You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
One hears how it will disenfranchise the disabled. I'm here to say it won't.
Yes, and assuming EVERY other disabled person has exactly the same access to help that you do, it wouldn't be a problem. But that is not the case. The Voter ID fraud will disenfranchise thousands of Minnesota Voters and keep ZERO cases of fraud from happening. It is reprehensible.
I have been saying that for a while now, if the ones who oppose this would put half that energy into helping make sure all have ID then it would be a win /win for all
"Will the photo ID amendment to the Minnesota Constitution suppress votes? Yes. It will suppress the votes of ineligible voters"
Leading with a false statement belays the rest of your article. There is no ID in existence that proves who you say you are, live where you say you live, are a US citizen, and -- the most common cause of incredibly rare instances of invalid votes -- proves you are not a convicted felon who has had their voting rights removed. Voter ID will not suppress the votes of ineligible voters, and you're being asked to vote for a blank sheet of paper.
Liberals have no problems organizing their "Get out the Vote Campaigns" year in and year out. Next year they can organize "Get your ID Campaigns".
Most, if not all states that have implemented voter ID, have seen an increase in voter participation. Imagine that.
From the article: "Will the photo ID amendment to the Minnesota Constitution suppress votes? Yes. It will suppress the votes of ineligible voters." The premise is false. Photo ID is an expensive, vote-suppressing notion in search of a problem. (According to a Carnegie-Knight investigation, the rate of voter impersonation fraud is 1 incident per 15 million prospective voters. That's across the entire United States since 2000.) In addition, photo ID laws and amendments are only part of a vote-suppression movement which also includes purging voter rolls, limiting early voter times, limiting the number of early voter days, and providing inadequate numbers of voting stations on a precinct-by-precinct basis.
Re: "Most, if not all states that have implemented voter ID, have seen an increase in voter participation." Increased voter participation doesn't count for anything unless the votes are counted, ranger78. "In Indiana, a state with a photo ID requirement, 80 percent of the ID-related provisional ballots were not counted in the 2008 general election." (Accompanying STrib article)
"It is reprehensible"....NOT. Just get an ID like this person who wrote this did and its all good.
ranger78: "Most, if not all states that have implemented voter ID, have seen an increase in voter participation. Imagine that."
Incorrect. While studies vary, voter participation tends to decrease by about 2% with stricter voter ID laws. PA, -2.4%. KS, -2.4%. ID, -1.6%. TN, -1.6%. OK, -.8%.....
I am frankly aghast at how liberals, ostensibly championing the poor, the disabled, minorities and students, portray them as supposedly so gosh-darned helpless. Masked as caring for the supposed "disenfranchised," it is actually condescending and demeaning.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks