1) Valid vs. "government-issued' ID: The "valid" ID descriptor is misleading because it fails to inform voters that the proposed constitutional amendment would limit "valid" ID to "government-issued" ID, making Minnesota only the fourth state to limit acceptable polling place photo ID to "government-issued" photo ID. This could potentially eliminate student IDs, employee IDs, and tribal IDs.
2.) All voters: This would incorporate absentee ballots, forcing those who vote via mail, including many in rural areas, to be in jeopardy of casting their vote.
3.) Creation of provisional ballots:
4.) The cost: Nowhere are voters informed of the cost of the implementation of the new system. State officials estimated the overall first-year costs to be $32.9 million statewide, the bulk of that, $29 million, going toward new poll books that would be available at polling places, according to a Humphrey Institute study. About 85 percent of the cost would be paid by local governments. The report suggests there may be hidden costs, too. It notes that
The most noteworthy opposition to this voting rights limitation amendment came from former Republican Governor Arne Carlson and former Democratic Vice President Walter Mondale. The two elder statesmen from opposing political parties came together for a joint new conference to articulate their concerns over its potential effect on
"The overall goal of this amendment is largely to eliminate election-day registration, directly affecting more than 500,000
They also called out the obvious partisan nature of the bill and identified another major rub on this amendment. Legislators are elected to legislate -- to do the work of bi-partisan bridge building to create laws. In their editorial, Carlson and Mondale said:
"We in
There is a reason why -- our insistence that election laws be designed in a bipartisan fashion. That is key. No party should have an election advantage.
Unfortunately, the voter ID constitutional amendment was passed by the Legislature on a strict party-line vote. Not one Democrat in either the House or the Senate voted for it. Not one.
Further, this proposed amendment does not have its origins in
Our preference is for a return to a legislative process that studies a problem first and then creates a sensible and affordable bipartisan solution. This amendment falls short on all counts."
Anyone who supports these current ALEC-funded voter suppression bills has forgotten our strong history of expanding the vote for everyone. We dishonor the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s and the Suffragette Movement of nearly 100 years ago by even considering bills or state constitutional amendments to limit eligible voters from casting their ballots. There should be something deep within everyone's patriotic soul that is repulsed at partisan activities that seek to keep eligible voters from the polls.
In
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
