So when republicans tell you, "we got voter I.D. passed to get Romney elected" you think that is helpful to the democratic process and not a ploy? Spending millions to fix a problem that doesn't exist is typical modus operandi for republicans. The GOP establishment are greedy multi-millionaires. The people who vote for them are indulgent and lazy. They can't be bothered with facts because they are too dependent on the propaganda and hate mongering. The south is piss poor and stupid because of their policies, so tell me how intelligent can a person be to want that here?

Way to go Libby, although I do believe you missed out on a stereotype or two. Maybe if you try harder next time?

People who live in nursing homes and no longer drive would have very little need for an I.D. but still have the right to vote.

You certainly could have voted at two locations that's a laugh. I have been an election judge for over 10 years and I will tell you that that is simply not possible. If you are in the roster you can vote only once. If you came in again and registered and voted that is a felony. As an election judge I know that the Minnesota attorneys office follows up on any irregularity with perhaps a 100 pages of documents on each irregularity. Apparently you have limited knowledge of the election process.

If you had you would have been charged with a felony.

Actually, James, it is very possible. Not only is it possible, it has been done. I first became an election judge in 1992 and I have friends who are also judges. There have been a number of times when a voter has come into the polling place in the afternoon only to find that someone has voted using their name. It's what our election officials call "non-prosecutable" offenses. They can't be prosecuted because it can't be detected at the time and by the time it is (when the legal voter shows up) the perpetrator is long gone. Kind of hard to charge someone with a felony or prevent this from happening when our government won't allow them to be caught/stopped.

Ken Coy, nice story, don't believe you. If you had encountered that you would have been required to fill out a report about it and it would be verifiable. Since no instances of voter impersonation are on record then your story is simply from your imagination.

Actually, it would have been discovered after the fact. Then you would have been prosecuted for a felony.

"Grace" - Love your smug answer, and since you (and others who are just as smug) are apparently experts on this issue I am looking forward to you explaining how they are going to be prosecuted. Here's the scenario we're talking about. At 7:00am a woman enters the polling place and is asked her name and address. She responds, "Jane Doe, 123 4th St." The judge looks the name up on the register and gives it to the woman to sign. The woman signs "Jane Doe" and receives her ballot slip which she trades in for a ballot. She fills out the ballot and takes it to the election machine where she inserts it having her votes immediately counted. She receives her "I Voted" sticker and leaves. At 7:00pm another woman enters, goes to the judge and is asked her name and address. She replies, "Jane Doe, 123 4th St." The judge looks up her name on the register and says, "I'm sorry, but you have already voted." This woman shows her driver's license which shows her to be the real Jane Doe. Now, your assignment is to explain to me how the false Jane Doe will even be captured, let alone prosecuted. I'm really looking forward to your explanation.

Dee - Don't much care whether you believe me or not, it's a fact and it is on record.

We will pay millions voters will be disenfranchised and as an election judge I can tell you that voter fraud basically does not exist.

How do you know it doesn't exist? Show me any proof that any legal MN residents will be unable to get an ID or vote.

it is if you're disabled or elderly or don't have a birth certificate.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/10/26/hennepin-county-voter-fraud/

Voter fraud does happen in Minnesota and stoping even one case is benefical. We need Voter ID.

Can't your father use absentee voting?

He does vote by absentee ballot, but now he would have to get a state ID first. I have explained above how this would create a financial and physical hardship.

Susan - There are organizations in and around the Twin Cities that will help your father get the proper ID and they will provide the transportation. You might want to check into those. Start with ARC.

Thank you, Ken.

It makes no sense to cripple the integrity of elections to avoid having to drive a small number of elderly to the DMV.

Jeff - I agree that this would be better as a statute so that it could be much more easily fixed if there were problems or repealed if the problems were insurmountable. Unfortunately, Dayton decided to veto the bill (which also had addressed each of the concerns brought up during debate).

Every one of those so-called disenfranchised groups has an ID: seniors have a Medicare card; the poor have a Medicare or WIC card; students have school IDs. There are plenty of ways to make it work if the will to do so is there.

Gee Paul - last time I checked Medicare cards didn't have photos - and neither do many student ID's - this is not an ID LAW - it's a PHOTO ID law. Thank you Bob W for injecting some reason into this hyperbole

I would add, Paul, that this amendment would require a GOVERNMENT ISSUED ID - student ID cards from private universities are not issued by the government.

I was shocked when I voted in the last election and I did not have to show any identification. I am a Social Studies teacher and had a discussion with my students regarding this issue on the day of the election. I voted in the morning, and could have easily gone out one door and back in the other door and used the names of my neighbors. It wouldn't have been hard to vote several times. It does not matter who I voted for or where my political affiliation lies, the process is flawed and needs to be tightened. In an election, there should not be such an opportunity for those who wish to change the outcome to take advantage of a loose system.
If we do not require people to prove who they are, how can we guarantee the results of the election are accurate?
Bob, do you think we should continue with a system where our leaders could be elected through a potentially corrupt system, or should we allow people who follow the regulations to have their votes count? I'm interested to hear your opinion regarding what we could do to make sure the voting system is straightened out without disenfranchising any group of people.

I'm sick of having my votes disenfranchised by illegals, double voters (those using dead voter records to votes or voting in two precincts or areas), felons and others who will follow the mantra that " the end justifies the means" (othewise known as the DFL way of doing things). if you dont think that vouching creates a tremendous opportunity for fraudulent voting to occur - I question whether you want integrity in the voting system.

Cindy, may I make the request that you read my comment above?

There is not proof of rampant voter fraud, in fact, in Minnesota, I think it was less than 200 cases of voter fraud in 2008 with almost 3,000,000 voters at the polls. That is less than one tenth of one percent.

