In Take another look at Voter ID, the board writes:
Minnesota would create an extreme voting restriction for seniors, lock in outdated technology and cause higher local taxes for everyone if the Voter ID Amendment passes.
There’s been a good amount of new information on problems with the proposed Voter ID amendment and some misconceptions that need clearing up.
While supporters will say that more than a dozen others states have Voter ID laws, they fail to mention that only one other state — Mississippi — has made it a constitutional amendment. And that amendment offers flexibility absent in the Minnesota Amendment.
Voter ID laws have been turned back by courts in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Missouri and Texas.
Many Minnesota voters are seeing flaws in the amendment as polls have decidedly been moving in favor of rejection. The latest Minnesota Poll by the Star Tribune shows barely a majority of those polled — 52 percent — still support the amendment. A little more than a year ago, support was about 80 percent. The latest poll also shows 42 percent oppose the amendment.
That may be in part because a large tri-partisan coalition has recommended against voting for the amendment. A few months ago, former Republican Gov. Arne Carlson, former Democratic Vice President Walter Mondale and former Independence Party candidate for governor Tim Penny held a press conference urging rejection of the amendment.
Groups like AARP, League of Women Voters and others advise voters to reject the amendment. Their strongest argument is that if people feel there are voting fraud problems, those problems should be addressed in legislation, not a constitutional amendment. The only reason Minnesota is voting on a constitutional amendment is because the Republican Legislature did not provide a bipartisan Voter ID law to Gov. Mark Dayton.
Dayton had urged bipartisan legislation just as his predecessor, Gov. Tim Pawlenty had urged bipartisan voter verification and reform legislation. Both vetoed proposals on election reform because they were not bipartisan. . . .
. . .It’s important to remember that a vote against the Voter ID amendment is not a vote against better verification procedures. Those changes can be handled in bipartisan election legislation. That’s the way Minnesota should go in resolving voting verification improvements. We shouldn’t restrict rights of something that is essential to American Democracy.
Read the whole thing. It's a strong case for voting no.