DFLers push for photo ID alternative

  • Article by: JIM RAGSDALE , Star Tribune
  • Updated: March 9, 2012 - 5:50 AM

GOP says plan is no substitute for constitutional amendment.

  • 122
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
purlieuMar. 9, 12 6:26 AM

A voter ID law is intended to keep certain people from voting. That's it's only purpose.

44
31
merkinMar. 9, 12 7:02 AM

We don't need ANY constitutional amendments.

39
21
godiveMar. 9, 12 7:11 AM

""Our proposal can be in the polling place, this November, almost for free," said Ritchie," Then will you pay any overage on cost from your own pocket M. Ritchie? When has the government done anything "almost for free"?

21
33
godiveMar. 9, 12 7:12 AM

@purlieu - rejecting voter id is intended to keep certain people voting over and over and over again. That's the only purpose for not wanting it.

30
32
godiveMar. 9, 12 7:14 AM

""You shouldn't have a change in election law that is just the province of one party," said Dayton, referring to the Republican-backed photo ID bill. "Obviously, they're likely to change it in a way that would benefit them."" You mean like your proposal to allow union elections for just some day care providers?

29
26
trjrptMar. 9, 12 7:19 AM

It is only meant to keep people who are not eligible to vote from voting. So the Governor wants to have every voting precinct to get a laptop computer. How much would that cost? I have to show my drivers license to cash a stinking check, why the resistance? Are you afraid that people won't be able to vote twice?

31
26
conbrioMar. 9, 12 7:35 AM

"When has the government done anything "almost for free"?"--------------------------------And you believe the republican plan for voter ID will be free?

33
19
august1984Mar. 9, 12 7:39 AM

The Republicans' lies have been exposed. They claim their goal was to secure elections and not to disenfranchise likely Democratic voters. The DFL proposal does that - and at less cost than the Republican proposal. So why aren't the Republicans on board with it?

37
26
conbrioMar. 9, 12 7:40 AM

"keep certain people voting over and over and over again. That's the only purpose for not wanting it."--------------------------------There you go again making false and unproven claims. The ONLY purpose you support it is that you believe it will reduce democratic votes. That's election fraud.

31
20
conbrioMar. 9, 12 7:44 AM

"It is only meant to keep people who are not eligible to vote from voting"---------------------But it doesn't do that, no one has shown that it will stop one fraudulent vote.

32
15

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT