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 "no":
Jeff Mandell of Minnetonka:
The only voter fraud out there is the fact that this is on the ballot. Voter fraud is a propped up myth designed to disenfranchise poor people, old people, black people and others who would generally vote for Obama. It is a clear attack on groups of people who do not have government issued IDs. The overwhelming number of people affected by this fraud are people who would not vote for Romney.
Voting is a right. We should be making it EASIER for people to get out there and vote - not more difficult. Anyone who hides behind the mythical voter fraud is simply Un-American.
For a group of people who also claim that Democrats, Liberals, and Progressives are making government too big, it's 100% hypocritical to support this nonsense. Making 23 million Americans produce government-issued IDs is clearly not reducing the size of government.
Judy Goebel of Richfield:
The right to vote is fundamental to our country. Citizens over the age of 18 have the right to vote:
- Even if they are homeless
- Even if they are poor
- Even if they are elderly or handicapped
- Even if they are students
- Even if they are away from home on election day, including overseas serving in the military
Any of these could be prevented under the proposed amendment. The proponents, who have not given us the actual text of the amendment to read before we vote and have told us to “trust them”. I was taught not to sign anything without reading it first. I am voting no because I don’t sign blank checks.
Annie Shandorf of Minneapolis:
I have no problem with providing ID to vote. I've done it twice, due to registering same day my first election, and in 2010 because I had recently moved. I actually don't have a problem with requiring everyone to provide ID to vote. I do have a problem with my elected officials using constitutional amendments to force legislation that would ordinarially not pass. This amendment is potentially very costly for the state and any counties that will need to upgrade or add equipment and election judges to enforce the process. To my knowledge, these costs are not addressed in the amendment, as they should be in a properly crafted bill. I find it insulting to my intelligence that this amendment is even on the ballot. It's designed to exploit misinformed voters in an effort to get around the standard legislative process. For these reasons, I plan to vote no.
Shari Resler of Maple Grove:
This is a ridiculously expensive (not to mention ineffective) solution to a virtually nonexistent voter fraud problem, and would unnecessarily disenfranchise a large number of citizens whose right to vote would be impeded by this amendment.
Want to weigh-in? 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 Is Why I'm Voting 'Yes'