MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Minnesota voters turned back two constitutional amendments Tuesday, defeating proposals to ban gay marriage and require a photo ID for voting that had once been seen as likely winners.
Minnesota's rejection of the gay marriage ban was just one piece of a big night for gay activists and their allies nationwide. In Maine and Maryland, voters legalized gay marriage; in Washington, a measure to the same was leading. The wins were a resounding reversal of a 32-state winning streak for gay marriage opponents.
The defeat of the photo ID requirement was just as surprising, with the proposal drawing strong support in polls for months. Both amendments were put on the ballot by the Republican-controlled Legislature. Those same Republicans also lost their House and Senate majorities on Tuesday.
"This conversation doesn't end tonight. It's only just begun," said Richard Carlbom, campaign manager for Minnesotans United for All Families, which fought the gay marriage ban. "Because we beat this amendment, Minnesota is in a position to ensure that the next generation can participate in the conversation about who can participate in marriage."
Gay marriage remains illegal under Minnesota state law. The amendment would have put that prohibition in the constitution. But the outcome of the vote, and the Democratic takeover of the Legislature, is likely to initiate a push for legal gay marriage in the state.
Andy Parrish, deputy campaign manager for Minnesota for Marriage, which pushed the ban, was not ready to concede early Wednesday morning. "I think we're going to wait for the rest of the results to come in and see what the final results are in the morning," he said.
Conservatives around the country have been pressing to require photo ID for voting in the last several years. Eric Fought, spokesman for the campaign that opposed the measure in Minnesota, said its backers never convinced voters that the requirement was actually necessary.
"They did not provide the details people needed to vote yes on this. There were too many questions left unanswered and too many doubts," Fought said.
Dan McGrath, who led the campaign for the measure, said he and supporters would "continue to work towards greater integrity and transparency in our election process."
According to exit poll data, the marriage ban was opposed by a majority of women and backed by a majority of men. Votes were also divided by age, with voters under 50 against it by a substantial majority and those over 50 strongly in favor. Seven in 10 voters who attend religious services, and four in five born-again or evangelical voters supported it. The vote also split by party lines: three in four Democrats said they voted against it, and three in four Republicans backed it.
Both measures sparked campaigns that were far more heated than usual for constitutional amendments. The marriage amendment mobilized thousands of volunteers and attracted more than $16 million in campaign contributions, drawing more passion than the state's presidential or Senate contests. Voters held strong opinions.
Kevin Gensch, a human resources manager, is gay but said that's not why he voted against the ban.
"I don't think the constitution should be amended for any reason for a social issue," said Gensch, 34, after voting in St. Louis Park, an inner-ring Minneapolis suburb. "This is marrying church and state by putting this kind of amendment on the constitution. It doesn't belong there."
In Minneapolis, first-time voter Assan Shire voted for the gay marriage ban.
"I don't want gay marriage. I think it is wrong," said Shire, voting at a community center in the city's diverse Phillips neighborhood.
Strategy for all four campaigns against gay marriage, including Minnesota's, was directed by Frank Schubert, a California-based consultant who's become the nation's top political operative trying to stop the spread of gay marriage. But he was fighting demographic changes, with poll after poll nationwide showing that young people in increasing numbers support the right of gays to get married.
Opponents of Minnesota's amendment tried to persuade moderate and swing voters, aiming their TV ads at married couples and straight men in particular. That drew backlash from some gay activists, dismayed that none of the ads actually featured speaking parts for gay people who would be most affected by the amendment. The campaign also reached out more widely to various demographic groups, using narrowly targeted phone banks to reach senior citizens, younger voters and various ethnic and minority groups. The campaign for the amendment targeted much of its get-out-the-vote efforts on churchgoers.
Democratic politicians had argued that photo ID requirements were meant to make voting tougher for certain groups that tend to favor Democrats: elderly people, the poor, college students and members of minority groups. Local government officials also said the ID requirement would be a costly mandate.
A quirk in Minnesota law means a ballot where the voter skips one or both of the amendments is counted as a "no" vote against the amendment that was skipped. But in both cases, more people voted against the amendments than voted for them.
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.
Comments (47)
Add commentSurprised...?
The AP writer must be as behind the times as those who proposed the amendments.
Confused???
It never ceases to amaze me how such a small minority of people get so much press.
Congratulations Minnesota
Congratulations Minnesota for turning back these two unnecessary and discriminatory amendments. Maybe now the Republicans can concentrate on constructive measures to help this state, not to divide it.
Way to go Minnesota!
Civil Rights for ALL Minnesota Citizens prevailed...
* Ability to Vote...
