You need a photo ID to attend the Democrat National Convention. Yet Democrats believe that it is racist and discriminatory to require a photo ID to vote.

I would like some liberal to honestly explain exactly which eligible voters will be barred from voting with a photo ID requirement. Look at it logically. It can't be old people on Social Security because they had to have ID to receive SS benefits. It can't be anyone on welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, or government disability because you must have an ID to apply for those programs. It can't be anyone that has a bank account or cashes checks because an ID is required for those. It can't be anyone that uses a credit card, rents a car, or flies in an airplane because an ID is required for those things.

Exactly who does that leave out? Illegal aliens and a few criminals. Those are the people that the DFL is protecting. Those are the people the DFL wants to make sure can vote.

Don't forget the DEAD, Daryl...

The problem appears to be with felons registering to vote / voting. Address the problem through the criminal justice system. It would cost a fraction of the expense to link the correction department's information on ineligible voters with the Secretary of State's registration list.

I'm not interested in paying out any money to catch Big Foot voting, or disfranchising one citizen to address a problem that has no evidence exists.

Daryl I could not have put it any better than you did. Thank you for your words.

Diggitt, I would hope that with your passport, which has a photo inside, and a certified copy of your marriage licence or name change that would have surficed.

It would be nice if people would stop assuming that all Democrats believe this and all Republicans believe that. Nowdays you are either right or left with nothing in between. I vote Democrat 90% of the time and I think that an ID should be required to vote, its just common sense. Not all Democrats are voting they way you think.

Bill should have been the moderator at the presidential debate.

I've actually seen voters turned away because they had already "voted" - they showed id, proved who they were, etc... but were not allowed to vote because they already had. They could not even fill out a provisional ballot because as the poll worker put it - we don't have any way of knowing which ballot was cast incorrectly.

There is nothing wrong with requiring an ID to vote.

HOWEVER

There IS something wrong with implementing this new law 9 months before a presidential election. If voter fraud was so rampant in the last election, why didn't the GOP rush to pass this law immediately after the 2008 election? Wait until the 2016 election to impose this, that way it will give people 4 years to get their act together, and THEN you can give them the 'you have no excuse' treatment.

Watch the video and sign the petition to end Voter Suppression.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9TjVsQa57c

@Pat, a couple things.

1. The Republicans did not have the majority in 2008 and would not have been able to pass this law with the DFL so set against protecting illegal votes.
2. The "law" is not law yet. It was forwarded to the ballot and if it passes it will be placed in our Constitution. You will not have to show your ID on November 6, 2012. So you'll be able to vouch for 15 people on election day one more time.

I hope you understand the situation better now.

MN leads the country in Voter fraud conviction since 1936; in the 08 election alone there was 200 convictions; Canada, Mexico, nearly every other country in the world has voter ID; would you want your liqour store run like the polling place?

It's like Dan said at the end of the debate.... Stealing a car is a felony, voter fraud is a felony... you don't leave your car doors unlocked, keys in the ignition, and a note on the window that says "it's a felony to steal this car." Yet that's what we do at the polling booths now.

Democrats doing what they do best -- cheat and be ok with doing so

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/caught-on-tape-obama-campaign-staffers-say-its-okay-to-vote-twice_10102012

The only thing this convinced me of about voter ID is that we should eliminate vouching.

His best points were that this is a real issue, Voter ID is not voter suppression, and it has worked out in other states. He was disingenuous about the technical problems that remain, the size of the problem, and the true cost to implement.
She admitted that what she says is speculation, but I agree that it is our responsibility to speculate when passing a law.
Based on what both of them are saying, I think 1. Voter fraud is an issue, but it's not a crisis as Republicans make it out to be. This is something we should work on. 2. Voter ID law is not as disenfranchising as Democrats make it out to be. 3. Implementing Voter ID may or may not be expensive, however the burden will fall on local governments, many of which are already stressed. 4. Implementing this will be legally complicated, but not as complicated as Democrats suggest, but not as simple as Republicans suggest. 5. Adjustments cannot easily be made to the amendment as we get feedback on our process. My conclusion is that the existing system needs some reform and the Voter ID system accomplishes some of this reform while creating new technical issues and financial burdens. Furthermore, it, itself cannot be reformed. We need reform but this is not the right one.

"if it isn't in the writing, then it's not going to happen." Wouldn't it be awesome if that was true for every piece of law that gets written?

They talk a lot about whether or not we can establish eligibility to vote in different scenarios. Do you feel like this is resolved one way or the other? Does it matter?