Gunther tells Blue Earth audience "every possible [photo ID] scenario has been studied"

The Faribault County Register reports that Representative Bob Gunther told Blue Earth residents gathered at a Town Hall that "very possible scenario has been studied" about solving the logistical problems posed by an amendment to the Minnesota state constitution requiring voters to have a state-issued photo ID with their current address on it.

The claim contradicts statements made by the amendment's Senate sponsor and other supporters that the details of implementing the amendment would be worked out in the next legislative session.

In Legislators explain session at BE forum, FCR editor Chuck Hunt reports:

Several persons voiced concern over the new proposal to require photo ID cards to vote. The legislators said the decision will be made in November by the voters themselves, and would be a constitutional amendment. . . .

Local citizens had plenty of questions about how persons without driver's licenses will be able to get a photo ID card.

Gunther and Rosen say the voting cards would be available at courthouses across the state.

"Every possible scenario has been studied," Gunther says. "We will make this work."

Representative Gunther must have been burning the midnight oil in a fortress of solititude somewhat, since that assertion will be news to the rest of the Minnesota legislature, including those members who voted to put the amendment on this fall's ballot.

Let's review.

Minnpost's James Nord reported in Voter ID plan raises many practical questions:

Because constitutional amendments are broadly worded, GOP Sen. Scott Newman’s bill leaves the details of implementing Voter ID for later. He reiterated that both the fiscal impact and the policy provisions of a Voter ID bill would have to be decided by next year’s Legislature.

If voters approve the measure in November, lawmakers next session would have to figure out how such a system would work and pass a separate law. . . .

Newman pushed off discussion of cost until 2013 because of provisions in his bill that require lawmakers to later iron out the specifics of the proposal.

“We don’t really have any solid fiscal note, and it is speculation,” Senate Finance Chairwoman Claire Robling said before the amendment passed onto the Senate Rules and Administration Committee last week.

Last week Nord wrote in Could Photo ID be scuttled even if Minnesota voters approve constitutional amendment?:

The amendment, which polls show highly favored by the public, would require voters to show a photo ID in order to cast a ballot. Despite highly publicized campaigns against Voter ID, many opponents seem resigned to the likelihood that it will pass.

But even if it does, it would be up to the next Legislature to fill in the statutory blanks of how the system would work, since the wording of the bite-size amendment speaks only in generalities.

. . .[Mary] Kiffmeyer, a former secretary of state, called the amendment “very self-executing,” meaning that much of it would operate even without enacting language. So voters would still be required to present “valid government-issued photographic identification” at the polls.

But there’s no clarity on how that system would work or what the future holds.

Kiffmeyer is the chief author of the bill in the House.

What was Gunther trying to say when he answered legitimate questions from his constituents? And is he trying for the ACLU's $1000 reward for evidence of voter impersonation when he talks about voter fraud in Fairmont in the 2010 election?

Photo: Bob Gunther, via Capitol Chatter by Don Davis.

 

Comments

[Max Hailperin]

Maybe you misunderstood which Fairmont he was talking about http://www.wral.com/news/local/politics/story/8190732/

[Mike Worcester]

I will question Rep Kiffmeyer's assertion that the amendment is "self-executing". If there is no enabling legislation, how can it be enforced? I'd be very curious to hear how others see this.

[Phoenix Woman]

Mike: Just think, Kiffy and her clique are the same sorts of Republicans who scream bloody murder about "unfunded mandates".

Then again, I do wonder if, after the fact, somebody like Mr. Gunther went through all the possible scenarios that such an amendment, if it succeeded at the ballot box, would engender -- particularly the legal scenarios -- and decided "Hey, this could be more trouble than it's worth; we might want to, erm, accidentally forget to set up a mechanism for enforcing this thing..."