* Marriage Commitment between 2 people...
_______
GOP control of the Legislature and going through the Amendment process bypassing the Governor is a lessons learned...
The Amendment process is ALL CITIZENS of Minnesota and just not Crow Wing County...
The GOP may have won the Battle with the Secretary of State on the Wording of the 2 Amendments...
But they lost the War overall when the Citizens of the State of Minnesota Spoke...
_______
Civil Rights for All Minnesota Citizens...
Time to move forward...
Discriminatory?
I honestly could care less about the marriage amendment, but explain to me why it would be discriminating to ask someone for a photo ID to prove who they are and ensure that "one man (person), one vote" is upheld. A person has to show a photo ID to buy alcohol, cigarettes, get into an R rated movie, board a plane, get a job, and pay taxes (the last 2 only apply to some of us). You walk into the voting center and throw out a name and address, whether it be yours or someone down the street or in the next neighborhood and your good to go, vote away please. The next time I'm at the bank and they ask me for my ID I'm going to cry DISCRIMINATION and see how far that gets me.
Because Voting Is A Right!
Buying alcohol, boarding a plane, buying cigarettes, banking and going to a movie are not Rights! Do you not understand that?
We all know the intentions of this proposal. It is not to prevent voter fraud, which has been shown not to be a problem, but primarily to limit the vote of those who will probably vote Democratic. Poll taxes, literacy requirements and now Voter ID all had that as their goal.
The preponderance of voter fraud
in the election was perpetrated against minorities voting. Check it out. And it backfired. Reducing voting hours in largely Democratic districts was attempted.
Huge billboards and long lines didn't keep people from voting. Read about attempts to influence voters on election day here in Minnesota with intimidation and biased information.
Still looking for voter impersonation in Minnesota which is the only type of fraud that voter id would prevent.
Bond
we also have the right to bear arms, just wondering do we need an ID to buy a gun.
Taken Away?
That statement represents succinctly how you view your civic responsibility. The Cost of Civilization? Nah...I have mine, now you get yours! But if I need help, the government better be there to catch me.
Reagan did a good job convincing many Americans about the imaginary welfare queen, too bad that sentiment does not extend to corporate welfare recipients and the insatiable appetite of our military industrial complex. Those blanketty blank poor people, now their is where we are wasting our tax dollars!!! How much did GE pay in taxes on their billions in profits? Who cares they can afford lobbyist, you can't. But those darn unions and lazy welfare recipients...get 'em.
Gun Rights vs Voting Rights
It just makes common sense to be careful who gets to own something as harmful as a firearm, wouldn't you say? Guns have been proven to cause a great deal of harm in the wrong hands (Virginia Tech, Columbine, Gabby Gifford, etc. ) while voter fraud has not been shown to be a comparable problem, duh.
Proof
The need to show a picture ID, at least to me, is a necessary thing to prove a persons identity and citizenship. I'm worried less about someone voting multiple times and more about that person being an actual U.S. citizen who has the right to vote. There is in the neighborhood of 11.5 million illegal immigrants in this country. It would be interesting to know how many of them are registered voters.
JB
Votes also have done a great deal of harm in the wrong hands IMO.duh
voting is a right and responsibility ofAmerican citizens.
Voting is a right and responsibility of American citizens. The purpose of the constitution is to insure citizen rights, not to inhibit them.
jamesBond
Tell me where voting is a right? If voting was a right, they would not be able to take it away from people. I know people that have committed felonies and they will NEVER be able to vote again. If this was a right, the government would not be able to stop them. I'm with wildone. I have served in the military, and to do so i needed a drivers license, proof of citizenship (birth certificate), and social security number. And guess what because of military members you have been PRIVILEGED to vote.
Places where I show my ID. VA office, Walmart, My bank, Liquor store, anywhere I use my credit card or right a check, the movie theater for violent movies. Guess what showing my ID to vote is no big deal.
I still want to know how
I still want to know how having a voter ID requirement would stop a felon with a driver's license from voting? Answer....it wouldn't.
Voter ID isn't a bad theory. But before we address it again, we need to know how, exactly, it will work, what we have to do, how they will ensure all people who should be able to vote still can, how people who shouldn't be able to vote will be stopped, and how much the entire thing is going to cost to implement. Once we have all the information, I think the people of MN would go for it. It's not unreasonable. But trying to get it through as an amendment, with no mandates, just wasn't the appropriate venue.
I thought the way to do
I thought the way to do things now is to pass it then read it to find out what is in it.
ID
I've never had to show my ID at my bank, movie theater, Wal-Mart. At 50+ I don't have to worry about being carded for beer or cigarettes. If they do, then I'll happily show them and thank them for the compliment~
I had my DL ready when I went and voted, new township since we moved. Walked in, told them my name, she found my name in the book, and said,"sign there." Since I signed my name, Suzy Mc'Dougal couldn't come in and try to vote using my name, because I already signed the book. Mary Blagermister can't vote using Suzy's name, because her name is already signed by her typed name. Now tell me again how someone can vote twice.
tbonar
you have attempted this argument before. The Voting Rights Act defines our right to vote. It is not the Voting Privilege Act. Only conservatives try that privilege mumbo jumbo. You seem a bit brainwashed on the subject. Perhaps you should consult an historian or political scientist for more details.
When felons end their probation period, their voting rights are restored.
Feel free to show your ID at all those places, but citizens who are already registered to vote will not have to in Minnesota.
North Dakota trusts everyone.
North Dakota is the only state in the nation that does not have voter registration.You simply need to show up at the polls or apply for an absentee ballot and comply with the ID requirements described below.
You are eligible to vote in North Dakota if you are 18 years or older, a resident of North Dakota, and have resided in the precinct you wish to vote in for at least 30 days preceding the election.
Even if you do not have ID, if a poll worker knows you, they can vouch for you if you supply your date of birth.
If there is no one to vouch for you, you can still vote after swearing an affidavit to your eligibility.
I am kind of liking North Dakota.
Don't buy into the "voting is a privilege, not a right"
nonsense. This guy says it much better than I could summarize: "Scholars and courts often note that the Constitution nowhere says, "All individuals have the right to vote." It simply rules out specific limitations on "the right to vote." A right not guaranteed in affirmative terms isn't really a "right" in a fundamental sense, this reading suggests.
But if the Constitution has to say "here is a specific right and we now guarantee that right to every person," there are almost no rights in the Constitution. Linguistically, our Constitution is more in the rights-preserving than in the right-proclaiming business. The First Amendment doesn't say "every person has the right to free speech and free exercise of religion." In the Second, the right to "keep and bear arms" isn't defined, but rather shall not be "abridged." In the Fourth, "[t]he right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures" isn't defined, but instead "shall not be violated." In the Seventh, "the right of (civil) trial by jury" -- whatever that is -- "shall be preserved." And so on.
In those terms, it ought to mean something that the right to vote is singled out more often than any other. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a penalty upon states that deny or abridge "the right to vote at any [federal or state] election ... to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, ... except for participation in rebellion, or other crime." The Fifteenth states that "[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote" can't be abridged by race; the Nineteenth says that the same right can't be abridged by sex; the Twenty-Fourth says that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote" in federal elections can't be blocked by a poll tax; and the Twenty-Sixth protects "[t]he right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote."
So if our courts treat the ballot as less than a fundamental right, they aren't reading that in the Constitution, but projecting it onto the Constitution. The projection comes from a longstanding belief that the vote is not a "right," but a "privilege" -- something granted by the powerful to the deserving.
The "privilege" theory is one the United States regards as dangerous -- when practiced by other countries." (for more, go to: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-benjamin-l-cardin/republican-conventio...)
defendourvote.com !!!
I think
I think some people just come in and put a thumb down on certain people even before they read it.
I can't see why the 1 thumb down on me, all I spoke was the truth. (Silly me, some people hate the truth)
Gazelka, unfortunately, was re-elected (in Cass Co.) even
though he wasted the State's time and precious revenue on divisive social issues/Amendments. But that's just who he is. Even though the discriminatory amendment was rejected, Gazelka (one of those responsible for Repub's losing their majority in the Legislature) gets to go back to the Legislature with his antiquated, discriminatory, unconstitutional ideas. How about "jobs, jobs, jobs" this time, Sen. Gazelka. You can take the man out of Oral Roberts University ('cuz he graduated), but you can't take the ORU outa Gazelka. Again, if that's what the district wants -- you deserve him.
Gazelka and the GOP legislaters
initiated and encouraged the spending of millions of dollars from the coffers of the Catholic Church and many others in their failed attempt to either pass or defeat these ammendments.
Both sides drained funds which could have gone to alleviate the poverty and hardships of their parishioners. Outside millions were spent to pit Minnesotans against each other and that is even a sadder state of affairs.
Will you trust what ALEC and their cohorts in the Republican Party prepare for us next? Or will we boot them to the curb for their highjinks?
Well, hopefully, it won't happen as they are in the minority. And Paul, you may be a minority leader, but never, hopefully, a majority leader.
David Barton is another Oral Roberts University Alumnus...
And someone to watch carefully...
