double NO here, but with regard to the voter ID it’s this

it’s a god idea but misguided and heavilly skewed. do i believe in voter fraud, sure. it probobly happens on both sides of the fence. in fact it does, but here’s the thing, this amendment to our constitution isn’t going to solve the issue. the problem isn’t that huge. the odds of it happening are like lotto or lightning odds. stop using the argument of needing an id to buy booze and driving. apples/oranges. privilege/right…voting is a right, driving and drinking are not rights but privileges. this just feels like a voter supression thing to me and we if anything cannot do that. that appears to ring as fascism to me and that would be unamerican. i will say this though, if we have to have an ID, then i want the IQ requirements reimplemented. you GOP’s don’t want illegals voting and i don’t want people who do not understand the constitution or how government runs voting either. some questions i would want on a general IQ test would be this, can an american who is muslim be president? does a president control an economy such as gas prices and health insurance premiums? does a president declare war? what are the government branches and what is the process of checks and balances for? is the president able to know of every single thing happening at every moment you know, like God? is america a christian nation? do you believe in climate change? any wrong answer would mean you are not allowed to vote.
Ron F

I am voting YES. I guess everyone has forgotten about the folks from Acorn and all their phony registrations. Did any of those registrations make it into the system? Are you willing to bet a senate seat or a Presidency that none of them made it in the system? I am not wanting to make that bet. We here in Minnesota have same day registration which is an open invitation for cheating. A same day registered person without an ID can have another person vouch for them. Any person with an ID can vouch for 20 people. What could possibly go wrong there?
Beth Kaiser

I will be voting NO. This is discrimination and a thinly veiled attempt to keep certain people from voting.
Mary Lou

NO!! This was two years in the making, they had plenty of time to work out all the kinks…send it back and tell them to do it right.
Daniel Matthes

I will be voting no as this is a creation of a new problem. First the government will need to come up with a new ID. One that cannot be copied, as there were 24,000 fake ID’s made in Minnesota last year and any kid who is between 16 and 20 can show you how to get a fake ID. Secondly, there are plenty of people like my grandmother in Minnesota. She was not born in the US. She is 105 years old and has never driven, nor had a need for an ID. She has voted since the end of suffrage, and now she must find a way to get an ID? Because some people have determined that in the USA you are guilty until proven innocent. Finally I will be voting no because as a conservative, I believe in less government and do not want to give them the ability to choose that e only way I can prove that I am me is through the use of a card that they issue!
Kirsten Mair

All of us should be contributing ideas to make a law that *protects the vote of every citizen* AND *efficiently prevents fraud*. Instead, people back themselves into their ideological corners with bullhorns and logic and civility are lost. There is a vast and comfortable middle ground here, people. I will vote no because the language of the amendment lacks necessary details that cannot be left to chance, but I stand in solidarity with both sides of this issue. Let’s send it back and make it work the way it ought to in America.
Todd Kolod

I am voting no on this amendment that restricts voting. The only fraud is the amendment itself. This is part of the nationwide effort to suppress the vote.
Tony Cheeks

Are the ideas you Repubs haver for America soooo bad that you have to try to scare voters and attempt to steal the election??? Republicans/ the repub candidate so blantantly lie about almost every issue from the auto industry,fema, mitt’s feelings about the 47 pct, etc……and you idiots want to vote for him? plz forgive me for that….it’s the beauty of democracy! still sad that you would hater the Prez that much that you vote for an empty suit with policies proven to fail!
Manny Laureano

I will absolutely vote “yes” to have ALL voters show ID. As a Latino I bristle at the idea that voting “no” on this somehow benefits me. It’s insulting! There’s very little that you don’t have to show ID for including cashing all many of government checks, so, let’s not go with the nonsense about how difficult it is to obtain government-issued ID.