"in this age of identity theft and voter fraud"? Right. And no one has ever had a FAKE id??

Cindy, I am not a democrat and I oppose this amendment not because I think it's important to stop any cases of voter fraud, but trying to solve it with an amendment that offers few details about how this will be implemented or where the money will come from to pay for it is simply not the way to accomplish this. How many millions of dollars should the state spend to ensure a couple hundred ineligible voters are prevented from doing so? Fair and ethical elections are paramount, but this amendment won't even prevent much of the alleged voter fraud its supporters are calling for. The people pushing for this are completely unable to provide any details for how they will ensure that it will stop more fraudulent voters than prevent those who actually want and have every right to cast a ballot.

ACORN did not "cheat the system." Some ACORN employees filled in fake registration applications; ACORN was required by law to submit ALL registration applications, even the fake ones, which ACORN flagged as fake before submitting. No one committed voter fraud as a result of those fake registrations - no one tried to vote as "Mickey Mouse" or "Donald Duck".

If that is the case then ID's need to be free of charge and obtained through a local government building. Every adult person needs to be within walking distance of said local government building so they can obtain this qualified ID. Even so, some people may not have the monetary resources to obtain this new qualified ID, so it needs to be FREE. That is the only way I will agree to it.

By the way, The Twenty-fourth Amendment (Amendment XXIV) prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax. Isn't requiring people to PAY for an ID basically a poll tax? Sure you're not paying the tax at the same moment that you are voting, but if this amendment were to pass it would basically be saying that you need to PAY to get your ID in order to VOTE!

Katie - The IDs would be free. That's why the "poll tax" argument is so ridiculous. The IDs are free. If someone needs a birth certificate to get the ID, that is also free and will be expedited.

" If someone needs a birth certificate to get the ID, that is also free and will be expedited." .... this is completely false. And women may also need to show a marriage certificate or divorce decree which also aren't free.

Beth-Ann, Thank you so much for pointing out voting is a RIGHT! The cases of voter fraud found in the last election, mind you it was .000031%, would NOT have been caught by a photo ID law. Every last one of them would have voted and unless there were a recount would never have been caught. Another thing people forget is that we are primarily a rural state. There are still people living who DO NOT even have a birth certificate. There are people who would need to travel long distances to get the birth certificate if they did have one and there is NO plan to give these people gas vouchers OR pay the current 35$ fee to get the birth certificate so they could get the free government issued photo ID. It does not make me feel very good when you also look at the amendment, HAH if you can call it that. It is not fleshed out, they do not know how it is going to work or what hoops people will have to jump through. This amendment was introduced by legislators who get their marching orders from ALEC. I for one do not want laws for Minnesota written by a bunch of outstate billionaires. Check out http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed you might not like what you read about who is leading many Minnesota republicans around by their noses.

The ID is free the documents such as birth certificate and other possibly necessary documents are NOT free. This can be a heavy financial burden on the poor. In actuality the current checks and balances already in place have been proven to be quite effective in preventing voter fraud. From the League of Women Voters;

18 percent of elderly citizens do not have a government-issued photo ID.
15 percent of voters earning less than $35,000 a year do not have a photo ID.
18 percent of citizens aged 18-24 do not have a government-issued ID with their current address and name.
10 percent of voters with disabilities do not have a photo ID.
25 percent of African-American citizens of voting age do not have a current, government-issued ID

I for one do not want to see these people silenced.

I just paid $23.25 to get my drivers license renewed. Am I missing something? How is an ID free?

Katie - I just renewed mine in June (came due in July) and it was $24 or I could wait until July 1 and get it taken care of for $23.25. For the cost of gas, it wasn't worth the drive back there otherwise I would have. The $.75 is what the ID portion costs, which is not the same as a driver's license, an ID will simply get your check cashed at the bank...

Deb - nice statistics. Are you saying that these people are unable to get IDs?

Prove it.

Are these rights, given to them by the constitution? Read my dad's situation above...this is a true story of someone who will have his right to vote taken away because he can not afford the trip and he should not have to go through the painful process.

By prove it, I mean give me the proof of voter fraud in this state. As stated above, it was less that one tenth of one percent of the voting pool. The voter ID Amendment is voter suppression...period.

Susan does your father leave the house ever to got to doctor appointments or is he homebound?

He goes to the doctor once a year. The costs are covered by Medicare/caid (my apologies, I don't remember which), if he makes any additional stops, they no longer cover the cost. As mentioned, an outting is a painful venture, adding additional stops will only multiply this.

Are you trips to the VA guaranteed by the Constitution?

Well, I guess we should just hope that provisions will be made for my dad, before he dies! Unbelievable!

Robert, how is it that her Dad is a victim of voter fraud? Seems a very loose association.

It will not evolve. There are no provisions for elderly, disabled etc. in this amendment. It is a constitutional amendment. If there are bugs in the process they are permanant! no changes can be made. We cannot make any legislation to change what we vote for. Other states have made exceptions for disabled or elderly. You also need to understand that you will be excluding vets who are not in their home state from voting. They will not be able to get home to show their ID's to have their absentee vote counted. Also in other states where this has been done, it has cost millions of dollars in every election of tax payer money.
Also please be aware that it's a felony to impersonate someone. If you want to impersonate someone, you would have to be certain that they did not register to vote absentee or will not vote later that day. If you go to multiple polling places and register, the State Wide Voter Registrration Service would catch on because they check each idividual registrant after each election. No matter how you feel about voter registation, a constituational amendment is a lousy way to change the law. Alec is counting on people being misinformed about all the facts. To get all the facts about this new amendment please go to www.lwymn.org/DemocracyforAll.

