.

Discuss: Will You Vote in Favor of Voter ID?

The Minnesota Legislature approved putting a photo ID question on the ballot in November.

Should you have to provide government-issued or -approved photo identification to vote? 

Should that requirement be written in the state Constitution?

Will presenting photo identification prevent voter fraud?

, but the Legislature approved last week putting the question to voters.

Gov. Mark Dayton symbolically vetoed the bill on April 10, but constitutional amendments do not require the signature of the governor to proceed. 

So now it's your turn. How will you vote on the statewide referendum? What issues sway your decision? 

 

See Also:

MikeL April 07, 2012 at 02:07 PM
I will vote NO. It's unnecessary and will create problems for many, including first time voters; the elderly; newly relocated citizens; and voting officials. It also adds new expenses for tax payers.
Bernice Bordenave April 07, 2012 at 05:09 PM
Deffinately needed. Most people have a drivers license even an expired one for those who no longer drive. Can't one just go to a drivers license place and get one? Maybe for free. Newly relocated must have one from their previous residence.This should just be considered your civic duty. We have too much fraud. Let's get it right. Bernie B
Bernard P. Friel April 07, 2012 at 05:28 PM
To Bernie B. Where's the Fraud? In both of the recent election contests the loosers both acknowleged that there was no evidence of FRAUD ! Where's the Fraud ?
Danielle Cabot (Editor) April 07, 2012 at 06:45 PM
I hear from Bernice that getting an ID should be a civic duty, like you should be willing to jump through a few hoops to vote. What do people think? Is that a reasonable request?
The Wifely Person April 07, 2012 at 07:20 PM
Voter ID the way the amendment is written in uncontitutional. Even if it passes, the courts will strike it down. That said, my answer remains no on that question.
Bernard P. Friel April 07, 2012 at 09:09 PM
I too will vote NO ! No one seems to remember that one of the chief legislator authors of the ID amendment, Mary Kiffmeyer, when she served as Secretary of State attempted to impose voting requirements on American Indians that would have disenfranchised the voting rights of many members of that population. She was stopped in that attempt to disenfranchise voters by an order of Federal Judge Rosenbaum in ACLU v. Kiffmeyer in 2005. The next year she attempted to disenfranchise U of M students from voting on residency grounds only to be rebuffed by the Hennepin County District Court. There is no evidence of voter fraud in Minnesota, and in fact in both the recent Senate and Gubernatorial election contests, counsel for the loosing candidates acknowledged publicly that they found no evidence of fraud. What can be concluded from the history of attempted voter suppression by one of the principal authors of the ID amendment, and from the lack of any evidence of voter fraud, is that voter disenfranchisement is the real object of this ill advised amendment. The only real evidence of voting improperly in Minnesota involved an insignificant number of felons, who having served their time and released from prison incorrectly believed they had the right to vote once again, and the voter ID amendment does not even address this matter.
Susan McCloskey April 08, 2012 at 02:54 AM
I will vote NO. 1.Constitutional amendments should restrict government not citizens. 2. Without any evidence of fraud , such amendments and legislation has cropped up in many states all at once. It has all the earmarks of attempts of voter suppression.
Becky Anderson April 09, 2012 at 03:21 AM
I will vote NO as well, for the many reasons the others have stated.
Marilyn Lundberg April 09, 2012 at 01:38 PM
I will vote no. My husband was housebound for 9 months before he died. His mind stayed good. There is no way he, or others like him, could obtain a picture ID to vote. THis should not be in the constitution.
Judy Rhein April 09, 2012 at 03:04 PM
I, too, will vote NO on the ID amendment. To my knowledge there has been no proven fraud found in voting. Get to work on the issues that matter...housing, education, jobs, transportation, etc.
MikeL April 10, 2012 at 12:44 PM
If you are newly relocated, an ID from your previous address would prevent your from voting in your new precinct. I doubt that an expired ID would not be valid. Imposing a civic duty to carry an ID infringes on your constitutional right to vote.
MikeL April 10, 2012 at 12:45 PM
Sorry - That should read: "I doubt that an expired ID would be valid."
Danielle Cabot (Editor) April 10, 2012 at 07:02 PM
Gov. Mark Dayton symbolically vetoed the bill today, which doesn't actually change anything, but I'm wondering if that will make the photo ID amendment even more of a partisan issue than it already was. Thoughts? Does this run right down the DFL/GOP divide?

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something