Voting no
There are anecdotal examples for and against the voter I.D. amendment. There are stories of people posing as Tim Tebow to vote in Minnesota. There are stories of nursing home residents being unable to get an I.D. to vote simply because they cannot get to a place to get an I.D.
These may or may not be true.
The important thing is that the voter I.D. amendment may, in some way, prevent a legitimate citizen from voting.
There are reasons for and against the same sex marriage amendment. We’ve heard the arguments that gay marriage will destroy the institution of a man/woman marriage. We’ve heard that those who wish to commit to one another should have marriage available to them as they wish.
These may or may not be true. The important thing is that the marriage amendment may in some way prevent a group of citizens being treated differently in the eyes of the law, which is against the precepts of our constitution and our social traditions.
I will be voting no on the two proposed amendments, and for the same reason.
Both amendments have specific reasons for and against them, perhaps legitimate, perhaps not, but both amendments also have the potential of limiting the rights of citizens and how we treat them.
Our constitution was not meant to be used in such a fashion.
Charles Johnson
Brainerd
Comments (20)
Add commentThe potential?
Are you referring to the unintended consequences that will
happen if one or both fail?
I have news for you---there is and always will be people
who claim their rights were limited.
The potential does exist and always will.
Interesting point of view
Maybe this is it...
It seems that these two upcoming amendments were rushed through. Details aren't ironed out - at least that I've heard.... on the voter ID, I have yet to see how the military is supposed to vote - or how an absentee ballot may be obtained. It seems to me these details should have been hammered out first in the legislature, THEN brought to the people. As for the marriage amendment, why the rush? Where's the people's concern up front? For SADIEMARRIEDLADY, if that potential indeed always exists, then we sure are capable of seeing it coming and find the most efficient way of deciding what to do about it - and rushing through these amendments doesn't fit that notion.
The only threat to the military vote is the one posed by Obama
...failing to comply with the MOVE act.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/02/Military-Absentee-Vot...
Zachnos, you can't put all the details in a ballot amendment...
...it is incumbent on our legislature to make sure that no aspect of the passed amendments violate the constitution. What more do you want? Personally, I feel my constitutional rights are violated when proper controls are not in place to prevent illegal voting. I also know from what has happened in places where gay marriage has become the law of the land that my religious rights will be violated if that happens here. If the public definition of marriage becomes something I cannot agree to, I become a criminal for holding a belief that has been one of the mainstays of human existence since before the dawn of the nation state. And don't tell me I'm paranoid, because there are many, many cases of this happening throughout Europe, Canada, and even in our own country in states that endorse gay marriage.
I think this is carefully
I think this is carefully thought out and besides that I have confidence that our Mark Ritchie will be sure that all military can vote and that there will be absentee voting.
How dumb do you really think they would be to craft an amendmemt that would not include military and absentee?
Actually, I don't have confidence in Mark Soros Ritchie which is why the legi. will be spelled out, which doesn't mean that he won't make up his own rules.
Libs, have for years have disenfranchised our military voters ..
now they are using it to defeat the Voter ID amendment. Libs, are against the military because they lean to the right. All military voters have a gov. issued ID. Most of them are strongly for Voter ID.
In 2008 while there was a record 70 percent Minnesota participation rate, there was only a 16 percent participation rate for about 16,000 Minnesotan warriors. In 2010 is was only 4.27 percent! Muehlbau is right, the Obama administration has not enacted the MOVE Act which was going to help make it easier for our military to vote. Where is the liberal outrage about this??? It is deafening silence!
Here's what I want...
the details ... you're right, the details can't all be put on the ballot....and no ... I'm not convinced that our legislature will make sure every law they pass is constitutional ... take note of the outcome of the Pennsylvania voter ID law that has been struck down in part .... legislatures in many CAN have passed unconstitutional laws, some struck down, some lasting awhile, such as the poll tax laws of the 1960s. Both sides of the voter ID issue value the right of voting as much as each other, equating voting to as near a sacrament as we have in our laws - the proponents want to stop the illegal immigrants and felons from voting, and that should be so - opponents like me are just not sure it won't also screw up the voting habits of such good citizens as our nursing home residents (many of whom have voted in every election since Truman) and others like them... and no, Muehlbau, you are not paranoid... not at all. You have every right to hold on to your faith. I just don't think a legal document is the place to make a social decision like same sex marriage. It will have to come (or go) based on what society demands. Social laws haven't worked (prohibition, Jim Crow laws) and this one won't either. It clogs our constitution.
and no, Sadie, I don't think the legislature is dumb -- I DO think the voting conditions have been considered -- at least in some ways... but then, can you explain to me -- why it hasn't been explained? I have asked many times --- here, and of other friends on both sides of the issue --- how military and absentee voting will be handled... and no one has answered that question. Until I hear such an answer, I will remain opposed to the voter ID bill.
