MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — A new Star Tribune Minnesota Poll shows that Minnesotans tend to favor a constitutional change that would require voters to show government-issued photo IDs before casting ballots, but support for the idea has fallen over the past year.
Slightly more than half of likely voters polled — 52 percent — support the photo ID amendment while 44 percent oppose it and 4 percent are undecided.
The newspaper reports (http://bit.ly/QsMTU3 ) that support for a photo ID requirement is way down from the 80 percent support in a May 2011 Minnesota Poll, when the issue was debated as a change in state law rather than as a constitutional amendment.
The poll's margin of error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. It surveyed 800 likely voters between Sept. 17 and 19.
___
Information from: Star Tribune, http://www.startribune.com
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.
Comments (34)
Add commentSo even with
the communist propaganda campaign Minnesotans want it. Snow and southie, just be quiet please.
the more people know about this, the less they like it
80% support in May down to 52% now?
People are reading the fine print apparently.
Gotcha again
snow! 52 beats 48 even in Obama-world.
Support is moving the right way.
Maybe it will peak Nov. 6th. Vote no.
Voter Fraud is practically non-existent in Minnesota. Millions vote legally and only 113 were convicted through August 2011 stemming from the 2008 election. Mostly they were felons voting which would not be changed by this amendment. (They have valid photo id already)
None were cases of voter impersonation, you know, those "dead people voting" we hear so much about.
The courts will overturn it and the cost will be borne by the taxpayers for all of the litigation. Look at Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida and North Carolina. They are already knee deep in law suits.
Why not have an ID?
Buy smokes, booze, cash in a ticket, check out with an unsigned debit card, cash a check, try to get on a plane flight or get pulled over and see how far you get with out one. Why have a pass word or login ID? Maybe not have a SSN until you want to retire or don't have an address so that no one knows where you live (the fire dept. or postal dept. might need it ). Sometimes being told what to do sucks but sometimes it makes sense.
IN Sunday's Mpls paper there
IN Sunday's Mpls paper there was an article on a program where volunteers are helping the "illegal kids" that Obama
decided could get papers and stay in the country.
They were accepting papers such as a kindergarten graduation certificate for proof.
You are saying that we can't do this with the few people
that may not have a photo ID?
You see, the point is in two (or so) election cycles every one should have one and a system would be set up.
It is the initial process when some people might not have the necessary papers and that can be worked out like this
illegal kid deal. ( I don't know what else to call ity).
We can do this and I'm sure the people without photo ID's
will like to have them.
Republicans are saying just that, Sadie
"They were accepting papers such as a kindergarten graduation certificate for proof. You are saying that we can't do this with the few people that may not have a photo ID?"
That will absolutely not be acceptable Sadie!
The language reads quite clear--you will need to present a PHOTO ID to vote. All the other information in the world will not allow you to vote if you don't have a photo ID. The fact that everyone at the polls knows you will not allow you to vote if you have a photo ID.
This will be written in the CONSTITUTION of the state, not a law that can be simply changed as problems arise.
If the republicans really wanted to make voter fraud less likely--although it is almost non-existent now--they could quite easily have accepted an increased standard of non-photo ID be presented at the time of voting. This still would not solve the problem of absentee and mail in ballots not counting until they are verified in person days later--but it would at least allow seniors and youngsters who don't drive anymore to vote once, rather than twice--before their vote is counted.
Social security cards, utility bills, credit cards in your name, licenses or permits with your name, etc. are NOT enough to allow a person to vote if this passes. They are enought to vote in MN today.
And really, what is more likely? The chance of a single person attempting to commit voter fraud having a dummy drivers license with photo on it or having multiple sources of other ID, all with the same name and address? Kids create fake ID's to buy cigarretes and booze now as they have for many years. Not a hard thing to do.
The honest citizen gets turned away while the dishonest one can still commit fraud quite simply.
Wrong RINO...
...there will be regulations and exceptions as there are for all rules. Tell me, did that legacy amendment that people foolishly voted for have all the details of what was going to happen with the money and how it would be disbursed? NO.
You are just fear-mongering and it's time for you to come out of the closet, stop pretending like you have anything to do with the Republican party, and admit you're a Dem. You'll feel better when you stop hiding who you really are.
Actually you bring up a fantastic point Muehlbau!
The first incarnation of the legacy amendment failed to pass. It failed to pass in large part due to complaints about the hidden details of implementation not being resolved.
So the legislature resolved them, then it passed, and the people of the state had a clearer idea of what they were voting for and how it would work if it passed.
I'd say this case is different as that constitutional change's issues were related to who would--and how would--the money gathered be spent.
There was nothing in the language the people voted on in play there. Or to put it another way, all changes the legislature could make later were in play as the law voters enshrined into the constitution said nothing about those specifics.
This voter ID law is clear.
It can't be said more plainly.
You will need to present a photo ID to vote.
The legislatures hands will be tied. They can't change the law that would then be in the constitution saying you have to have a photo ID presented in person to vote.
Now they could certainly come out and ask that people vote this down, allowing them to go back to the drawing board and develop an improved version without the many problems this one contain, and includes more implementation plans--then ask us to vote on it in 2013.
They could--and it would be very smart thing to do --IF their concerns were really about preventing voter fraud. For if voters wise up to the problems of this and vote it down, it will be hard for them to successfully revisit the issue.
Not true, RINO...
...in other states that had similar amendment language that passed they ALWAYS have exceptions for people who CAN'T get an ID. You know, the 90 year-old person who was born at home and never worked a day in his or her life in the public square--that sort of thing. There really is no excuse for the vast majority of people to not have a government-issed picture ID. It's used for too many things. You and your Democratic brethern are making a mountain out of molehill. Sadie is correct when she says this is something where all issues will be resolved in a couple of years. I think the integrity of our electoral process is worthy of such a minimal effort.
One more thing Muelbau
You and others who hate the legacy amendment--how easy do you think it will be to drop that now? Certainly many key republicans have come out and bashed it in recent years. The economy has been lousy, one might think the time is right to take it back and send more income to the state's government coffers without having to raise taxes a single penny. Republicans had control of the legislature too.
But--It's still in place, right?
It's in the constitution, after all!
You should know what RINO stands for Muelbau
I am not a democrat in any way, shape or form.
And actually, per your latest attempt to argue, MN will have a provision for people who can't get a photo ID in time too.
Provisional ballots. Been discussed many times here. And it is exactly what the other states have been using that have passed this.
The problem is that's the vote twice provision.
You fill out your ballot if you don't have a photo id--and then have to go back later with a photo ID to verify your identity.
I don't think the founding fathers intended for people to have to travel to vote twice in order for their vote to be counted!
Again--and this is really kind of ironic, given the intense interest in the exact language of what we will be voting for just a few months back--the language is clear.
No photo ID, and your vote will not be counted!
Allegedly photo ID is meant to fix
Voter impersonation. There have been ten cases since 2000 that have been discovered nation-wide. (Natasha Khan, Washington Post)
Maybe we should devote our tax dollars and efforts towards a more worthy goal, such as actually getting out the vote.
There have been no cases of voter impersonation brought to the courts in 18 years in Crow Wing County.
Voter ID
Whatever your views on this amendment are, the cost will be real. The cost of getting this up and running is somewhere between $80-100 million.
Some form of voter identification is probably needed, but not in the form of an amendment. Please do not turn us into California!
I was referring to helping
I was referring to helping people get a photo ID not
to prove to vote. For pete's sake, it shocked me that someone would think I meant to vote, I mean if they can help the kids get papers to stay in this country than we can
help the people that need help with papers to get a photo ID.
I can't imagine who other than older people don't have to have a photo ID for medical, cigs, and all the other reasons.
Students in college would and should have a photo ID.
If colleges don't have that now - they will in the future.
If not for the state, than the national level. Maybe Obamacare
will require a photo ID. How do people get on social security,
medicare, medicaid, vet care, ss disability, unemployment.
Again, this is for the future as the people who presently have paper issue, will be helped. That should set people up for the years to come and they will know they need one.
OH me change is so hard for people.
The cost will be allegedly $80-100 million?
But you have no problem with the billions being spent on healthcare? Jeesh, dems never have a problem soending other people's money as long as it benefits them.
founding fathers
You don't think the founding fathers intended for people
to travel twice to vote?
As long as we are looking at the intention of the founding fathers, I wonder if they intended for gays to marry?
I think they intended for the States to decide.
As was the legacy amendment, I believe decided by the voters of the state.
In that case, this state of MN has ruled on GL marriage
Already decided. It is against the law right now for gays to get married in MN. We already decided!
State's rights at work, eh? So why are we spending so much time, money, and energy on GL marriage when it is already illegal in the state--and on voter ID when there is no real problem with identity fraud in voting in the state?
Isn't the economy, jobs, fixing the deficits in both the state and the federal government--more important? Unless it isn't improving the lot of the people that is at the heart of it, but instead improving the lot of the PARTY.
The founding fathers?
Didn't they have an affinity to support slavery? Yes, those Founding Fathers. And some had children by slaves...ie Tom Jefferson. Maybe they would have a change of heart if they lived today.