Snippet:
He founded WallBuilders, a Texas-based organization which promotes the view that it is a "myth" that the US Constitution insists on separation of church and state.
Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Barton_(author)
I am still a little disturbed that our legislators are also
involved with this: http://www.christianbook.com/marketplace-ministers-paul-gazelka/97808841...
Sharing Research...David Barton research...
Information about David Barton, a private citizen, gives background on the Marriage Amendment Foundation...
_______
In the research, Michele Bachmann, another Oral Roberts University Alumnus, is also re-elected...
2 year engagement...
Snippet...
David Barton, Bachmann’s Constitution class teacher...
http://minnesotaindependent.com/73958/meet-david-barton-bachmanns-consti...
_______
In this election, Paul Gazelka, Oral Roberts University Alumnus is elected again in a new district...
4 year engagement...
_______
Voters can choose to do their own research and make future voting decisions accordingly...
_______
Hope folks take the time and do additional research and look at a variety of knowledge articles and sources on David Barton and his views...
_______
Citizenship takes diligence and constant review to keep cherished Civil Rights for All...
As usual, Eyolf makes great points.
Thanks, Eyolf.
on the surface, the idea of a photo id sounds ok
Instances where the voter ID amendment disenfranchises a legitimate voter:
1) Remember when the guy out east was arrested after being caught tossing voter registration forms in the dumpster? Out there, when those people go to the polls, they might be told, "You can't vote bc you are not registered on the books." Their registrations were fraudulently never turned in. Voter registration doesn't require a receipt so the voter would have no proof they registered. If sent to a provisional ballot, it might never be counted.
2) I know a staff member who works at the women's shelter. Often the women there have fled domestic violence, sometimes with only the clothes on their backs. If they leave ID in the house it might not be safe to retrieve them. Upon moving to the shelter they don't have utility bills in their names and may be in flux, not knowing where there next address is. Those situations come up so suddenly that the planning lead time required for an ID might not happen. Should a battered woman have to forfeit her right to vote because she didn't remember, when fleeing, to grab her ID? I asked the staff member about this, and she said yes, that they have had to vouch for someone staying in the shelter at the polls bc it wasn't safe to retrieve their belongings at the house. I'd never thought of that instance before.
3) I know a couple who recently split -- the husband moved out in October. He found a new place to live in a different precinct. He didn't change his DL because he was hoping they'd reconcile. With voter ID, he'd be "fraudulently voting" if he attempted to vote in his old precinct, but he'd be prevented from voting in the new one. Under the new voter ID amendment, voters needed photo id, so his old photo id (to prove identity) coupled with new bills (to prove location) would not be enough.
4) I have a friend who's college graduate son does engineering/design and travels for a living. He is at home for a while, moves to a city for a project (3 weeks to 3 months) but is never in one place long enough to officially relocate, and moves from project to project so he's not interested in establishing a new state residency every couple weeks/months. He considers MN his home base. The new amendment did not specify how absentee voting would work, and whether or not his parents could pick up a ballot for him, or if he'd have to pick it up himself. If he had to pick it up, they wondered if he could photocopy his Drivers License (that seems an opportunity for fraud) or if he'd have to be in town to get it. If he needed to be present to pick up the absentee ballot, his right to vote might equal the cost of the plane ticket. One could argue, well, that's the price you pay for choosing to work in a job that travels..." but who are we to decide which if any jobs should penalize voters because they are not scheduled to be in MN on a particular Tuesday. Sometimes his jobs take him out of the country or far away, and sometimes jobs run over the time frame, and sometimes he's frozen on the job, and not allowed passes to leave period. In any of those instances he might not be able to be in MN in the time frame for absentee voting, so he'd lose his right to vote. The son pays MN income tax, keeps informed of local and regional politics, owns a home in MN. Under the current system, the parents can pick up the absentee ballot for him or it can be mailed to him - since now we can "vouch" for someone (not possible under the voter ID amendment).
I learned about each of the following scenerios from friends in conversations over the Voter ID bill. In each case, they'd thought, "hey, how will this affect me?" and after thinking it through realized they'd lose the right to vote. I was surprised at how many people might be impacted by this amendment.
The only documented instances of voter fraud involved a convicted felon erroneously voting (most sentences restore voting rights after a set amount of time) a short time before his rights were restored. Even the infamous case at the Brainerd court house would not have been prevented with voter ID's. The law already provides penalties (a deterrent) to prevent people from committing voter fraud.
Eyolf: It almost sounds like you are speaking for Sen. Gazelka
Are you speaking for the Senator?
Again, it might be a great day - both silly amendments failed.
. . . both silly amendments failed. Ya gotta love MN.