A 2011 article published by MPR claims "The data, collected by the Minnesota Supreme Court, shows that 144 people have been convicted of voter fraud since 2009." That is not enough to sway any of our "close elections that we have had in MN" in the other direction. There simply isn't an issue of voter fraud that is big enough to warrant an amendment change requiring ID's to vote.

I thought people said there was no voter fraud....but then you contradict that claim by posting the statement: A 2011 article published by MPR claims "The data, collected by the Minnesota Supreme Court, shows that 144 people have been convicted of voter fraud since 2009." Regardless of the percentage, it's still present --

Now imagine the cost of those provisions...sending someone out to his house, which has been suggested on other threads about this subject. Couple that with the cost of implementing this amendment, are you still for this, given the high cost, to stop about 200 cases of voter fraud?

repeating the myth about votes found in the trunk of a car doesn't help your position.

No, like always, Republicans seem to feel that if they have been successful, they should force everyone to live by their standards....what they feel is moral, what they feel is common sense. The problem is that they don't consider those who are unlike them...finavial situation, economic background, disabled, sexual orientation, the poor...

The State of Minnesota has variances (i.e. exemptions) for religious reasons for not getting a State ID card, there is one for economic, and one for not having the proper documentation. So it is an excuse not to get one. And really Ritchie was the one investigating the voter fraud last time...like that was a trustworthy investigation.

Susan

You who always claims to stay above the fray by not insulting do more than your fair share of insulting. Reap what you sow

Al, if you look at what I said, you will see that I said the COMMENTS were naive and ignorant, not the people.

Naive defined as: Showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment.

Ignorant defined as: Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.

Many of the commenters did not seem to factor in people like my dad, or know how this will affect the young, the old, and the disabled.....meaning that their comments were naive and ignorant. I have not insulted anyone, only pointed out that their comments were uninformed.

Come after me for how I stand on an issue, but don't be pointing fingers for something I didn't actually do. Besides, I have never claimed to be above the fray, I just try to keep from sinking to the level of personal insults while discussing the issue. No, I am not perfect (no where near), but here, you have accused me of something I didn't do.

Susan

Telling people that their comments are naive and ignorant is no different than people telling you that your comments may be naive and ignorant. Think about that.

I have thought about it. If my comments are naive and ignorant, then so be it and people are free to call me out on it. But Al implied (because we have discussed this issue before) that I was personally insulting people, which I wasn't. I am not sure what point you are trying to make, Layne.

I would add one more note. I HAVE been called out when making an "ignorant" comment, and while at first I took offense, I quickly realized that what I had said was indeed ignorant, in reference to the subject being discussed.

I think people often confuse ignorant with stupid...they have two different meanings, and one can make an ignorant comment, without being an ignorant person.

If this were just about "how much it costs", then consider the cost of re-counting the votes in 2008!!! for each county in the state. I was there for 7 long days as an observer, not being paid, but the election judges had to be paid and take the abuse from the people sent from other parts of the country to "watch" over and protest a ballot.
Just get an ID. Susan, I'm sure your father can contact the city for an absentee ballot and an election judge from each party will come to him to help him with his right to vote. Not just one, make it fair, one from each party. That's how they do it for the nursing homes. It is workable and don't believe everything you read as "fact".

Barbara, are you willing to guarantee this, in other words, will you cover his costs to get an ID, and somehow make his pain go away, if these supposed generous people decide that following the law is more important than my dad's vote.

IF the amendment guaranteed a waiver for people in this position, I would consider it, but it doesn't. Isn't it curious that it doesn't?

BTW, as mentioned, the cost of recounts have nothing to do with this. If an election is close, it will be recounted.

Well Barbara, I certainly won't believe anything I read from you as "fact". How do you not understand that voter ID is a completely separate issue from recounts? Frankly I'm disappointed that someone as uninformed as you had any stake in observing the recount. Also, wouldn't Susan's father still need a government issued photo ID to receive an absentee ballot or do you want all the folks voting illegally to simply go that route?

Wrong Chris. My advocacy against this amendment is that it doesn't explain any accommodation for eligible voters who need IDs and the costs associated with doing so when it hasn't been shown to be a serious problem that should require millions of dollars to solve.

NO Randy, they will cheat. I could have voted in two different polling places last election because I moved and the state didn't update my records (my husband's was done same day as mine and his records were updated). IF I was dishonest I could have cheated. But I didn't. They had my husband verify that I was his wife...I was not asked for my ID. He could have lied.

Shakopee mom, if you had voted twice you would have been caught.

The burden of proof is on the accuser.

I don't necessarily disagree with the list, what I disagree with is the Republican idea that what they believe, should be FORCED on others. You brought up the idea of why Democrats may oppose this, I gave you an alternative.

Again, I say, in America, the burden of proof in on the accuser.

You're kidding yourself if you think this amendment passing is going to stop many forms of voter fraud and yet you seem to want to ignore the eligible voters who will undoubtedly be marginalized in the process.

the fact is, the biggest problem in fraudulent voting is felons voting. This voter ID law will not prevent that.

Yes, Robert, in America, the burden of proof in in the accuser, it's how our system works! There are countries that don't work like this, but I don't think you want to live there.

It seems a bit silly to stop a problem you can not prove exists. It is costly, which is against a common Republican mantra, and it suppresses votes, which goes against our constitution.

Robert, I can print out an ID that closely resembles a Minnesota ID with a 3D printer, including the security measures. Having an ID is not security. Besides, an election is an imperfect barometer of the public will. So, in essence, you are focusing a great deal of energy on becoming a democracy instead of a republic. If you want perfect public will, it is an impossibility. But, good luck with your endeavor to make it perfect. Just remember these words, "in order to form a more perfect union..." They were not asking for absolute perfection but relative perfection.

