You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
Putting photo Id in our Constitution may sooth the paranoid in our state, and make them feel good for a year or so as they bask in the safety of their voter polls. But give it ten or twenty years, when the concept of "photo" has become an anachronism, an "old school" identity tool, used only by those living in the dark ages, and our Constitution will read like a sad, old fashioned joke.
Remember when Polaroid was the cutting edge and Kodak was king? Do you suppose that technology will be trumping photo ID with better, cheaper, and more accurate identification tools that Minnesota will have no means of achieveing because our Constituion needs to be repaired?
Why I can even remember the days when a driver's license lacked a photo. Can you? Do you really want to clutter up our Constituion with anachronistic nonesense so that a few right wingers can feel the love of success? I don't.
There's virtually no in-person voter fraud. If there was, it would have come out in the Franken/Coleman and Dayton/Emmer recounts. The goal of this amendment is to suppress voting among the elderly and the very young, since both groups are less likely to have driver's licenses and both groups tend to vote Democratic. We should not be tinkering with a sacred document like the constitution for political advantage.
The more people learn, the less they like this one. Study up Minnesotans. Mistakes on Constitutional amendments are hard to correct.
Only Mississippi has placed voter ID requirements in its state constitution. All other states with voter ID provisions have enacted them via statute. It's relatively easy for state legislatures to amend statutes to fix problems with the law. Not so when we place the requirement in the constitution. We shouldn't bind the hands of our future state legislators by placing voter ID in the Minnesota Constitution, and we shouldn't strive to be like Mississippi.
Well, it will simplify the process of figuring out how many voters the state has to scrub off the rolls to change the course of an election. Expect to see fewer and fewer required recounts as we become a one party state.
Wardnjune: Dayton should have thought about that before vetoing the bill that would have done exactly that.
Non support is likely to be more than dramatic in the next month.
Voting should be made easier, not harder. Voter fraud is as rare as winning the lottery. This is just a tactic by Republicans to prevent people who would likely vote Democrat from voting.
If only there was a valid reason to require ID: such as it is impossible to counterfeit Drivers Licenses (you can buy them from China); historical evidence of voter fraud (we don't have any evidence of any voter fraud that has not been prosecuted) or that it will not add to our budget problems (implementation (while not costing direct voter money, will cost many voters on limited incomes significant money in transportation, and the state government millions in investigation and issuance costs) Of course there are no federal laws promoting voter ID and the constitution does not allow states to implement law that trumps federal law. Aside from these minor issues, and the fact that the present system works astoundingly well, i guess voter ID is a good idea --- not
It does not have to be an amendment. It could be a statute. Just ask the Governor to walk across the isle. The right should offer a grandfather clause for people older than a certain age and is collecting social security. For people considered young; to bad.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks