The more Minnesotans learn about the voter restriction amendment, the more they believe the the measure is a poorly written, time-wasting money-sucking measure.
This morning, in Pat Kubly, former Montgomery mayor McGuire & Forum papers speak out against amendments, Bluestem looked at letters and editorials that had come out against both amendments on the ballot.
A friend's Facebook post called our attention to Vote no on the voter ID measure, an editorial in the Albert Lea Tribune. The editors write:
. . . The voter ID amendment is not the answer to better elections. It merely is a means to limit who gets to vote in elections and creates red-tape headaches for anyone who moves or lacks ID. Many retirees or people living in public housing lack photo IDs. It may seem impossible to get by in modern life without one, but many more people than you know do not have one. The Star Tribune placed the number of Minnesota registered voters without a driver’s license or other ID at 215,000.
Voter fraud is rare, and when it does happen, it typically involves felons on probation who are not allowed to vote. A photo ID would not address the problem because driver’s licenses do not say who is a felon.
The vote on Nov. 6 could be considered a true test for fiscal conservatives. The voter ID amendment was placed on the ballot by state-level Republicans; however, the measure, if passed, would prove to be a costly expense to fix a minor problem. Anyone who cares about their tax dollars being spent wisely has to shake their head. The measure might as well ask, “Do you want your local taxes to go up?”
As a result, some right-leaning voters might have to decide that day whether they are Republican or whether they are conservative. . . .
Ouch. Read the entire editorial at the Tribune.
Photo: Author of the House version of the voting restriction amendment, Mary Kiffmeyer fights a War on Voters.
Related posts: Pat Kubly, former Montgomery mayor McGuire & Forum papers speak out against amendments
Send it back: from Spring Grove to Duluth, papers say no to voter restriction amendment Send it back op-ed & letters opposing voter restriction flood Greater MN newspapers Cows, colleges and content: a look at how the voter restriction amendment will crimp studentsDan McGrath fears ninjas, hopes for HAL
Voter restriction amendment faces increased scrutiny--and it's not at all pretty
Send it back: voter restriction's rural opponents continue fight across state with more questions
More rural opinion pages heap scorn on vague, time-wasting voter restriction amendmentGreater MN letter writers keep up the heat on voter restriction amendment in local papers
MN Majority Dan McGrath inaccurately implied ID petition for variance free, misled on vouching
Minnesota Majority's Dan McGrath mansplains voter restriction to local election judge
Sen. Newman is so not happy when rural people talk about his voter restriction amendment
MN Poll gives voter restriction opponents new energy; more Greater MN coverage, commentary
Can Greater Minnesota afford the unfunded mandate that is the photo ID amendment?Faribault Daily News: photo ID amendment voting system overhaul could cost Rice Co. $120,000+
Ernie Leidiger sniffs out League of Women Voters photo ID presentation, puts the wacko in Waconia
Math prof tells New Ulm Journal: Mary Kiffmeyer's comments don't add up
Dogwhistle much? Mary Kiffmeyer's retroactive reasoning for introducing photo ID amendments
More greater Minnesota newspapers question costs of voter restriction amendment
Comments