If I were looking for absolute perfection in voting, I would require more than 70% of the eligible voters to cast their ballot. But, since they don't, which is an expression of choice, too bad for the rest of us. I frankly would count their votes as a vote against the slate and require that a candidate reach 50% plus 1 of all electors if we are reaching for perfection. Therefore, just about every candidate we have had since the state was formed were not eligible to hold their seat and our government would never have formed. Yet, somehow we muddled through the dark ages of imperfection in our elections. Amazing.

Actually Susan if a person falls under the Uniform Code of Military Justice -- which is on military / federal property...then it is up to the accused to disprove the charges. Like you said NOT everyone fits into the same box.

Good point, Shakopee Mom, but are we talking about a military issue?

So, let me see the list of the dead who voted.

Tens of thousands of dead people is a great exaggeration of the facts. Plus, when the voter registry is made days before the election, real people do in fact die and don't end up being taken off the list. Otherwise, the list is actually quite clean in Minnesota. When somebody dies in Minnesota, the Secretary of States office is notified through the counties. Are you saying that this process is broken and needs fixing?

WRONG Bob double voting is NOT the only prosecuted. There was ONE case of double voting found a mother sent in her daughter's absentee ballot and her daughter voted at college. The other 26 were actually felons who were not yet eligible to vote. We have a three tier probation system, the first two tiers a still monitored by a probation agent they likely are told by their agent they cannot vote. The third tier do not see an agent and they may not actually know they are still on paper and therefore unable to vote. Nothing about this amendment is clear cut and it has not been written totally so we do not have ANY idea how it will work, what will be required or how many MILLIONS it will cost to implement.

DECEASED VOTERS: Using a standard deceased matching service commonly utilized by mailing houses, we discovered thousands of individuals flagged as deceased who are still on the active voter rolls. Following the 2008 election, we were able to check the SVRS voter history against a list of dead voters and found thousands of potential matches. Further investigation into a small sampling turned up (high confidence match) death records for several voters indicating that they had died before voting in the 2008 election.

There is proof that nearly 20,000 people are shot in America by accident every year. Should we have mandatory training for all gun owners in this country? It's the exact same concept, just a different amendment, oh, and it's a bit more dangerous too.

I am not suggesting anything, only stating the obvious. Please provide the proof.

Again, buying alcohol and cigarettes are not rights given to us by the Constitution. Why are you missing this VERY important part of the debate.

I do not consider .000031% fraudulent votes (28 0f them) a number worth instituting voter ID which will cost MILLIONS and potentially affect 220,000 registered voters from voting or forcing them through multiple hoops to exercise a RIGHT guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

It is patently absurd to demand that all potential voters "not suffer any hardships, financial, physical, or otherwise, when "trying" to vote". By your reasoning the "state" should pay for my gas, my insurance, my cab fare, my time off work, and the wear and tear on my shoes. Most accept that there is a cost to being involved and most bear it willingly.

Here is the difference...BECAUSE OF THIS AMENDMENT, my father would suffer physical and financial hardships. Will this amendment cause you any hardship for voting, that you did not have before?

I think the 2nd amendment is a right and if I choose to exercise that right I have to show an ID to purchase a firearm!

"nefarious"...that's rich! I agree with what you have to say, except lets swap out "oppose" for "want".

Chris, I believe if you've followed the polling on this issue it showed overwhelming support for the amendment when it was first proposed (myself included). I mean, nobody who even considers themselves reasonable could be against fair elections. I am not against taking steps to prevent voter fraud, but this amendment does little to prevent that and in fact will likely prevent more eligible voters from casting a ballot than it will prevent those who are ineligible to vote from doing so. I would also suggest for each person who opposes this amendment for nefarious rather than altruistic reasons there is a conservative on the other side using both of these amendments to drive voter turnout in hopes of defeating Obama. I've said it before, but liberals and conservatives are the exact same people with different philosophies. The a-hole, d-bag and ridiculous quotient is similar for both sides.

I forgot to add previously that despite overwhelming support early, I believe the numbers are trending the other direction as more people become aware of the costs and effectiveness envisioned if the amendment passes.

Oh, you made such a great point, Randy, I hope it doesn't get ousted because you had to add colorful language. :-)

Chris you are letting you biases hang out with that statement. Some of us know people who will be affected. Some of us work with populations that will be affected and some of are affected.

Let's use your argument...it's a non issue then why not do it? Prepare for the possibly of voter fraud becoming worse or increased in proven cases. If you leave the door open because Minnesota doesn't have the safeguards in place, then it could get worse.

Excellent AND accurate Dean.

Now this is an interesting point that I have not heard before. Do you have a link?

The only thing stopping the legislature from solving this alleged problem through more traditional means is the political carryover from more important. I'm aware of nothing in the current voting set up that allows for a cost/benefit comparison. As to the costs, isn't having Franken enough of a reason for everyone to want an undisputed election?

Randy ; it may be a stretch but maybe will save money by not having the constant recounts.Just a thought, thanks for your'e input.

Roy, this amendment will do nothing to stop recounts...if the results are close (which they often are in Minnesota) there will be a recount, unless there is a specific amendment prohibiting it.

Roy, it won't do anything to prevent recounts but it might make recounts less political and provide fewer paychecks for attorneys so you're likely right on that, although I think it would take a lot of recounts to make up for the implementation of the proposed amendment.

Susan ; sorry You have to go to the talking heads line.and that's why we can't get it done in the correct manner.

And yes, I would say the same about the left, and MSNBC.

Roy, I'm not quite sure I understand what you are saying...

I am only asking that everyone (as noted by my additional comment) do their own research instead of blindly believing the opinions they hear on tv or their elected representatives. Is this wrong? I would be shocked if your answer is yes.