By the way, will MPR be taking down that sign you have in the lobby requiring visitors to show I.D. when they enter the building?
Lynn

I will be voting NO for the voter ID amendment. There are too many people that will not be able to vote without having to get the new ID card. College students that live too far from home (I have not heard how the absentee ballot will work… will people have to go to their local courthouse to show their ID?), Nursing home residents no longer drive and will not have current IDs. Who will take them to the courthouse to get an ID and do all the paperwork required to register for it? Members of our Military are not required to update their driver’s licenses as long as they serve (I have a friend that was in the Air Force for 20 years who had the same driver’s license that she had in college on the day she retired) and since military IDs and passports are not legitimate IDs (really? I just can’t understand the why behind this…), they will have to get a new voter ID card. What about the cost to implement it? Will every precinct, even the small ones out where I live need WiFi and a ID reader to scan everyone’s ID? How will that work? Who is going to pay for all this, and the voter ID cards people will need? It just doesn’t make sense! There is not enough voter fraud to warrant this type of amendment.
Andrew Harcus

I’m voting no because I don’t believe in amending the constitution for frivolous reason, to fix problems that don’t exist. Time after time in other jurisdictions have tried to enact voter ID laws have been unable to prove enough fraud to justify a new statute or regulation LET ALONE amending the Constitution.

Amending the Constitution should be reserved for rectifying serious society ills. The right that is promoting Voter ID, thinly veiled voter restriction has failed to make a compelling case.

Further down the list is unnecessary spending when there are so many more pressing needs on the public purse.
Bobby Long

The bill’s author never complained about voter fraud in her 8 years as Secretary of State. Hmmmmmmm
Jeremiah Myer

I’m a veteran, I joined to defend American freedom. Changes to the State constitution, should be about defending freedom here at home NOT taking them away.

Not to mention the cost involved in inacting such a unnecessary change.

It is stuff like this that the two parties use to keep voters thinking that they really do have a choice. When in truth they do not, it is all about keeping Republicans and Democrats in power.
Leigh

I’m voting NO. I have seen no evidence that there is an actual problem. The cost and process to administer this in an absentee ballot situation remain unclear. There is no question the only purpose here is voter suppression!
Ann Burns

I will be voting ‘no’ because I know that equality and liberty must go hand in hand, and that it is wrong to use the tools of democracy such as our state constitution to limit the rights and freedoms of any of our citizens.
harold christenson

I am voting No because I believe the Legislature needs to do their job not put this thing on the Minn Constitution. You write the bill first then vote upon it not something that has no defined parameters such as what is a voter ID, who pays for it, how does one get one when they do not have a birth certificate, who pays for a birth certificate, and what will photo id be in 20 years or does voter id change by which party controls the legislature? It is a shameful copout.
jockamo

“I see nnnnnnnnnothing, Herr Commandant!!!”

HarHar
Linda McCollough

I am voting no on voter id for several reasons, first and foremost it is a misuse and abuse of the constitution to put an amendment on it that limits and demeans people, setting up a status system of voting. Second, I am voting no because if we use the system correctly, this can be done by a law. Third, the ONLY other state in the US that has a constitutional amendment is Mississippi, and it is disgusting to think of good solid MN politics being delivered in a manner that is forcing a reduction of viable voters-our voter turn-out will drop dramatically. Next, 19 states have laws, we could easily come up with another route to do things – other than the amendment.

Fiscally, the costs will be outrageous and the beauracy over the top-so, smaller governement – is a better option for the state and those implementing voting (muni’s, townships, towns, cities, counties, etc.).

I am soundly and strongly encouraging others to VOTE NO!
Steve the Cynic

Voter id is major problem in American elections. Too many folks vote based on their instinctive reactions than on the more rational, reflective thought processes of the ego and super-ego.
Jerry Liebrand

Most definitely voting YES. After living in CA for 18 yrs and being aware of voter fraud/abuse. A photo ID issued by a gov’t agency is the only way to curtail voter fraud.
MNGuy1

I am voting “No” for several reasons:

1) Constitutional Amendments are supposed to be used to protect rights, not limit or make it harder to exercise one’s rights.

