You know not what you speak of. How do you figure it will disenfranchise the military (and other absentee ballots) or students. And don't forget, the military ballot was disenfranchised in 2008 when Ritchie disallowed their ballots. And I'd be willing to guarantee you that had he not done that, Coleman would have won by a landslide. Furthermore, he allowed the ballots by felons to stand further throwing the count to Franken. Students would not and are not disenfranchised. We have procedures in place to ensure they can vote. As for anyone planning to be travelling during the day of the actual vote, that is what absentee ballots are for. It's no different than what I do every election because I work in a different precinct and can't vote in my assigned precinct. As an election judge, I can assure you it would not disenfranchise ANYONE who's ELIGIBLE to vote. The only ones disenfranchised would be those not allowed to do so under the law. It's just a matter of ensuring integrity is maintained in one of the most coveted and important duties as well as privileges we have as an American citizen. There were several instances of people being allowed to vote in the last few elections who either were not eligible to vote, had voted in the wrong precinct, or flat out committed voter fraud by assuming anothers name. We could have caught those errors if we had been allowed to ask for I.D. And the cost to the state would be minimal for providing I.D.'s to those w/o licenses.

"There were several instances of people being allowed to vote in the last few elections who either were not eligible to vote, had voted in the wrong precinct, or flat out committed voter fraud by assuming anothers name."

Poppycock! The Coleman lawyers, when pressed by the Minnesota Supreme Court justices overseeing the recount, stated under oath that there was no fraud. In Pennsylvania, GOP legislators stated, under oath, that there was no fraud and no basis for VoterID. It seems to me that when the GOP actually has to put their money where their mouth is and testify under penalty of perjury, we get the truth that there is no fraud.

Next, what happens in Greater Minnesota where they use mail-in ballots. How do they show their photo IDs? What happens with the absentee ballots of the military? How do they show their photo IDs? Is it legal to allow exceptions to the above yet require photo IDs from everyone else?

Finally, as many GOP legislators from across the nation have stated, the entire VoterID issue is a deceptive and fake crisis meant to rip the right to vote from legal, law-abiding citizens. Heck even the GOP gov of Michigan vetoed their VoterID legislation calling it radical and extreme.

You made the point I've been saying from the start there David. The left argues that those without drivers licenses would not be able to get to the DMV for a photo I.D. (funded by the State by the way. i.e. not cost to the voter). My question is....then how do they get to the polls to vote? Does transportation for them only run on election days? Give me a break Ritchie, Ellison, and all you other left-wing radicals hell bent on subverting the Constitution and our country.

The VoterID amendment is the result of a fake and deceptive crisis meant to rip the right to vote from legal, law-abiding citizens.

@greg. You couldn't be further from the truth. It is simply meant to verify those voting are who they claim to be. In 2008 we three situations: 1. A person with the same name as someone else in our precinct but assigned to another precinct was allowed to vote because we couldn't ask for I.D. but if we had been able to verify we could have caught her error and directed her to her correct precinct (a neighboring town). The real person was not allowed to vote as a result because the voting roster showed she had already voted. 2. On two occasions a man showed up when the polls opened claiming to be so and so and had the name and address of another person committed to memory and voted under someone else's name. Later in the day the "real" residents for those addresses came in to vote only to be turned away because, again, the roster showed they had already cast their ballots. Again, if we had a policy of checking I.D.'s we could have verified the persons against their photo and verified their addresses. In both cases, we were only able to figure out what happened well after the facts.

All we are asking for with a Voter I.D. law is to be able to verify people are who they say they are. Under current MN law we are not allowed to ask for an I.D. The legal, law-abiding citizens would not be affected in the least. The fraudulent voters, on the other hand, would be and that is the whole purpose behind such a law....to maintain integrity in the voting process.

Another Delusional Right Wing Nut Job. Coleman lost on the recount that is why they went to court. When it went to court the Coleman lawyers testified, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, that there was NO EVIDENCE OF FRAUD! Do you think Coleman wanted to lose his cushy Bush rubber stamp job? Do you think if there was any evidence of malfeasance that the high-priced GOP lawyers from D.C. would have presented it in a heart beat? You better believe you bottom dollar they would have. At least Coleman paid for his recount, which is more than can be said of the Minnesota GOP.

@greg. Coleman lost because Sec. of State Ritchie threw out absentee ballots received from our military while ensuring felons who had not had their voting rights reinstated were not removed or appropiately "flagged" in the state's voting rosters. And his blatant disregard for the law and ethical execution of his office continues on a daily basis. I give you the example of one of his staff recently arrested for possessing fraudulent I.D.'s using different names with her photo and address on them and records showing she has voted under each of those names in past elections. I give another example currently playing out in the courts and his attempt to confuse the voters by rewording two important issues on the upcoming ballots...one of which is the Voter I.D. legislation. Since the 2008 controversy alot about his background has been discovered like his connections to and mentorship under ACORN which has been shown to be an active agent for voter fraud across the nation. To top all that off, he has also initiated lawsuits in an effort to derail the Voter I.D. amendment. Last I checked, such political activism is beyond the purview of his position. Got any more lame-@$$3$ arguments? Bring 'em on. I have yet to hear of an argument against the Voter I.D. amendment that cannot be easily defeated. But you go ahead and keep on trying just the same. No matter how ludicrous the argument may be. Just like Ellison's snowplow argument.

