commentaries

Maybe he can explain how he knows that no one will be disenfranchised when all of those issues will not even be decided until AFTER we are being asked to approve a change to the Constitution? We are supposed to approve this in a fashion that used to be described as "buying a pig in a poke". How will absentees provide ID? How will students vote when their IDs will have their home addresses rather than their college residence? How about older people without drivers licenses? We don't know and neither does Lewis. But he doesn't really care because those people don't tend to vote the way he wants them to, so if they can't vote that's a win for him. But why would people that DO care if eligible voters are allowed to vote approve this without knowing how many of their neighbors will be turned away from the polls?

From the article: Like those in 32 other states, the Minnesota proposal offers a free, state-issued ID to anyone who desires it as well as provisional balloting until valid identification can be located ... Of course, what's not being spelled out here is what sort of burden of proof is required of the citizen-lacking-photo-ID to demonstrate they are in fact a citizen so they qualify for said "free" photo ID. Mr Lewis would have us believe it's a breeze to go pick up your free ID, all the while neglecting to mention the small print on this offer. Should republicans have their way as they have in other states, where newly-legislated and disturbingly burdensome rules on voter registration, election day registration, proof of residency and Voter ID have clearly had a suppressive effect on voters, qualifying for a free photo ID won't be any simple matter. Happily, many of these new state voting laws are being knocked down by the courts and the DOJ. So why should we bother heaping such travail on the citizens of Minnesota? We're better than that. More importantly, Lewis smugly dismisses the disparate impact of the Photo ID law, claiming all laws have some disparate effect on some group or another, however, we should note that the legislative products that come steaming out of the neo-con cauldron continually offer the same adverse impact the same groups: the poor, the young, the elderly, racial and ethnic minorities which - and ain't it a coincidence(!) - are the very same folks social/political analysts claim would be adversely affected by Voter ID. But golly, Jason, I gotta ask: you think there might be a running theme here?

So much for the Republican blather about government's intrusion in our lives. There isn't a more critical mandate in the Constitution than the right of a person to cast his/her vote. The idea that people be compelled to buy health insurance is nowhere close to its importance to a democracy than enfranchisement is, and what incredible difference there is in the current numbers from its advocates than there were from a four-year study under the Bush W. Justice Dept., finding a total of 33 cases nation-wide and able to only successfully prosecute 13 of them. So much also for the empty talk from Republicans about wasting taxpayer monies when both this farce and the one about gay marriages are blatant examples of utter misuses.

It's one thing for a legislative body to pass a law about something. It's entirely another and far more serious, far reaching and permanent thing to pass a CONSITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. And for that reason I am unalterably opposed to this Voter ID amendment and will vote NO in November.

johneramone4 Jun. 23, 12 7:47 PM - Here's a new posting site on which you can post your evidence of voter fraud. So far we've never seen any examples even though we’ve asked and asked for proof. The Minnesota Majority put out a “report” on their “investigation” of fraud, but it’s worthless. The ACLU even put up a bounty for every case of voter fraud in Minnesota that would be caught by the new photo I.D. amendment. Be a hero and the first to show us all the fraud occurring in Minnesota.

I believe the issue in the lawsuit addresses the misrepresentation of this ammendment as a "photo id" ammendment and the failure to diclose to the voters extensive changes to the voting process. This is support by additional legal actions in the courts by ammendment supporters that seek the additional changes outside the ammendment process.

chuckdancer, I agree with you. The amendment does not define "valid government issued I.D." or the words "substantially equivalent" and without the definitions I feel that the Minnesota Supreme Court will have no choice but to remove it from the ballot until such time, if ever, those corrections are made. However, never predict the outcome of a court action.

Of all the right's disguisting tactics to end-run the will of the majority, this voter ID scam is the most evil. They know perfectly well there is no fraud happening that their law will prevent, and that the only people who will be kept from voting are the youngest, weakest and poorest voters -- people who would not vote for the Republic party. There are a lot of people for whom getting an ID would be VERY difficult. And there will be no such thing as a "free" ID, since they will ask for evidence before issuing it that will cost money to obtain. The ONLY reason for this amendment is for the Republic party to steal elections, and it is reprehensible.

It's the unlucky outcasts in society that are least likely to have a photo ID or health insurance. The conservatives want them to go out of their way to get a photo ID every 2 or 4 years, but the conservatives also want to do as much as possible to prevent them from gaining access to healthcare.

"How will absentees provide ID? How will students vote when their IDs will have their home addresses rather than their college residence? How about older people without drivers licenses?" ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Same old tired liberal assertions with no validity or relevance. ............. Plenty of desperation though.