2) The amendment is only being proposed, because the legislature attempted to pass a law and that bill was not passed by the governor. This is merely an end run around the legislative process set in place to protect all people’s rights.

3) Yes, you need an id to cash a check, etc…, but that is not a constitutional right, like voting, which is to be without cost or hindrance. While the vast majority of people DO have state issued ids, the Constitution doesn’t say that the “vast majority of people” have the right to vote – ALL upstanding citizens have the right, including non-driving college students, seniors in nursing homes, etc….
Katherine Eggen

I am against voter restriction. I believe we should be expanding voter rights and helping everyone vote. Voter ID requirements will end same day registration, which is vital to new voters, people who have moved and probably others.

It will also make it hard, if not impossible for some of our military to vote when they are overseas. Shouldn’t we be making it easier for our troops to vote when they sacrifice so much?

If people are legitimately worried about voter fraud then we need to do it where it matters. Lets start by getting rid of the Electoral College and use popular vote laws. Lets get rid of the rigged electronic voting machines. It had been proven that the Diebold machines were the cause of massive voter fraud in 2000 and 2004. We know certain paper balls with
Deidre Kellogg

I do not believe in the Voter Photo ID Amendment. It is discriminatory, it is a method of voter restriction, it would be incredibly expensive to put in place…there are no good arguments for this amendment.

In answer to another question I saw, I do NOT wish Minnesota to be a swing state! SOLID BLUE!
Heidi

Wow, a lot of hate and assumptions here, I am not going to along, just state I will be voting no. I work with survivors of abuse, and they are a large population effected by this vote.
KS Hanna

I will be voting NO. Until the proponents of Voter ID can come up with a plan for Free ID’s to people who can’t afford to both eat and pay the state for an ID card, then this law is nothing more than disenfranchisement. I read people above saying that people just don’t want to “bother” going and getting an ID card. How about missing a week’s worth of food to get an ID card – which would YOU rather do?? There are so many who are SO out of touch with the challenges their fellow Americans face financially, and rudely and snobbishly chalk it up to the poor just “not wanting to bother” to get an ID. How sad.

Noted that there HAS been voter fraud – most of it Republican. How about the registrar in Colorado who was only registering Republicans – that’s OK then? Or the guy who was caught dumping voter registrations for those who claimed to be Democrats – sticking those registrations in a dumpster behind a restaurant? Still wanna talk about ACORN?? **smh**
SLH

Any way you slice the numbers the amendment will disenfranchise more voters than fraud it would prevent. Voting NO.

I started my voting history with same day registration as a college student in a new town with an old ID and an electric bill. A friend brought me to my polling place to vouch for me if I had any trouble.

For people living in Bemidji the closest DMV location to apply for a Photo ID is Grand Rapids. Having a VALID photo ID can not only be a financial burden but a physical challenge.

Sure most people have a VALID photo id. The minority of people who struggle to maintain their constitutional right to vote are not MOST people, but their vote should still count.
Lee

How can anyone vote no on this issue? The people attended the democratic convention had to have a picture ID, I have to have a picture ID to cash a check at my credit union, I have to wear an picture ID at work, I have to have a picture ID to drive my car, I have to have a picture ID to board a plane, cross the border, etc. It about time we protect all legal voters by asking everyone to have a picture ID to vote. Dah!
Patrick

I’ll be voting no. This thing would have caused problems for my Grandma to vote when she was in the nursing home. It would have caused problems for me this past summer when I moved back from graduate school but wasn’t settled in a home yet.

Fact is, I’m still trying to figure out why people are pushing this. After two statewide recounts in our recent past, MN solidified its reputation as having a strong, clean, accountable election system. It’s a “solution” in search of a problem.