63% of the people without valid IDs don't even know it. So how do you drive someone to the DOT when they don't even know that there ID is invalid? Quit drinking the Minnesota Majority koolaid.

@greg. I don't know what you are basing your "63%" on but even so your argument makes no sense. Are you saying the person driving people to the DMV don't have valid driver's licenses? Or are you saying that people don't know if their I.D. is valid so they wouldn't know whether they needed to get one? What exactly are you trying to claim with your argument. By the way, any legally accepted form of I.D. that includes a photo AND current address is a valid I.D. Bet you didn't know that now did you.

Have you read the amendment? Nobody knows if military ID will be valid because it doesn't say so in the constitutional amendment whether it will be valid or not. Nobody knows what kind of ID will be valid. Maybe it will have to be the chip Big Brother plants under your skin. What will you Right Wing Nut Jobs be saying about that loss of freedom?

@greg. Again, apparently you never served in the military. I did and I retired after more than 20 years. The military has a process in place and they have teams specially trained in matters such as voting rights, tax preparations, etc. to ensure integrity in the voting process or other legal matters. As for what the Constitution says about what constitutes a "valid" I.D......Are you serious?!! Let me give you a refresher course on U.S. history....the Constitution (as well as the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights) were written within a few years of 1776. The automobile, camera, etc. were not invented until well after those documents were written so there is no way our founding fathers could have foreseen such things as drivers licenses, military I.D.'s (as we know them today), much less any newer technology such as computer chips, etc. Hence, the Constitution, does not address I.D.'s as you seem to purport. Boy! The left have sure found a useless (and mindless) tool in you.

@greg. Addendum to my previous reply to you just to clarify a few things.

1. In this case, we are talking about our State Constitution but the gist is the same and,
2. As far as the implantation of some chip under "my" skin? "I" refuse to let anyone, much less the gov't implant such a device.
3. Oh! As a side note and for conspiracy theorists out there? The implantation of some chip would take voter fraud to a whole new level. Couldn't you just imagine what kind of business could be made for harvesting the recently passed for those chips to further skew voting results? The HORROR! Just sayin'....

Take out your drivers license. Now show me the location on your drivers license where it states that you are a legal resident of the United States. Hmmm...guess that negates your fantasy world.

@Greg. People who are to be challenged on their immigration status have a box in the lower right corner of their driver's licenses that say "Status Check". This box indicates that a personal is NOT a legal resident of the U.S.

This is tame compared to what drivel Michele Bachmann concocts on a daily basis.

State ID's are free to the people? So I guess I can tell the DMV that the $34 they want to charge me for my DL renewal is bunk? Can I use your name as a resource when they ask me who the idiot is that told me that line of BS?

@greg. The legislation as it has been written, proposed, etc. would allow for the state to pick up the costs of a photo I.D. (just like Wisconsin and the other states that have enacted such a law). The costs would be minimal and typically around $6 per I.D. Now, given that a large majority of our State's residents have some form of photo I.D. already they would not need to get some special I.D. for voting. Those who would need one are generally the elderly who either never had a drivers license or who have relinquished their licenses in the past. The fact is, everyone has to present a photo I.D. in so many other aspects of our daily lives so it is reasonable to assume that only a very small percentage don't actually have one and for some valid reason (e.g. illegal aliens, elderly living in nursing homes, physically disabled/home-ridden, mentally challenged/under some form of guardianship, etc.) thus the costs incurred by the state would be minimal at best. By the way, after Wisconsin's Voter I.D. law went into effect they had a bigger turnout at the polls and elderly residents interviewed afterwards stated it was because they had a renewed faith in the process because of the Voter I.D. law enacted. And they stated also that it was not a problem for them to get an I.D. if they needed one. And your logic using the renewal fee for a drivers license is all bunk. You're the one who if full of B.S. after reading all your posts on here so far.

We already prove who we are when we register to vote that is why we have voter registration at the same time as when you receive your driver's license. Guess you didn't know that little tidbit or maybe it doesn't fit in to your Right Wing Nut Job fantasy world. Show me where the Constitution says that drinking, driving, cashing checks, buying autos, and buying houses are a Constitutional Right. Or do you not believe in the Constitution?

@greg. This issue isn't about proving who the person is when they register to vote. It's about verifying those who are already registered and listed in the rosters to ensure they are who they say they are. Again, your logic of using the Constitution as the basis of guaranteeing our rights to drive, drink, cash checks, etc. as an argument in this case is way out there in left field. McFly....Helloooo, anybody there?