College students have photo IDs,
But they are more likely to vote at the college and it is legal to do so. But their ID is for their home address.
So, how could they vote at college? Show a dorm rent receipt? Not acceptable. A college ID? Not acceptable. Drive home to vote? Not likely during the week, even to get an absentee ballot.
And the Court House is closed on weekends.
Putting up barriers to vote in a group that is eager to vote is suppression, pure and simple.
So now you communists
want to enslave us all to help you atone for your ancestors' sins, southie? Or is it because you want to be a slave owner?
Screeeech!
south
I don't understand why a government issued college photo ID would not work .It would prove that they are who they say they are and they are enrolled in school for that school year.
College students are the least that I would worry about.
There will be a plan for them and they will be able figure it out after all, they are adults and need to learn on their own.
You may be trying to make a problem where there is none.
read the amendment's full text Sadie
that's why support has gone from 80% in May to 52% now, people are reading it and worried they will lose the right to vote with those rules.......
it could happen to any of us if we move at the wrong time.
this guy is too dumb to lead
off to bed, thanks for the laugh!
Read amendment text AND know registration procedures
That's the key here Sadie. I probably sound critical of your thinking here, but I honestly believe your thoughts reflect those that many who do not have a full grasp of voting registration requirements in place today share.
People need to do a bit of work to understand voting regulations in place right now--and not up for any change--and how this amendment we are voting for changes things.
To be registered to vote--and this is the way it should be, if you truly are interested in preventing voter fraud--you need to prove your identity AND your address. Otherwise it would be just too simple to vote wherever you go in the state on election day, or vote at home and at college, for example.
A college kid with a college photo ID whose address is still 5 hours away won't cut it if they want to vote for candidates where they live.
In other words, a kid going to the U of MN whose permanent address is near brainerd can only vote in the polls on election day down at the U of MN. For the candidates on the ballot at the U of MN.
If you are a parent who knows they want to vote for Paul Gazelka and really want them to vote for Paul, they can't do that on election day--they can only vote for the candidates listed on the ballot for the Mps/St. Paul location they are voting in.
Can't vote for Paul at all unless---they fill out and mail in an early ballot if they are already registered to vote at home--or pre-register by the middle of october and fill out and mail in an early ballot.
Here's where people need to pay attention! Today, with regulations in place now, a college student has options to vote remotely for candidates running at home or in the precinct of their PERMANENT residence.
That goes away with voter ID!
They could still pre-register early if they aren't already registered, they could still fill out an early ballot from home and mail it in to Crow Wing Co. if they can think that far ahead and meet all the deadlines
But their vote WON'T BE COUNTED, unless they physically drive from the U of MN to the Crow Wing Co. courthouse and hand Teresa Goble or one of her staff their photo ID.
Again what we are voting on is clear. Your vote will not be tallied anymore--even if it is perfectly eligible in all other ways today--if you don't physically present yourself with a valid photo ID in your hands in front of an election official.
So--no more college kids voting for candidates back home unless they can find a way to drive home and--during monday to friday working hours mind you (so they will be missing school)--hand an election official a photo ID.
And lest you think any such problems can simply be fixed by changing the law--remember we aren't voting on a law.
We are voting on a permanent change to our CONSTITUTION.
Scary, you and Madcow should get together
You both could share back and forth the one brain cell that seems to be active. It was very obvious that Romney was joking. But had this been on Fox about Barry' bama, your kind would be livid.
And his wife wasn't laughing.
Well, today he can talk it over with his team and come up with another response. Maybe he will have a roll down window installed on his aircraft!
Sometimes you people are
Sometimes you people are downright mean, give a guy a break. If you weren't there, you don't know if Ann could even
hear what he was saying. He knows about airplanes and windows. What was the question he was answering?
I haven't heard the sound from it so, I admit that I don't know, but , does all this make you feel superior? There is usually an explanation if you care to listen.
We could dish out so much stuff on Obama by what does that
prove? How does that help the country?
The fellow who was originally running against Obama for U.S. Senate in Illinois has released his oppo research against Obama. Of course, no one cares about his state senate votes,the debt, burning of embassies, unemployment numbers, number of people stopped looking for work.
Why not?
Free IDs
I would be for this amendment if they make the acquiring of Minnesota State Issued IDs free of charge.
Sadie, listen to it.
then decide.
No, mean is the nasty comments regarding Michelle Obama that we read on here from a few old guys. And lies about the president. I won't repeat the comments.
And the continual disrespect shown fellow posters. Stalking and name-calling instead of replying in a civil manner.