So it begs the question, what is this really about?
Jay

There are so many reasons to vote NO but here is my #1: Voter impersonation, the type of fraud this amendment is supposed to address, has not been discovered in MN. Yes, it is theoretically possible. But it is a FELONY. Who in their right mind would risk a FELONY conviction in order to cast one individual vote in an election? This is an expensive, poorly-thought-out, vague, dangerous solution to a nonexistent problem.
Cheryl Gunderson

I intend to vote “no”. Personally, having to show photo ID wouldn’t be a problem for me, but my husband, who cannot drive any longer, wouldn’t be able to vote without his state-issued ID card, which costs practically as much as a driver’s license. There are many folks out there that can’t fit that expense into their already strained budget. Those of us who live in the country know everyone who monitors on election days, anyway, and they know us. I understand that personal ID isn’t the answer, and why put more hardship on folks when voter fraud is not, and never has been, a problem except for those who wish to stop every Democrat that they possibly can from voting?
georges

For “SLH”, who claims people in Bemidji would have to drive to Grand Rapids to get a photo ID:

The Bemidji DMV is located at 111 Second Street, Bemidji, MN.

The phone number is (218) 755-3956

Services are:

Driver’s License

Identification Cards

Written Test

Road Test

Inspections

CDL Driving

Disabled Services:

Disabled Parking

Wheelchair Accessible

Language Services:

Other Languages:

Spanish, Somali, Hmong, Vietnamese

Hours are Monday thru Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm

All Lefty Libs take note:

What an ugly web you weave, when at first you practice to deceive……..

Typical, tho…….Liberals lie as easily as they breathe…….it is what they do.

Rational people are watching you, and will correct your lies, so you might as well grow up and tell the truth.

HarHarHar
Jay Ludke

It’s too costly … too complicated + risky.

There’s more behind the text of the question on ballot that concerns me.

Q: Q: Would you sign any important document without seeing and understanding the “fine print?”

A: No [Way!]

Please take a look before you consider voting “yes” on this question: http://www.mediafire.com/view/?47m6hmdk9v5sgm4
Susan Jackson-Smith

I am voting “no.” A few years ago, I took my mother, then 92, to downtown St. Paul to get a state ID she could use for Metro Mobility. It took us over half a day to get there, park, get her walker out of the car, walk to the building and then stand in line. I was exhausted and so was she. If I had not been able to do that, I don’t know how she would ever been able to get that card. That’s what I fear about voter registration. To get ID cards for the elderly, the disabled and/or very poor who can’t get the transportation is going to be a disaster and I believe embarassing for those who have voted it in.
Lisa Thompson

Voting NO! Because restricting voting rights is a battle we fought last century and we shouldn’t be even considering it today.

Our state leads the country on voter turn out because our registration laws are based in complete common sense and respect.

Mn came out of the 2 most scrutinized razor-thin recounts as a model of election integrity. We are foolish to change our system.
Leslie

I’ll be voting no for several reasons: a) It is financially irresponsible, during a time of fiscal shortages, to spend more than $1 million to fix a non-existent problem, b) it ends same-day registration which is a positive thing in that it enables more people to vote and thereby have a stake in our democracy, and c) it will make it harder for young people to vote and it’s their future that is being decided today.

I note that Yes commenters above don’t seem to understand what fraud is. Acorn did not commit voter fraud and photo ID would not have addressed what Acorn did – nor the actions of Strategic Allied Consulting, a firm currently employed by Republicans organizations in several states that threw away voter registration forms completed by actual people who registered as democrats.
Dick Tirk

It is a solution to a non=existing problmem. By the way in the Schools of Eastern Carver County we have 34 first languages in our district. so you rascist Republicans how many languages are you willing to print.
april

I will vote yes cause I had to show my I’d when I registeredso I don’t even nderstand the opp
Mary Gallagher

I work with elderly people and many of them no longer drive and have licenses that are expired, so no longer “valid.” It is a hardship for them to obtain a valid State ID — they need to find someone to take them, possibly walk further than is easy, and wait when it’s difficult for them to stand for long periods. Also many are low income and don’t have the means to pay for a new ID or obtaining the paperwork they need if it’s even available. I am voting NO. Also, it they spend time in a transitional care center or move to an assisted living, they may not be at the address on their ID even if it’s valid. Putting this into the Constitution before some of these issues are resolved is a mistake. I am voting NO.
CarolynneMathis

