Minn. Supreme Court drawn into newest chapter of 'voting wars’

  • Article by: RACHEL E. STASSEN-BERGER , Star Tribune
  • Updated: June 7, 2012 - 9:18 AM

State justices to weigh fate of a proposed ID amendment.

  • 113
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
czelgertJun. 6, 1210:14 PM

The US Supreme Court has already decided that voter ID laws like the one for the ballot are constituional. Look it up! The case is Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008)with JP Stevens writing for the majority (6-3).

24
41
groundpoundJun. 6, 1210:30 PM

The U.S. Supreme Court may have decided on some aspects of the general issue of voter ID laws in Crawford, but that is not the specific question here. Minnesota's Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea and the other strict-constructionists on the Minnesota Supreme Court will consider the plain language of the law that authorizes them to make the decision, the plain language of prior Minnesota cases, and the plain language of the proposed amendment. They will issue a clear and consistent decision. That is what Minnesota has come to expect from the Gildea Court.

42
9
viktorvaughnJun. 6, 1211:21 PM

It seems reasonable on the face of it to require photo id to vote, but remember it also has to be an id with your current address. I moved at the end of October (just days before Nov. elections) in both 2008 & 2010. My wife and I were able to legally vote in both elections as we used various documents to prove we lived at our new address. We were also thoroughly interrogated by an election judge.

Under the new law we wouldn't have been allowed to vote in those elections because we didn't yet have a photo ID with our new address. That's not right.

57
12
potter101Jun. 7, 1212:01 AM

czelgertJun. 6, 1210:14 PM The US Supreme Court has already decided that voter ID laws like the one for the ballot are constituional. Look it up! The case is Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008)with JP Stevens writing for the majority (6-3).*****************************Thats not how things work , it can be argued outside the perameters of your case and remember there 50 other constitutions in this country. It's quite simple, It is as close to a poll tax as you can get , I don't see it being constitutional in any way. especially for the fact that it's only a solution without a problem. If thats taken into account you won't get your regressive bill passed. Which is great.

43
15
potter101Jun. 7, 1212:03 AM

First this isn't done to stop cheating the regressives are doing it to stop Democrats. I think most people realize that.

52
21
potter101Jun. 7, 1212:08 AM

What i find funny is fox news and tea people convinced the other regressives that this bill is to stop cheating , what a joke.

41
24
hoser212Jun. 7, 12 1:06 AM

If the majority of the citizens of the state of Minnesota are for this, they feel (right or wrong) that it is important enough to justify a change to confirm that verification is needed. Whether or not the state Attorney General believes that fraud occurs is irrelevant, as without voter identification, most fraud will never be found. Victorvaugn could have legally voted at his id listed address. When I was in college, I could vote at either my home address as listed on my license or my college apartment address with an electric power bill and a neighbor to vouch for me. The only thing stopping me from voting in both locations was my ethics. Do you trust all of your Democrat and Republican neighbors to do the correct thing? I think sometimes it is easier to make laws than to trust everyone, especially when people show via multiple actions that they cannot all be trusted to follow the laws.

16
44
username2011Jun. 7, 12 4:10 AM

If you're against voter ID, you're pro-fraud. Acorn. Moveon dot org. Two fine examples. College students don't have ID's in MN? Get one! They're under $25 for a non-license ID. Quit making excuses to cover up your fraud!

23
53
takenoticeJun. 7, 12 5:04 AM

hoser212: The only thing stopping me from voting in both locations was my ethics. Do you trust all of your Democrat and Republican neighbors to do the correct thing?" Maybe it is ethics that keep many people from voting more than once. Maybe it's the thought of five years in jail and a $10,000 fine just to vote twice for someone who may not even win. It doesn't matter. from exercising their Constitutional right to vote. Anyone who thinks that stopping a handful of voter fraud cases nationwide is worth keeping 5 million legal voters from exercising their Constitutional right to vote is simply trying to suppress the vote to steal elections at the expense of our democracy?

39
10
ThegonagleJun. 7, 12 5:27 AM

"If you're against voter ID, you're pro-fraud. Acorn. Moveon dot org."--username2011, I'm anti-supression, and anti-voting-on-something-largely-undefined. BTW, Acorn doesn't exist anymore, so why don't you Moveon?

41
20

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