Some of them take unique stands away from the standard talking points. Take Eric Piepmeier's libertarian position in If voters are required to show an ID, where will government control stop?:
While the attempt to stop voter fraud is a worthwhile cause, the voter ID amendment as it stands is problematic. It states, “All voters voting in person must present valid government-issued photographic identification.”
The problem is that the government would be in control of the IDs and therefore indirectly of who votes. It’s funny how many of the same people I know who were adamantly opposed to the National ID proposed by the Department of Homeland Security are for this amendment, which in effect accomplishes the same goal of requiring every citizen to have a government-controlled ID. Do we really trust that this ID will not be abused or expand into something greater?
We only have to look at the history of our Social Security number to see that our government said, when it first came out, that it absolutely would only be used for Social Security. Now it has expanded into a number I need for health care, banking, to get a job, to pay taxes and more. Who will stop this government-issued voter ID from expanding into more?
I believe the only answer is that we can, by voting “no”and stopping it before it starts. There must be better ways to stop voter fraud without more government expansion. Let’s put our minds together and come up with a better solution.
More familiar arguments are advance d by Lois Thelen in her Oct 1 St. Cloud Times community column Turnout is key, not voter ID:
. . . Minnesota has been a leader in voter turnout. The state averages more than 70 percent turnout.
Where's the fraud?
Yet even at those numbers, nobody has been able to find more than a slight possibility of voter fraud. So why would we amend our Constitution and spend a great deal of money to overhaul this system to deal with a problem that isn't even a problem?
That seems more like a tactic to avoid having to deal with real problems such as taxes, schools, jobs or the economy. . . .. . . The League of Women Voters is concerned about the cost of changing to a new system and how it will be local governments that will foot the bill. Property taxes may increase or current services may have to be cut to fund the Voter ID changes required.
. . .Those in favor of the amendment insist it should be passed because such activities as cashing a check or boarding an airplane require it. These are not constitutionally guaranteed rights. Voting is.
If you still are worried that someone you don't want in office may get there because of illegal voters, do what the voters of this country should have done in the first place: Get out and vote. All of you. Enough of the excuses that you're too busy or too tired or you can't find your polling place.
A great suggestion. Read the whole thing at the Times. Also in the St. Cloud Times, John Carlsted worries that Photo ID would hurt young voters:
. . .It’s not clear what hoops are required for them [young voters] to jump through with the proposed amendment. They could always skip class or work to go home to vote, or forget about it.
What message is that giving to our future voters? The temporary address is the problem, but it should not be. . . .
. . .These young, many first-time voters, who should be encouraged to vote, simply brought proof of residency like a utilities bill or had someone come along who can vouch for them.
My wife has been an election judge at a polling place near St. Cloud State. The students come well prepared and eager to vote. ... Well-trained election judges decide if they can vote, not some far-off elections official verifying provisional ballots under an unknown system.
... Voting is a right that should be encouraged and protected, not suppressed.
And in the Marshall Independent, Doug Parsons writes in Vote ‘no’ on voter ID amendment:
When the voter ID amendment was passed by our Legislature it sounded like a good idea. However, when all the facts are looked into, it would be a bad law.
If voted in, there is little or no procedure how to implement it and what the costs would be. I have served as an election judge in our township and our current laws would prohibit any type of fraud. Estimates presented by our township association have estimated the costs from $1,000 to $3,000 per township and $10,000 to $30,000 per county.
Also, some townships vote by mail, and how would absentee ballots and overseas voting be handled? Provisional ballots would be provided for those waiting for proper ID - how much would this delay vote counts?
Minnesota has a good record of voter turnout, and the previous recounts showed a very small fraction of votes were challenged, and they were a result of improper marking of ballots, not actual fraud. . . .
Read the rest at the Independent. Finally, in the Duluth New Tribune, Doug Updegraff ties a "Vote No on Both" message together in Don’t defend your happiness by denying it to others:
It truly is sad that so many among us feel that the best way to defend the happiness of our own marriages and voting rights is to deny them to others.
I remind everyone that these are laws that are involved, not personal preferences, private feelings or religious convictions.
Is there really evidence to demonstrate that these issues, whether same-sex marriage or direct access to the ballot-box, are so damaging to us all and so threatening to personal freedoms and happiness that we need to be adding more laws, more rules, more restrictions and more power for the state to rule over our conduct? Really? The solution is more restrictions and bigger government?
It eludes and saddens me.
To learn about opportunities talk to your neighbors and friends about why they should vote no on voter restriction, visit Our Vote, Our Future. To learn more about the consequences of the amendment for Greater Minnesota, check out Greater MN Counts. Like the Facebook page Minnesotans Vote No Twice.