Any Minnesota voter currently
can go online and order an absentee ballot. What is so difficult about that? It will be mailed weeks ahead of the election. And you use a government ID to do that. Thus, the military can order a ballot from anywhere in the world.
One word
One word for the DFL'rs on here Charlie...... .......hypocrites.
Twilight...
"Any Minnesota voter can go online and order an absentee ballot. What is so difficult about that? It will be mailed weeks ahead of the election. And you use a government ID to do that. Thus, the military can order a ballot from anywhere in the world."
No one should be required to have an ID, so they should just take our word for it that we are who we say we are. Who needs an ID card for anything nowadays anyway?
Hey wolf1
Ever try going on line and ordering a ballot from the middle of a Jungle (viet nam) or the middle of an oil field (Kuwait) or the middle of a desert (Iraq) or a mountaintop (Afghanistan). By the way, would Mark Soros Ritchie send it by camel or helicopter. Get your head out of the sand before you make such stupid statements.
tricia12
Thank you. You're absolutely RIGHT. By the way, anybody seen snowda or southie lately. You don't suppose they gave up this close to the election.
Charlie
You need to learn how to spot sarcasm!
OOPS-Wolfg1-It was for twilight
Sorry Wolfg1. My last post to you was meant for twilight. I forgot to put my reading glasses on. I think it's OFD.
Dean
You,re just like tricia. Absolutely RIGHT. Charlie's wrong again. Thanks. I think it's time to hang it up for the day and take a nap.
Where were you people that
Where were you people that want all the details when they pushed through the Obamacare bill?
They are still working on the details. Were you just as concerned about that?
It's no photo ID IN PERSON, no vote counted!
Twilight and others are missing the details of the exact language of this amendment to our state constitution.
It's clear, your vote will not be counted unless you present a photo ID to an election official. Furthermore, it goes on to provide details for a new system of balloting, called "provisional ballots".
You will have absolutely no problems getting an absentee ballot if this passes!
Your problems come when it comes time for election officials to count your vote on that absentee ballot. If you aren't there to show them a photo ID, they are prevented by this change to our constitution from counting your vote!
This means that for absentee voters, it doesn't even matter if they have every form of ID you can have--including a good photo ID. If you can't present it to officials when votes are tallied after the election, your vote won't be counted.
Step back and think about that for a bit. How is a student away at college going to vote if they can't get back to show someone a photo ID? Or the snowbird who left for Arizona right before the election? Or even more disconcerting, what about the solider who's deployed overseas?
Election officials from counties all over the state have cried foul here, mostly on the added cost they see coming due to this provisional ballot system, providing photo ID's, and staffing offices so provisional (e.g. absentee) voters can come in after the election to verify their vote.
This will affect a great many people including those that DO have photo ID's!
Get educated on this one, it is a serious loss of constitutional proportions, one that can't be easily rectified as it's not a law, it's a new amendment to the constitution you will vote on!
Re: ObamneyCare, Sadie:
Good point on the unfinished details.
However there is a very key difference---here, we are talking about voting on a constitutional amendment change. Note you didn't see states having to ratify ObamneyCare, did you?
That difference is huge. Legislators in Washington COULD--now I don't put a lot of faith in them to agree on the color of the sky lately, but they could--fix problems that crop up with implementation of ObamneyCare through a simple law change.
Voter ID is not a law that is easy to change--it's a constitutional amendment we will be voting on!
ProudRINO
The administrative details are missing for the VOTER ID Amendment because they have not been written into law and won't be until it is passed. You are correct.
Currently, military stationed away from their hometown voting precinct can get an application available on every base or online and complete it and fax, email or send it via the post office to their home County Court House.
They may use their social security number, passport, military ID or Driver's License to request a ballot.
They will be emailed or faxed or snail mailed a ballot, whatever they request. Then they must mail the hard copy back in the secure envelope. It must arrive by Election Day to be counted. It cannot be emailed or faxed since that would eliminate the "secret ballot" requirement.
The impact of the requirements if this amendment passes could be substantial and far reaching and expensive. Right now that impact is unknown.
This information was received from the County Auditor's office.