On Election Day 2012, voters are charged with a very important task.
Not only will they be casting their vote for local, state and national races for government office, but also in favor or opposition of a constitutional amendment regarding the need for photo identification for future elections.
If passed, the state's Constitution would be amended to state that a valid Minnesota ID must be presented to election officials in order to vote.
Voting "yes" on the ballot measure means you do support the changing of the Constitution. Voting "no" means you do not support the change.
Patch asked readers to share why they are voting for or against the measure. The following are submitted statements from Minnetonka and Twin Cities area residents who are voting "yes":
Julie Deitering of Minnetonka:
I think everyone should have to prove who they are to vote. ID s are free from the state. One could run around the state and vote several times and no one checks as of today.
Mike McLean of Richfield:
I definitely plan on voting Yes. You could have known that up until two weeks ago when someone removed my “Vote Yes” sign ...
I'm assuming that either someone wanted the sign for their yard or maybe just disagreed with my opinion.
Not only would I like to see voter id passed, I would also like to see all voters be required to pass a test showing that they display at least a minimal knowledge on politics.
That might have prevented people like my sister who voted for Mark Dayton because "They always had nice stores."
Reed Bornholdt of Richfield:
It’s a matter of how much we value our right to vote. It is vitally important to our country’s future that each eligible citizen is afforded the opportunity to express his/her opinion at the polls. It is equally important that the eligibility of each citizen is verified prior to his/her casting a vote. Presentation of a valid photo ID is a reasonable verification requirement. There are very few transactions in our world that do not require presentation of a photo ID … obtaining a library card, boarding a plane, donating blood, purchasing alcohol, voting at a union convention, collecting food stamps … to name but a few.
Today, if a “disenfranchised” citizen does not possess a photo ID, the taxpayers of Minnesota will provide one free of charge. If this citizen chooses to not make arrangements to acquire a photo ID prior to an election, he/she has made the choice to not participate.
Opponents cite the horrific cost impact to taxpayers (some say up to $50 million) of implementing a new system. There will obviously be a cost to implement new ID scanners; the amount is debatable. But even if it is $50 million, why is there no outrage over spending $70 million over budget for the new Lowry Bridge … let alone dozens of other projects?
We need to know the identity of every voter.
I will vote in favor of the amendment.
Want to weigh in on the issue? Leave a comment below.
***
Other releated articles:
- Minnesota Marriage Amendment: This Is Why I'm Voting 'No'
- Minnesota Marriage Amendment: This Is Why I'm Voting 'Yes'
- Minnesota Voter ID Amendment: This Why I'm Voting 'No'
Follow us on Twitter | Like us on Facebook | Get our newsletter | Blog for Patch
Tommy Johnson
1:17 pm on Sunday, November 4, 2012
Here's but one reason why to Vote No on the Voter Suppression Amendment: The story of 97 year old Peggy Cobb:
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/11/03/peggys-story-the-cruel-cynicism-of-the-voter-id-crusade/?cxntfid=blogs_jay_bookman_blog
****"Peggy has voted in every presidential election since she was eligible, and most if not all others, too. She pays attention to this stuff more than a lot of people I know. She insists, often with me chafing, on hearing the other side.
She has a Fulton County voter registration card and has voted in every election when she’s been here. Her expired Indiana driver’s license used to be enough ID at the polling booth. No more."***
Reasonable people need to vote no on this completely unnecessary and unreasonable constitutional amendment.
Peggy Cobb, 97 years young, could be your mother or your grandmother or even your great grandmother.
Why in the world would you deny her the right to vote, by voting "yes" on Tuesday??!?
Jeff Mandell
10:03 pm on Sunday, November 4, 2012
I think that Julie Deitering is a little bit paranoid and misinformed. There is no real proof that there are "people running around the state voting multiple times."
The only voter fraud is this stupid amendment.
VOTE NO!!!
Doug Lind
8:06 am on Monday, November 5, 2012
The GOP attorney representing Mr Emmer in the voter recount said, "No fraud." Recently I read an article claiming there are thousands of phony IDs around the state. Phony ID production is a mini-industry; ask any bar owner. Another "concern" is that felons may have vote in a recent election. Maybe so; felons can produce a legitimate ID just like the rest of us. It wouldn't say, "FELON" on it, so how is an election judge supposed to keep a felon from voting, or how is the judge suppposed to spot phony IDs? This Amendment won't solve the "problem" and it will cost local governments a lot of needed cash. Fiscally irresponsible and it won't solve the "problem" it's designed to fix. VOTE NO
Sharpie
8:25 am on Monday, November 5, 2012
Make a special note to watch the Free and Equal Election Debate between third party Presidential candidates, Gov. Gary Johnson (Libertarian) and Dr. Jill Stein (Green), to be aired tonight on Monday evening, Nov. 5th from 9:00 - 10:30 pm Eastern Time. Perform a worthwhile civic duty, and be certain to listen in on this historic debate so that you can make an informed decision on voting day. Third party candidates who will be on the ballot in most states deserve to be heard.
http://freeandequal.org/?v=1