I will be voting no. I don’t think this is a constitutional issue. I don’t want to see voting made difficult or impossible for anyone.
tom

I’ll be voting yes. If I can’t buy a gun without an ID and several other barriers, it’s illogical to allow unknown voters to vote.
michelle

I will be voting yes… There is a requirement to show id for many things… From an SAT or an ACT test, to buying alcohol and there is no fuss over that… Why here? I have lived in states where i have had to show my ID to vote and there were no problems with it… We had to spend the day before my daughters ACT test getting her one… You have to have one to fly… Isn’t voting a much more important right and privilege? Identify yourself!
Simone

We have conclusive proof that voter fraud is under control in this state, and we thus can all see that the amendment is unnecessary. This is why I feel the push to pass the amendment is yet another example of certain elements of our society, in this case on the state and metro-area levels, using legislation as an outlet for their extremism and fear. Anyone who claims they support this very creepy amendment for key reasons aside from their own racism, hatred of the poor and homeless, and/or anti-immigrant bigotry, is either lying or is in denial.

I do NOT believe that people are being deliberately bigoted if they think the amendment is a good idea. I DO believe that those people are shirking one of the key responsibilities all adults have: to identify what bias resides in us, acknowledge it to ourselves, and see past it, day by day. We all have bias, and we must all work to fight it in ourselves, for the sake of our society and our children.

I will vote No on this amendment because I consider it my civic and patriotic duty to do whatever I can, even if that is only casting one vote, to protect voting rights from being whittled away by extremists and fearmongers.
Denise

I will vote no. I will not complicate the right to vote for transgender, elderly or disadvantaged people or students when there is no clear compelling reason to do so. I am confident that existing law at this point addresses the issue, which leaves only one conceivable reason to do this (as has been openly stated in other states) – to openly restrict voting based on purely political manipulation grounds.
Alex Jenson

I am voting yes, I know of people that bragged about voting for the same candidate nine times at the last election, there is nothing to stop this from happening, registering to vote doesn’t mean anything when you can just have the person next to you say they vouch for you, right now you can drive around to different polling locations a keep voting all day if you can find someone to vouch for you, and fanaticly passionate people do it!
Steve the Cynic

If you had personal knowledge of that, then naturally you reported those miscreants to law enforcement, right, Alex? And if you didn’t have personal knowledge of such goings on, then you’re spreading unfounded rumors.
Rae Busch

I will be voting NO. Voter fraud is virtually non-existent, and the type most prevalent will NOT be prevented with an ID. Too many people will potentially be disenfranchised (people like my mom, who remarried and changed her name VERY late in life, then changed it back when she was widowed…NIGHTMARE to obtain some of the documents required). The ID may be free, but obtaining the documents to GET the ID are NOT. That amounts to a poll tax. This is nothing more than a Republican effort to suppress the vote.
Jennifer

Unlike driving a car, writing a check, hunting and fishing, etc., voting is a fundamental right! We should NOT need to “pay” to exercise our fundamental rights.

As for the State picking up the tab for these IDs, we have yet to see exactly how this would be implemented, and how much it would cost. Where will the money for these IDs come from? Most likely it will come back to taxpayers in some form or other such as newly implemented “fees” or tax?! Meaning that, yes, we the people end up paying to exercise our right to vote.

Let’s see some detailed plans on how this will be carried out before we carve it into the constitution!
Carolyn

Yes…it is broke, so let’s fix it.
Michelle

I will vote NO, the constitution is to guarantee rights not take it away. And any law that isn’t WRITTEN doesn’t deserve a vote!
Steve the Cynic

Says the Disgruntled Conservative to himself, “Because I know I’m right, and everyone I talk to agrees with me (either that, or they’re too “Minnesota nice” to contradict me to my face), I can’t imagine that a majority doesn’t vote the way I do, but since liberals and moderates keep winning elections, the only explanation must be voter fraud, which is why I know it has to exist.”