Thanks, Dean!

Plus voter ID would NOT have caught the felons. They wear no mark that says felon nor does their driver's license indicate they are a felon. The DOC suggestion would almost erase voter fraud.
Dean, thanks for the informative link.

He will have to go to a government center to get a photo ID, in order to get his absentee ballot. He has helpers to get things outside his home that he may need, but they can not stand in for him to go get an ID.

Mary
Susan wouldn't have anything to bitch about.

Untrue, tardo, I would be happy to bitch about you or others who add nothing constructive to the conversation....but I digress. I guess only those who agree with you are granted First Amendment rights? If you don't like what I have to say, how about if you just don't read it..

My apologies, mr tatro, I did inadvertently copy your name wrong (auto spell correction on the iPad), I should proof my comments better.

My father was born in the good ol USA, and has never been convicted of a felony.

I would want to see proof that there is rampant (used above) voter fraud, or that voter fraud comes anywhere close (subjective) to affecting election results.

Aren't Republicans (and Libertarians) against bigger government? Solving a problem that can not be proven to exist seems precautionary, and against their position.

Thanks for pointing it out Roy, I have corrected my mistake and apologized.

I simply answered a snarky (completely off topic) comment pointed directly at me, with one of my own. You're right, it's not productive, but I won't sit idly by and be insulted because I am passionate about this subject. If everyone did that, only those needlessly insulting others would be heard.

I'm sorry you don't believe it. It wasn't a typo, it was an auto correct spell check on the iPad...still my fault as I didn't proof the comment.

How would someone provide that proof? If felons voted, we would be able to cross reference - are they marked as having voted, and convictions of felonies is public record, whereas to prove it didn't happen?...

I would be in favor of implementing a computerized cross referencing system to check a persons criminal (felony) record, before voting.

Already supplied by me.

And I respect your right to your opinion. The bottom line, which I mentioned above, is that if the amendment included guarantees that those like my father would not be physically or financially harmed by this amendment, or that their ability to vote would not be suppressed (Shakopee mom mentioned waivers), then my opposition would (pretty much) disappear. I say pretty much because there are a couple other things (cost) that would still make it difficult to accept.

That correction was made in 2010. Not an issue with felons anymore.

Minnesota does require an ID to vote. I can't get a ballot without one. In Minnesota, the definition of ID for voting extends to other support documents.

Yeah Dean -- sure, you can walk in with a utilities bill gotten from some address, have someone vouch for you and vote. That's the form of "support" but unverifiable documents that you mention. Multiple people might be able to use that same ultility bill and get different people to use it ...because there are always DFL organizers around to vouch for people. Nice spin though

The tough.... comment is called voter suppression. It is against the Voting Rights Act to suppress votes. Why don't we just move your voting booth to Walker, Minnesota. Tough!

So those who can't walk can't vote?

I didn't realize that, in 2012, in this country, we would expect people to pay, or experience pain to vote (explanation back at the top of the comments).

After reading over and over again about how it's sooo hard and sooo expensive to get out of the house I'm leaning your way. If it's worth doing you'll make an effort to do it, if it's not worth making the minimal effort to get a picture taken you probably don't care enough to make an informed decision anyway.

"worth it?"....my point is that it should not have to be an EXTRA burden, and this amendment does just that.

I realize that I am repeating myself (ad nauseam). I am doing this, and taking heat for it, because my family IS the family that this affects negatively. Because most here are middle aged, able bodied citizens, they find it very hard to believe or accept how this truly will suppress votes. If I can change one mind, by understanding our situation, it will have been worth the effort. I am not arguing party lines here, I am trying to show that is is a real situation, and if you are not in it, you may not recognize or accept its a reality.

Is it voter suppression to have easily administered ballot access that safeguards the ballot? We have voter id requirements in the state right now. Can't get a ballot without identifying yourself according to requirements of the law. The whole argument is not to have an ID or not, but what that ID is defined as. The amendment adds nothing to the definition and may be in violation of the VRA. It does not speed access to the ballot, nor make them safer. County attorneys' will continue to have to investigate fraudulent attempts of voting as reported by voting judges.

If the black panthers show up to a precinct and block voters, then call a sheriff or police department because intimidation happens to be a crime. That is already covered by the law. It is nothing but a distraction to the real issues.

Josh, what about the costs and other possiblr restrictions, of getting to the government center to get that free ID?

Likewise, so far I have yet to see any evidence that voter fraud is any more than one hundredth (maybe thousandth) of one percent of the votes cast in this state.

It seems counterintuitive for the party of 'less spending, less intrusive, smaller government' to be lobbying for an expensive law which requires more government, to fix a problem that can not be proven to exist.

Why do you suppose that there isn't a section in this amendment about a waiver for those who would have an additional hardship in getting an ID? Do you think maybe it's because they don't want those people to vote?

In the bill that went to Dayton (that he vetoed) the Republicans had addressed the issue of extraordinary hardships. If this amendment passes, laws will have to be written in order to implement it. That waiver could easily be incorporated.

Again, any thought that this amendment is being put into place in order to prevent any legal Minnesota resident from voting is absolutely ridiculous. There is zero evidence of that.

So if the hardship issue was in the original bill, why didn't they keep it for the ballot? Political reasons - maybe a swipe at Dayton for the veto?

Why wouldn't we want to make sure that everyone will still be able to vote, as easily as they do now?

I mean, even the conservative Lohmer put in exceptions in her "two year wait for a divorce" bill...

Could be that amendments are not 100 pages long. The bill that Dayton vetoed covered all of these complaints that you Democrats keep bringing up. Now, thanks to his extreme partisanship, if the amendment passes, all of these issues will have to be debated again and bills passed to properly implement the amendment (just as with ALL other amendments). Maybe if you all would spend more time working to ensure that all legal Minnesota residents got an ID in a timely manner and less time spreading incomplete and erroneous information about Voter ID there would be fewer conflicts around the issue.

