More greater Minnesota newspapers are joining their voices with the editors of the McLeod County Chronicle, the Mankato Free Press, the Albert Lea Tribune, ECM Newspapers, Forum Communications and other papers in recommending to readers that they vote "NO" on the voter restriction amendment.
The New Ulm Journal editorial board writes in Voter ID amendment full of potential problems:
Minnesota voters are being asked this year to approve an amendment that would require voters to show a picture ID in order to vote. The question that will be on the ballot is simple, but the issue is anything but.
Simply stated on the ballot, the question is whether voters should present a government-issued photo ID, and whether the state should provide these IDs free to voters.
Not mentioned on the ballot is the requirement to allow voters without IDs to cast provisional ballots. The amendment doesn't specify how voters will get these IDs, what kind of documentation they will need to get them, how military personnel and absentee voters are supposed to prove their identity. It doesn't say who will pay for these "free" IDS, but we assume it will be the taxpayers. It doesn't mention how much more counties will have to pay to administer this program, provide provisional ballots and followup on these provisional ballots if the voter prove his identity.
This amendment is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. Proponents of the amendment say it will prevent voter fraud, but Minnesota doesn't have a great deal of voter fraud. Most prosecutions of voter fraud in the state involve convicted felons who have served their time but have not had their right to vote restored, and this amendment will do nothing to stop them. They can still get drivers licenses. . . .
Read the whole thing at the New Ulm Journal. Over in the Post Bulletin, a reader asks the Answer Man in Photo ID irrelevant to voter fraud cases here:
Awesome Answer Man, how big a problem is voter fraud in Olmsted County? Have there been any reported incidents of voter fraud in the county?
Excellent question. I called County Attorney Mark Ostrem and he says a "handful" of cases came up after the 2008 election. "In 2009 or 2010, we received a bunch of referrals from Minnesota Majority," the group that's a prime mover behind the voter ID constitutional amendment on the ballot this year. "I think Olmsted County had about 50-plus referrals, and only a handful — as I recall, eight — were actual chargeable cases where clearly somebody had voted who didn't have the right to."
All were people who were ineligible to vote — people with felony convictions still on the record and whose voting rights hadn't been restored, he said. "There was never a question of identity (fraud)," so the voter ID amendment "would have had no impact whatsoever on those cases. I'm not aware of any other cases where an ID would have made any difference" in preventing any violation of voting laws.
Minnesota Public Radio News took a good look at voter fraud statewide and concluded that most of the fraud cases reported also fall into the same category, felons who weren't eligible but who voted, whether they knew they were ineligible or not. . . .
Read the rest, and another Q & A about the amendment in the PB. While the West Central Tribune's parent Forum Communications has taken a stand against the amendment (and endorsed Romney, so SYM about bias, folks), today's editorial is locally written. Go read all of Vote ‘no’ on poor plan for voter ID which concludes:
If Minnesota’s election law needs fixing, the responsibility lies with the Legislature and the executive branch to figure out what needs to be fixed, build the political capital in a bipartisan manner to pass the legislation and override any governor’s veto if necessary.
Changing Minnesota’s constitution is serious business and should not be taken lightly. Utilizing a constitutional amendment process in order to achieve a political objective when the legislative process proves too difficult is not Minnesota nice.
Legislating-by-constitution for voting rules is not the way to govern. It also makes future changes in voting rules, when needed, even harder to accomplish.
We believe that Minnesota remains a fair state that wants all eligible voters to vote if they so choose. Minnesotans should vote “no” on the voter ID amendment and send this issue back to the Legislature to find a workable solution.
In short: send it back, a refrain heard increasingly across the state.
Also worth a read: Todd E. Pierce's commentary for Minnesota Public Radio, Photo ID will make it harder on military voters. While Major Pierce has impressive military credentials, his opinion is his own. He writes:
I was astounded to learn recently that two state senators have complained about Secretary of State Mark Ritchie publicly stating that troops deployed overseas would have a more difficult time successfully casting their ballot under the proposed constitutional amendment on elections.
I believe Ritchie is correct and that he would be derelict in his duties as our state's chief elections officer if he didn't advise voters of potential consequences of proposed changes in our state Constitution.The proposed new constitutional amendment would turn the clock back to those days where military voters would need to find someone to vouch for their identity by signing on their ballot as a witness or notary. . . .
Find out more by reading the commentary at MPR. Finally, former IP gubernatorial candidate Tom Horner demolishes the argument for the amendment in Both Sides of Voter ID Amendment on KSTP 5. Watch it.
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.
Photo: Will the forces of reason defeat author of the House version of the amendment in her War on Voters? Only if you vote no! And persuade your friends to do the same!
Comments