ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — A state Senate committee has approved a constitutional amendment asking Minnesotans to decide whether voting should require a photo ID despite objections from Secretary of State Mark Ritchie that it will be difficult to implement and increase federal government oversight of the state's elections.
The Senate State Government Committee approved the amendment 8-5 Wednesday on a party-line vote. If the GOP-backed amendment makes it all the way through the Legislature, the final decision will rest with voters statewide in November.
Ritchie testified Tuesday that implementing a photo ID requirement is likely to be expensive for his office to implement. He also says the federal Department of Justice is likely to get more involved in monitoring Minnesota elections to make sure that civil rights are not violated.
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.
Comments (13)
Add commentphoto id for voting
What a waste of government money to cure a problem that doesn't exist.
It worked in Wisconson
There’s more that like it than those that are opposed to it,” said Caroline McMahon, a poll worker who was stationed at First Presbyterian Church on South Ashland Avenue in Green Bay.
If the Packer Backers can do it why not Minnesota? More libs here I guess.........
I am 100% behind mandatory photo ID for the right to vote
simple.
I suggest that each person in MN walk up to the voters reg table and show them:
1) A drivers license OR
2) A Govn produced ID card OR
3) A US Passport OR
4) A military ID card
and then upon doing so, walk over and vote.
I only have 3 of the above,
would that disqualify me?
They say it will hurt certain poor people
but I bet those same people can pop out an ID when applying for food stamps and other non-working luxuries!
Who does not have an ID?
If you do not have an ID then you must be a hermit. If you are a hermit then you probably do not have any idea what is going on in the world. Thus, you have no capacity to vote.
This is a great idea. No more voting for others.
I think a point is being purposely missed:
I think a point is being purposely missed: it isn't that requiring a photo ID is such a terrible thing, but that doing so may start us down a slippery slope. Other states have used similar laws to more directly discriminate against voters. Close to home we saw Governor Walker in Wisconsin use his authority to close state-operated license bureaus due to funding problems...but only in historically democratic areas. As well, Wisconsin's law wasn't particularly well-crafted, maybe on purpose: Wisconsin won't accept certain forms of ID for a Wisconsin-issued ID card.
Wisconsin will be mired in lawsuits for years.
I don't think it takes a genius to figure out what the real goal is: W.A.S.P. America sees their position in our culture slipping and is trying to do something about that.
LOL
you are joking, right eyolf?
For one who repeatedly claims
For one who repeatedly claims and infers that both major parties engage in endless destructive posturing in order to gain political advantage, your inability to see the same regarding this issue is a bit suspect, JohnBrown. Are you one of those 'independents' with an agenda?
Don't you find it a bit odd that even tho there is no appreciable evidence of 'voter fraud' at either the state or federal level throughout the long history of elections in this country, the conservatives chose to make it an issue in 2012?
'Election fraud', on the other hand, is quite another matter and has been brazenly utilized by the Repubs in recent years to great advantage. Perhaps the most egregious example (it's hard to pick just one) might be GW Bush's Florida campaign chairwoman and Florida Sec. of State Katherine Harris's purging of 55,000 individuals, mostly black, from the voter rolls prior to the 2000 election. Much more efficient and effective than making it difficult for some citizen's to actually cast a ballot who might be perceived as the opposition.
@anniejo
I've stated on this site a few times that I'm on the fence about this bill. On it's face it appears to be a waste of money with a lack of metrics we will be able to look back on to see if it was a success, but I do support fair elections. The fact that our court system hasn't convicted many people for voter fraud does little to sway my opinion. Courts in Iran don't hand down many rape convictions, but I'm not about to say no women get raped in Iran.
With that said, I haven't actually read the bill or any supplementary congressional reports, so my opinion is uneducated at best. I'm hoping my representatives do their due diligence before deciding on if this bill is appropriate for Minnesota.
I'm no expert on Florida election law, or Florida history for that matter, but those shenanigans from 2000 seem dubious. I hope the Supreme Court made the right decision after reviewing all pertinent facts and laws.
I don't really classify myself as an "independent," but I do have a political agenda. My agenda is the rule of law. I don't much care for politicians or their cheerleaders or their cheerleaders' feelings. If we had good laws and few bureaucrats to manipulate their meanings our governments, and our country as a whole, would operate much better.
Sure hope there's not another Hanging Chads Adventure
Florida has perfected the art form...
Am I joking, John Brown?
You can determine facts for yourself; for example Gov walker DID close several state offices that would be the primary place to get a WI I.D. card...but the offices were all in primarily Democratic-leaning areas. And, no, not all were inner-city ghettos. Wisconsin's Online system was similarly shut down for all but license-office personell to avoid an overload shutdown caused by citizens scrambling to get their ID cards.
I have been here before, Brown, and know how the game works: I suppose I could play it your way: post links and wait for you or someone else to declare the sources invalid, but I believe you're smart enough to do your own research, if you care. And why should I hand you an opportunity like that?
If you can refute my "facts", be my guest.
As regards the opinion sentence (W.A.S.P. America), you're free to disagree. Again, be my guest, perhaps using the Republican presidential hopeful's attempts at stirring up their bases as ammunition. The most likely-looking leader in the bunch was Huntsman, but he couldn't get enough attention to continue his campaign. Of the remainder we have 3 candidates that seem to be competing for the "angry white man" vote
No matter who wins, I, personally, hope he answers to all the voters who really do not want to feed that slice of the electorate. We had a couple of populist extroverts who made decisions based on their feelings of the moment and it gave us Monicagate and a war on two fronts. Now we have an introverted thinker who doesn't seem to be able to communicate his thought processes any better, especially regarding campaign promises made and then ignored.
IMO, the next figurative leader will need to explain himself and if that means walling off the loony-tune voters on the fringes, Im all for it. No matter who wins the election, he'll have to govern more or less from the middle. These issues are distractions, throwing bones to fringe voters.
@eyolf
I was asking if you were joking about the WASP thing. But yeah, I guess you actually do believe that stuff. To each his own.
Also, I'm not an expert on Wisconsin ID law, nor do I ever really care to know much about it unless my life takes a drastic turn in the future and I somehow end up in Wisconsin in need of identification. I do, however, know a little bit about Google and curiosity sometimes gets the best of me.
According to most blogs I found Governor Walker did indeed close 10 DMV offices in democrat areas while expanding hours in republican areas.
However, according to the Wisconsin State Journal Governor Walker's budget included additional money to expand hours across the state and open up several new DMV locations to meet the demand for identification. No offices were closed.
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_d56f24d...
Hmph. Weird.