Editorial: Count the reasons to defeat voter ID

  • Article
  • Updated: November 2, 2012 - 8:58 PM

Judicial decision shows that concerns aren't just politics.

  • 47
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
mcjoe1Nov. 3, 1212:23 AM

I'm all for enhancing regulations for tightening our election process, but the proposed amendment to require Photo ID makes no sense. We live in the 21st century. The technology is there to provide near instant validation of someone's same day registration attempt. Passing an amendment requiring Photo ID will do nothing to solve the real voting fraud cases at hand. It'd be like a clerk selling beer to a 5 year old strictly because the photo matched - there's so much more to validate that the identity comparison Photo ID part is near pointless in the grand scheme of things. Vote NO and send it back to the legislature. They had started down an innovative path with the Electronic Poll Books, which is the only solution I've heard yet that isn't discriminatory. At the same time we really have to realize that there's a huge amount of 'trust' in the absentee ballot process that will never be as stringent as the process at official polling locations, and if there are actually voting fraudsters out there then they will just shift their activities to the absentee world. With the poor ethical standards that these SuperPACs operate under, it'd be surprising if they're not already involved in it.

43
12
comment229Nov. 3, 12 5:16 AM

I am not against voter I.D. even though I think it is a solution looking for a problem. But I would be willing to abide by a law (not an amendment) that says voter I.D.s must be used if I know what that law is, says, does, and is not open to interpretation. That is not going to be done with an amendment. Can you see the can of worms if this is passed and then we try to figure out the details? I simply don't understand why anyone would vote for anything when the specifics have not been worked out. Somebody has sold you on this idea that voter fraud is a problem in this country, and it is not.

40
10
twspt7Nov. 3, 12 5:37 AM

"As this page previously has argued, voters are being asked to say "yes" to a half-baked idea and to trust that a future Legislature would work out the details and financing later" Or put another way: "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it." Strangely, neocons were all over Pelosi for the second quote but appear to be just fine, thank you, with the first. As imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, apparently the MNGOP are just a bunch of Pelosi admirers.

34
13
milkman53Nov. 3, 12 5:39 AM

Worth repeating over and over again--"voters are being asked to say "yes" to a half-baked idea and to trust that a future Legislature would work out the details and financing later."

41
13
RossbergNov. 3, 12 6:06 AM

"Legislating via constitutional amendment -- especially on voting rules -- is not the best way to craft laws." Probably not but in this case it's the only way. The lame message from Govs. Dayton and Carlson is to send it back to the Legislature so they can "get it right". So what constitutes "getting it right"? Do they have an actual proposal or is Dayton simply pouting because he has no authority to prevent its being offered to the public? Apparently their "solution" to continue on with our current procedures since previous efforts to handle this legislatively were quickly vetoed by him. Unfortunately, when you have hyper-partisans such as Dayton and SOS Ritchie in positions of power there can be no trust or compromise since they approach every issue from a position of protecting their DFL interests. Of course, there is ample partisanship on both sides so neither party is blameless but ensuring the integrity of our voting processes should be a non-partisan effort and, since it seems like it cannot be then it must be left to the people to finally decide.

13
49
cricketedNov. 3, 12 6:26 AM

Voter ID will be obsolete the day they are enacted with advances in technology and all .Thumb print scanners are here now

37
6
andrew172Nov. 3, 12 7:21 AM

The bottom line is you reduce the chances of CHEATING when you are required to show ID. Political leaders who fear this have something to hide. There is no defensible argument when you allow the people to decide. This is nothing more than an arrogant attempt to block the will of the people. Voters will decide, not politicians. Politicians have lost the trust and confidence of the people.

17
43
barbjensNov. 3, 12 7:40 AM

andrew172 Voters will decide, not politicians. Politicians have lost the trust and confidence of the people. -- This IS a political move. They are manipulating the voting people to OK this because it will be politically advantageous for them. People just do not think it through.

32
14
lawstarNov. 3, 12 8:13 AM

All the editorials in the world will not prevail over common sense. The measure will pass handily and it should.

22
36
jbpaperNov. 3, 12 8:31 AM

"...rightly agree that voting statutes are best handled through cooperative, legislative efforts." ---- Why doesn't the strib ask the democrats, including Dayton, why they wouldn't work with the republicans when they tried to do it that way? They keep saying this is a legislative issue but then refuse to work on in the legislature.

14
29

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