Photo ID shouldn't be required to vote

  • Article by: LAURA FREDRICK WANG
  • Updated: October 12, 2012 - 3:10 PM

Sure, there are benefits, but the current voting ease is important

  • 70
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
elmore1Oct. 11, 12 9:14 PM

Laura, I disagree. It is time to moderize the voting process and align with our ID centric society. Let's move forward.

31
35
davehougOct. 11, 12 9:58 PM

It is a terrible no-good rotten nasty system.......once I find out what the legislature and Govenor agree to :)

9
11
abortion1stOct. 11, 1210:21 PM

I have been voting since I was 20 years old No elections held between 18-20. I have never been allowed to vote without an Id even back in the 1980 election. I see no reason why people could not either show their birth certificate or a photo Id. What I do have an issue with is illegals/undocumenteds voting in our elections. If they are not full citizens either because they came here and earned their citizenship or were born here they should not be voting in our elections. Go home to vote in the country you are a citizen of. In this day and age I do not believe we can have an honest unbiased election unless people prove themselves to be citizens at the polls. I do not want a mexican or canadian for that matter coming accross the border to vote to put the person they think will be more lenient to illegals/undocumenteds into the white house. Get your id I do not care what state it is from show your id and your current residence address and vote. But show the id.

27
37
hobie2Oct. 11, 1211:55 PM

I think the point of the opposition to the amendment is missed by some... Few have a problem with the idea that every person who votes should be identified, and checked as to residence. Few have any problem with the idea that a photo ID is a valid way to identify a voter, and should be used along with other means to verify eligibility for voting. What I disagree with - other than a slim majority using the constitution to bypass the legislative process to put in laws being a very bad idea and a very bad precedent - is that the amendment requires a GOVERNMENT ISSUED ID, and that it lacks any room to use other equally valid means of identification, and that it may be interpreted to mean that only a government ID is needed to verify eligibility - and, using the proponents numbers - that it can cost $100 million to get the free IDs for the 500,000 that don't have government issued, just to stop the alleged 200 fraudulent voters, while potentially disenfranchising several tens of thousands of present voters. I disagree with punishing the innocent to stop crime.

32
26
firefight41Oct. 12, 12 6:59 AM

Photo ID shouldn't be required to vote. ***** I will make a deal with you, You do not need an ID to vote, and I do not need an ID to purchase a handgun.

38
31
kleindropperOct. 12, 12 7:09 AM

Calling Project Veritas! It looks like Laura may need to have her ballot filled out for her.

14
19
clintonliesOct. 12, 12 7:19 AM

Franken stole his election and you say an ID shouldn't be required. The League is just another patsy for the DFL in this state. I wonder if Laura complains when she goes to a doctors office and they ask for a drivers license.

29
28
theagonygopOct. 12, 12 7:26 AM

abortion1st: "In this day and age I do not believe we can have an honest unbiased election unless people prove themselves to be citizens at the polls." Where on your drivers license or any other form of ID, other than a passport, does it say you are a citizen? Millions do not have passports as they have never needed one. So we will ALL need a new ID before we vote in 2014, if this amendment passes. If you don't think that will keep many legal voters from voting you are sadly misinformed.

27
11
theagonygopOct. 12, 12 7:33 AM

firefight41: "I will make a deal with you, You do not need an ID to vote, and I do not need an ID to purchase a handgun." Buy your gun from a private party, friend or family member. No ID required. An ID is not a requirement to OWN a firearm. It should not be a requirement to vote.

24
18
barbjensOct. 12, 12 7:33 AM

The people that are FOR this amendment have been "frightened" into thinking there is fraud. There IS NO FRAUD and the proposal would not stop ANY fraud anyway. It will just make everything more difficult when this should be a "right" without handcuffs. Maybe the GOP would prefer "purple fingers".

26
27

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • 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.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

question of the day

Poll: What was your biggest Olympics disappointment?

Weekly Question