Why must (some) Conservatives get so grumpy and tell people what they should do?

I asked you a question, you assume you know my views, and want to lump me into a group that doesn't exactly fit. Maybe you Republicans could sway more opinions if you weren't so arrogant as to assume you know everything, know what's right for everyone, and talk down to those who disagree.

What group doesn't fit, Susan? BTW - you didn't just ask a question, you made a very insulting and ridiculous accusation.

I don't assume I know your views, you've made them very clear in all of your posts here.

You've made it clear that you're against the ID amendment and it's not just about your father.

Susan, I don't believe that anybody can persuade you, because you've apparently got your mind made up. There's nothing wrong with that, but you can be honest about it.

Seriously, if there was an offer to get your father an ID that did not inconvenience him, cause him pain, cost him any money or cost the taxpayers any money (other than the cost of the ID), would you support the amendment? (Since this was the gist of your first post.)

It was a question, which you read, if you put some spin on it in your own mind, that's on you.

I don't think Democrats would label me one, as I have big issues with unions the welfare system, but thats for another time...

Regarding your question about my position on the amendment. I tend to look at things practically, laws should be made if there is a need for them. Show me the proof of the fraud, and I might consider it a legitimate cost for the state, otherwise this is simply precautionary, which seems a bit foolish....as far as lawmaking goes....but I also do recognize its been done before.

Okay, so the claims that this is all about your Dad that you've made weren't entirely accurate. That's fine, thanks for the honesty there.

"Political reasons - maybe a swipe at Dayton for the veto?"

"Do you think maybe it's because they don't want those people to vote?"

You really want to claim that these "questions" aren't actually accusations? And that I'm spinning something? Right. If you say so.

Ken, I never claimed this was all about my dad. If you look above, I have a concern about cost vs benefit as well.

As for the rest of your comment, I will let you think what you willl, but try to read the question without ASSUMING the worst about the person writing the QUESTION, before you come to your next conclusion.

The nice thing about most of yesterday's discussion was that people kept it civil and pointed out flaws in the argument without being condescending or insulting, and most didn't assume that everyone who was here was looking to have a battle of words, instead of discussing the pros and cons of the amendment.

Now, Randy, let's remember that this is the party of less spending, smaller government, less intrusion....oh wait, I guess the hypocrisy of this proposed amendment has yet to sink in.

Did you bother to read any of the above comments, Jerry? There are plenty of things to be worried about.

I wonder if we would have this big uproar if Coleman and Emmer had won?

That depends, Jerry. Is the state spending 20 times the actual value for that land to provide a park that nobody visits? At least that land has tangible value, but this amendment is nothing more than throwing money at an issue that doesn't even solve a problem that is insignificant to begin with.

If Emmer would have won we wouldn't be talking about this as it would have been signed into law by the governor and there'd be no reason to do an end run with a constitutional amendment.

Which of those things you allege occurred would be solved by this amendment, Jerry?

We already pay around that for every rider on the light rail. You're quibbling about pocket change for the government.To remove the perception that it's possible to sway an election has to be worth something. Besides, when everybody's on Medicare we'll all have picture ID provided by the government anyway.

Ahhh, the two-wrongs-make-a-right argument. Well played Joe. I don't care if it's $50 or $5 million, wasteful spending is wasteful spending.

Thanks Randy, I learned it from the best. I also learned to relax a bit about wasteful spending as nothing is going to change as long as the current power structure is in place. It's a lonely world for the economic conservatives.

Yes, he makes a very good point. Too bad that the cost of the ID is not the only issue or problem with the proposed amendment.

So taxes aren't your money, Jerry?

Which is true with other rights in this country, as well. I fail to see your point.

The point is quite obvious. Just because something is a "right" does not mean that there are not or can not be restrictions placed on it whether it be a residency requirement or an ID requirement. So, the arguments that have been made on here that requiring an ID somehow violates a person's "right" to vote are fallacious.

Ken, I only continued to point it out because so many gun owners (which are on the opposite side for this amendment) are adamant that there be NO restrictions placed on RIGHT to bear arms, so why should that right be without restrictions, and not a person's right to vote.

I get your point, no need to elaborate.

Instead or responding to what you have to say, because you have already shown how you respond to something you don't like, I will repeat something from above.

I realize that I am repeating myself (ad nauseam). I am doing this, and taking heat for it, because my family IS the family that this affects negatively. Because most here are middle aged, able bodied citizens, they find it very hard to believe or accept how this truly will suppress votes. If I can change one mind, by understanding our situation, it will have been worth the effort. I am not arguing party lines here, I am trying to show that is is a real situation, and if you are not in it, you may not recognize or accept its a reality.

Thanks, but I own my own business (you can check my profile, I dont hide behind a pseudonym) so its completely okay for me to stop and respond to a snotty comment, as the boss doesn't care.

Once again, working to help my dad...what am I doing wrong? If my comments offend you then don't read them, DUH!!

So, someone fails to renew their ID. Whose fault is that? Yet, they're allowed to vote and their vote is counted unless THEY screwed up when they voted. And we should not require an ID because some people are too lazy or don't care enough to renew their ID in a timely manner.

Interesting that the state with the strictest Voter ID laws had only 4500 provisional ballots in 2008 (IN has basically same population as MN) and the people in "The Brainpower State" are going to need 500,000. Not bad for a state that only has about 3 million people who could be eligible to vote.

And your insulting me is any better. Take care of yourself, boss yourself around, I will take care of me.

Pseudonym meaning, continually changing your name, and not publicly (well, at Patch) standing behind your comments...in fact my friend Thomas has done this so many times, I wonder if the two names here are the same person.

I'm bored with the silly insults...I would be happy to read real information or experiences of people regarding this issue, other than that, I am sick of the peeing contest in the school yard.

I just want to step in and commend Mr. Steller for cleaning up some of the unsavory comments that sometimes crop up on this site. I think it's shameful that people cannot be more respectful, especially many of the dumb asses who are incapable of polite and reasonable discussion.

Thanks, Chris.

I have followed your lead and rewrote one other comment. You are stronger than I, to sit silent while the insults moved from me to you. It's frustrating that the anonymous find it so amusing to toss in their petty insults and innuendos, and then fly away to create a new identity. I guess it will have to do, as I would not like to see this become a "Facebook" comments site. Keep up the great work!

Randy, :-)

I get it, but you are categorizing what an entire group of people believe in, as garbage. That's not only insulting, it violates Patch's user agreement.

I don't know if you directed this at me, Jerry, but I was against the bridge, have never had an opinion on light rail (other than it's expensive) as I don't live in the area, and don't want to pay for health care for illegals......does this make ME a liberal? Let me answer for you........NOT EVERYONE FITS INTO A LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE BOX....let's let people decide for themselves what they believe in, what they want for this country, and how they think tax dollars should be spent. Isn't that what a free country is about??? Grouping people together in a generic package to suit your needs is disingenuous at best, but probably more correctly called labeling, assuming, or generalizing to make some point that doesn't necessarily exist.

Susan, you should be aware going in that getting into a battle of wits with an unarmed man is rarely productive.

I know, but I am sick, sick, sick of being called a liberal....not that there is anything wrong with that...to suit someone's juvenile need to take a jab at a party or group that they find intolerable. All parties/groups have good and bad ideas, there is no possible way that one side can be right all the time!

I wish some people would get it through their think skulls that a person can lean left on some issues, and right on other issues. I think THIS is the only logical (possibly sane) position in politics right now.

Given the Republicans voting to spend many hundreds of billions if not close to a Trillion dollars in Afghanistan and Iraq and many hundreds of billions on Medicare Part D - ALL of which they never funded - well - your all up in arms of "light rail" and "health care"?

Seriously - I think you are a Liberal Comedian who likes to post funny stuff....

Well don sir, well done!

My apologies, if this got a little worked up today. All is calm now, as it seems the antagonists have left. Your theory is interesting, but as an independent (I guess), I would say that I see the Republicans making a sneaky move, and the Democrats worried about losing votes. I feel, if the Republicans weren't trying to suppress votes, and wanted to avoid the accusation, they could have put a clear and simple addition into the amendment with a waiver for hardship. I know this would have to be explained further, but being as they didn't put any hint of it in the ballot question, I am suspicious.

Robert, I have given this more thought over the last couple days and wish to chage my conclusion just a bit. I think that the average John Q Republican really believes this is a common sense solution to a problem, without realizing the effect on older, younger, and disabled Americans. However, I think the elected and top Republican brass in this state know that it is a precautionary change, designed to (along with the marriage amendment) get Republicans to the polls on election day, in an effort to defeat President Obama. I am sure they are aware of the ramifications of the change to voting guidelines, but since the outcome will mostly benefit them, they are happy to keep quiet on the subject.

As far as Democrats, they are scrambling, because they know this will make it harder for some Americans, who would probably vote for them, to vote.

I have yet to see proof of voter fraud that would make the cost acceptable....subjective again, but no one here was able to offer up any proof, and I have been unable to find any either, so one can only come to this conclusion when listening, debating and researching.

Thanks for the back and forth on this one!

Hmmm Accommmodations ? Why should accommodations be made? Are you insinuating that someone else should pick up the tab and people shouldn't have to pay for their OWN ID ?

Your stats are a pretty good indication of why we do need ID, if you ask me. I can't believe some of you are being such a PITA over a plastic card. For pete sakes if you don't have ID - get it plain and simple!

Prove who you say you are! Unreal that we are even having this discussion.

Good stuff, Jerry, I'm sure Fox news appreciates your loyal viewership. At least the LWV claims to be nonpartisan. So is it the eligible women, minorities or seniors that you most want to impede from voting?

I don't think I've ever seen candidates of both major parties agree to participate in a debate sponsored by ACORN.

Just curious - what does the word "Socialism" mean to you and how do you define us as going too far "socialist"?

And what "freedoms" are you losing from any changes you see in the country?

So who is trying to "overthrow" Capitalism and how is that happening?

Much of this post is simply not true.

Showing a picture ID to vote is not much of a burden. The vast majority of voters will drive to the polls, and will have their driver's license handy. For the others cited here, Effort should be expended to ensure that they get ID rather than trying to prevent ANY verification of ID at the polls.

It's true that for the vast majority, showing a picture ID to vote is not much of a burden. However, there is a minority that will be affected. For example, college students will likely have a driver's license, but will that driver's license match the address where they are residing at the time of the election? For an elderly person who no longer drives, will they need to renew their license just so they can vote? What we are proposing to do is to modify the constitution to protect the rights of the "vast majority" of citizens as opposed to all the citizens of Minnesota. That isn't right.

So Bob and other non-believers - you are all in favor and suport possible fraud and unethical voting?

I see elderly people going places all the time! They don't seem to have a problem going to the grocery store, out to eat or the liqour store etc... They will make it to the DMV just fine or can figure out a way to get to one (friends, taxi, etc...)! The ID will be less than $15, if not FREE ... your argument is BS. I can not for the life of me understand why people like you would be against proving who you say you are! Do you put up this kind of fight when and if you have ever purchased liquor ?