The reason they are going this route is because they have tried to get it passed legislatively and failed because Dayton would never sign it. So the only option at this point is to amend our state Constitution which does not require Dayton's signature. I would be happy if they could just allow for us to verify voters match with the rosters (i.e. change the current statute) but that would require Dayton to sign off on it. As it stands right now in Mn, we are not allowed to ask for I.D.'s when a voter signs in at the precinct. Voters are free to voluntarily show their I.D.'s but only the honest voter would do that. Anyone out to commit voter fraud would never allow their I.D. to be checked and the way the law is set up in Mn now, they know this and that is how they take advantage of the law to further their cause(s). Dayton's nothing more than a tool for the Democratic party and he's not about to jeopardize his affiliation with them. Face it, the only ones really opposing such action are the Democrats. Any wonder why?

Richard, so then, I will ask (not making an assumption about your stance on it), why is it necessary to amend the constitution for the marriage amendment? Since THAT law already does exist, prohibiting same-sex marriage, why is it necessary to amend the constitution? Someone obviously DID sign that law, so why this step?

You see, this is why I don't buy your argument that this is "the only way" because Dayton won't sign (uh... he's only been in office 2 years, what about all the governors before him?? Why didn't Pawlenty get 'er done?), because, as is seen with the proposed Marriage amendment, even WITH the existing law, some people just want to write certain people out of our rather permanent constitution.

Additionally, your statement that this is the only way to do this because the governor won't sign it is kind of scary. I mean, that means that ANY time we have a mismatched legislature/governor (like now, controlled by opposite parties) that the party not in the Governor's mansion can just push anything they want to the ballot. And though I am all for "for the people, by the people" governing, that does not mean the people should vote on everything. We send folks to St. Paul for a reason, to represent our views, wants, etc. Not everyone will get there way, that is the nature of politics, sometimes you have to wait in line a very long time to see change. And when you start down this road of ramrodding everything through the constitutional amendment process, creating more division, spending more money for and against these thing, it will get very scary.

I don't know you Richard, and you can think what you want about me, but seriously, for a moment, consider that YOUR issue, YOUR life, was on the ballot. Set aside the bias about these current issues and think about the implications of long term and regular legislation by amendment.

I love and believe whole-heartedly in the principles that America was founded upon. i.e. Free-enterprise, Capitalism, and our inalienable GOD given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. With the deteriorization of the moral fiber and ethics in the past few decades we are on the cusp of losing everything America has stood for along with our freedoms and right to live as we please. This year's election is truly the most important in our Nation's history and we are truly at a fork in the road where we either choose a path of evil and Socialism or a path towards restoration and what America was originally all about. If the wrong path is chosen, don't come whining to me when they begin to dictate how you live every aspect of your life and everything you have worked so hard for is confiscated by the government. That is the real Hope and Change Obama was talking about in 2008. People just need to really listen to what he says and then read between the lines. Think about what his words mean from a Socialist standpoint and it all makes sense. Do yourself a favor and educate yourself on life under Communist Russia and Hitler's Germany. I don't know how old you are but up until the 70's, world history textbooks in our public school system gave quite a stark comparison and look into life under those forms of government. Now, students are lucky if they are even taught what Paul Revere shouted on his now famous midnight ride.

Richard - I, for one, believe a governor has every right to veto bills, just like they do every year, in every state across the nation. Contrary to what you seem to be suggesting, a governor doesn't have to sign every bill that comes across their desk, many times because they DON'T believe that a bill represents a "majority" or if it does, it might do a huge disservice to the minority. It's called "checks and balances." Though, If a governor did have to sign every bill, we might never have political stalemate or division because people would actually be working across party lines.

Also, to clarify, the amendment on marriage is to NOT allow same-sex marriage by defining marriage as one man and one woman, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. If this amendment passes, it will be a LOSS for advocates of same-sex marriage.

On that note, don't feel the need to keep responding on my account. Clearly, it is not that I don't see the whole picture or that you don't see the big picture, we see completely different pictures. And that is ok. If you want to have a discussion, we can, but thus far this seems to have mostly just been a repeat of many talking points.

As to learning history, I acknowledge that my understanding of those eras is probably greatly lacking, however history books are FULL of crap. Not that they are all junk, but there is a lot of lies in a lot of the books. Take a look at what the fine educators in Louisiana are trying to teach now... that US slave owners were kind and treated their slaves well. Because we all know that OWNERSHIP of another human being is definitely right and good.

On that note, I hate to do this, but I just can't get sucked further in to this argument today, as I have so many times before. I appreciate that you and I have very different understandings of our history, views of our present and hopes for the future, but I'm sad to say that when folks get in to calling our president a socialist and how much it is like Communist Russia, my eyes just kind of glaze over. People did the same thing with Bush in office and its all just rhetoric that gets us nowhere. It is the same kind of fear that McCarthy used to scare people in to hating their neighbor and I just can't buy in to that.