With this type of logic you probably do not support Instant Replay in sports either ? Pretty much the same concept ... You are apparently OK if the team that really didn't cross the line and or catch the ball wins ? Your argument would be that it just takes to long, to take 30 seconds in making sure the right call was made ?

Or just because in your world you believe there isn't any fraud going on, so lets do nothing to even prevent the possibility!

Stupidity just runs rampant in this country and it's actually becoming very alarming!

The anti's keep repeating how requiring a photo ID to vote will benefit the Republican party and harm the Democrats. Even to this statement, "What voter photo ID will do is make it more inconvenient for seniors and nearly impossible for the poor, students and homeless to vote." Really, nearly impossible to vote? Where is the proof?
Are you invested in the stereotype that those who favor the Democrats are more likely to live on the margins where they can't get access to a photo ID? You're painting with a pretty broad brush.

"The left" has gone off the rails opposing this, to the point where I sometimes have doubts about their motives.

The idea that there is "no evidence of fraud" is absurd.

There is plenty of evidence that votes have been cast by those who are not who they say they are. The fact that they have not been PROSECUTED is an indictment of our system, and of the sometimes partisan county attorneys.

http://www.protectmyvote.com/?page_id=255
http://www.protectmyvote.com/?page_id=875

The case of students voting is an interesting one. There was a challenge issued by one of the opponents of Voter ID to find ONE case of voter impersonation. Dan McGrath did so, and it was a case of a student who had voted on campus and her mother had also filed an absentee ballot in her name at her home address. If you think about it, how hard would it be for a student living in a dorm to vote twice?

When you go to the polls this fall, take note of how EASY it would be to vote as your deceased neighbor. The election judges ask for NO ID at all. If they don't know you, they have no idea who you are. They take no pictures, so it would be almost impossible to "catch" your crime. Your fraudulent vote would count.

There is ample evidence that fraud is being committed. Think about this on election day, and ask yourself whether you want it to be so easy to steal elections.

Then, vote yes.

I won't stoop to name calling, but I will challenge the holes in your logic. Opposition to the amendment does not equate supporting fraud or unethical voting. It might surprise you, but we actually have election laws that prevent voting fraud. I support those laws. I do not believe those laws should be changed. However, I do have a problem with putting legislative remedies in the state constitution.

What I find most remarkable is the demands to eliminate voting fraud, yet no one stops to think through what they are saying. Committing voting fraud is a felony. Do you think people are really lining up on election day to cast a single vote at the risk of being prosecuted for a felony offense? Why would anyone do that? Because they are trying so hard to undermine democracy? Or because they so passionately support a candidate that they are willing to commit a crime, but not willing to bother to legally register to vote? What, exactly, is the incentive that would justify the risk? There isn't one. This amendment makes no sense.

I'd agree with you, David, that this would have been much more palatable as legislation. Unfortunately Dayton is living in his own world where anything a republican comes up with is evil and must be rejected. Political games being what they are, the Republicans had to do something to get around his obstructionism and here we are.

David mischaracterizes my point.

Yes, we have laws against voter fraud, but we also have laws against adultery. When was the last adulterer jailed? It's not because there is no one "cheating".

The point is that you have to CATCH the fraudulent voter, and without ID, and with local prosecutors not interested, it does not happen.

Look at the statistics in the links I provide. The paltry verification provided in law today reveals thousands of same day registrants who live at impossible addresses. Isn't this enough to suggest that there might be a problem? A felony is only scary if there is actual risk of getting caught.

Truth be told, I also do not approve of putting this in the constitution, but the issue of election integrity is absolutely vital, and the arguments on the left that there must be ABSOLUTELY NO burden on voters, even to prove who they are, are completely unacceptable.

On balance, I come down firmly on the YES side.

David, this piece was posted Aug. 8.

As far as I can tell there's a core belief held by the power players in the Democratic party that the general population is too stupid to figure out things like how to vote. It runs in the background throughout most of their positions, that we all need the smart people in the government to take care of us. They may well be right as evidenced by the elections of Dayton and Franken. The funny part is that they're still throwing the elitist label at the Republicans..

I have great respect for principled objections to VoterID.

I also am hesitant to take (more) steps toward the "papers, please" state.

The problem is that voter fraud today is way too easy. How do we tighten it up without "asking for papers"? The "old way" was local registration, and local judges who knew their neighbors. No ID required. That's no longer our world, and we can't get it back.

A fair voting system requires SOME SORT of verification that you are who you say you are, and can't vote more than once, or for someone else. Today's system in this area is a joke.

What do you suggest?

I'm not sure if this is serious, but it has a serious conflict with the desire to have a secret ballot. No ID is permitted to exist on the ballots, once cast. Individual fingerprints would allow us to trace your vote back to you. No more secret ballot.

Of course we wouldn't want a fingerprint on a ballot - but this does bring up a point, a fingerprint at the time of getting a ballot wouldn't tie the person to a ballot at all.

Given how scary the prospect of voter fraud has been made out by some people, why are going to use to a "photo ID" which can obviously be faked and how much training will the poll workers have on identifying fake ID's?

I say if we REALLY care about making sure someone voting is who they say they are, how about if we institute a Retinal Scan or Fingerprint ID check to identify the person.

Of course that means everyone would have their Fingerprint or Retinal Scan on the records with the government but given how grave voter fraud clearly is surely this is a small price to pay to ensure the sanctity of the ballot box.

That's probably the biggest flaw with the amendment Rob, that it ties a photo ID to voting instead of allowing for technological advances. This sure would have been better as legislation.

Vote YES on November 6!

Vote No. It is wrong to use the Constittution to abridge my right to vote.

We need voter ID. Just one fraudulent vote is too many for me.