Seeking to bring attention to what it calls the "voter restriction amendment," the Minnesota Council of Churches announced its opposition to a state constitutional amendment that would require voters show photo identification at the polls.
The amendment, said Rev. Peg Chemberlin, the Council's Executive Director, has fallen too far out of the public eye.
"We encourage and want a vigorous debate and conversation in the next few weeks on this amendment," Chemberlin said. "In fact, I hope there's some pushback. I hope people ask 'What's going on? Why have you taken this position?'"
In a written statement, the Council's President, St. Paul Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America Bishop Peter Rogness said “the fundamental issue that brings us here is our concern for those for whom this step – which seems easy for most in the mainstream – becomes a barrier to participating in the shaping of our public life together.”
It was an issue of “defending the right of the last, lost and least to vote and therefore oppose the amendment," he added.
The Council's decision is not binding on member denominations, Chemberlin said. Instead, the decision by the Council's board was a matter of denominations "calling on each other to encourage this vigorous debate at the local level."
A spokesperson for the Minneapolis Area Synod of the ELCA, which represents much of the western Twin Cities, said that many of the synod's churches were intensely focused on defeating the state's marriage amendment, and the synod would not likely be organizing them to engage in the Voter ID issue.
Chaz Ruzak of the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area said his denominations offices has provided local churches with many neutral voter education resources, but hadn't taken a stand on the issue.
As of publication time, representatives of other denominations in the Minnesota Council of Churches couldn't be reached for comment.
Many religious and religious-based organizations have declared their opposition to the Voter ID amendment, including Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services, First Unitarian Society of Minneapolis, and liberal groups ISAIAH and Jewish Community Action.
"Voter ID has been a hot topic in state legislatures over the past decade. Since 2001, nearly 1,000 bills have been introduced in a total of 46 states. Twenty-four states have passed major legislation during the period 2003-2012 (not including gubernatorial vetoes in five states in 2011), and those bills are summarized in the timeline below." http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx#Legislation Margaret should really get more impartial sources than Pro Publica and "truth Out' So my statement still stands. WHERE are the hundreds of news reports of disenfranchised eligible voters?
There's only one poll that counts, and that's the one taken on election day by those who choose to vote.
The election judges are supposed to post the election results (minus the absentee ballots) in a "public place" at the end of election day. I encourage everyone who votes close to 8 PM to ask for that posting, and write down the results. Compare them to the results you see reported the next day. You should see no surprises.
There was an article recently in the Communications of the ACM (professional computer science geek magazine) about so-called "on-line" voting, and various ways to do voting "electronically". The article discussed at length how completely inadequate software and hardware technology is to handle voting. The conclusion of the article was that computers may NEVER be up to the task. The article also spent a lot of time complaining how hard it is to get people to understand how bad it is, and why it should NOT be used. (I frequently hear the question: "why can't we just vote on-line?" - A: because it's way too easy to screw it up.) When the priority is on integrity and accuracy, nothing beats paper and diligent election judges. There are no short-cuts, either.
I don't like double-standards. If you need an ID to exercise your Second Amendment rights, why do you not need an ID to exercise a right that's not even spelled out in the Bill of Rights, nor even given to all citizens? The right to vote is a qualified right, and the exercise of a qualified right requires proof of qualification, in other words, an ID.
It makes no sense to say "no one needs an ID" when the problem is "some people don't have IDs". The reasonable fix is - get those people IDs, and make exceptions, carefully, where necessary. If you believe that there is no fraud, then you owe me $1000. Pay up.
I don't care how many times you tell me that my dad is an extreme example, or that he "should" be able to vote, or even that he is being a bad, selfish citizen for either not going through that physical and financial hardship just to get to the DMV, or because he doesn't want to lose his right to vote, you will NEVER convince me that this amendment is justified. You also continue to show the heartless side of the Republican party that you all deny exists. How on earth, in our little group of six to ten people here, are there two of us related to someone who is severely disabled? Many more of these people exist than you are willing to admit, and Donald, your hypocrisy on this issue is astounding! Aren't you the one always preaching about not making laws and regulations that are an overreach of government and that these types of things are some terrible stain on our freedoms? Apparently that's only when the Democrats propose such legislation...
An activist/group sued. The court said, "We don't like your solution. These people have to be treated exactly like everyone else." EVERY bus in the fleet has to be replaced so that they "kneel" to accommodate wheelchairs. It cost millions. Maintenance continues to drive cost on the more complex busses. There is less space on the bus for regular people. It provided poorer service to those in wheelchairs. It was a spectacularly dumb solution to the wrong problem. Same with Voter ID. There may be people who for whatever reason just can't or won't get IDs, and still want to vote. We still want to ask for ID from all the other people, 99% of whom are carrying their IDs because they DRIVE to the polling place. The reasonable solution is to find a way to get that problem solved, not to cripple the integrity of the voting system by requiring NO ID when voting. There is no hypocrisy, bigotry, wheel-chair-phobia, hatred of old people or racism in that. It is about fixing the right problem. If you believe that there is NO FRAUD, I can't help you.
Before this conversation goes the wrong direction again, I am going to bow out. I have no need to read that my dad is a bad citizen again or that, through no fault of his own, you all think he shouldn't be able to vote - don't bother to argue this, it IS exactly what you are saying. I will however reserve the right to bring this subject up again the next time a Conservative is bent out of shape because the Democrats want to force some new regulation on a business that will "hurt" the business terribly. Or some new gun law that threatens to take away the rights of the gun owners. As I said, if the question on the ballot contained a clause about an exemption for those that would suffer a hardship in getting an ID, I would vote yes. If you tell me once more that this will only promote more fraud, I will laugh in your face....well, if I could. Donald, I just read your last comment. Why haven't you offered the solution of visiting people individually so they can get an ID without having to leave their home? Or would this cost too much? I guess you need to get an ID or you don't vote....how nice for the able bodied people of America. Enjoy your perfect, average life while you have it, you never know when someone will decide it's your turn to be thrown under the bus for the greater good.
I closed down our ballot box at the primary, which is done with one member each from two major parties. I take a picture of the election results tape before it's even done printing the copies. Some of the results tapes get put into various envelopes and sealed, and one goes to city hall to be posted. We haven't had anyone else ask to see the tape at 8pm (other than me before I became an election judge) but would welcome it. All polling places should. I especially like MN Majority's recommendation to take a photo of the results tape. Anyone can do it. Since we still can't ask for ID's, it's one of the few things we can do.
The amendment leaves it to the legislature to work out this sort of detail. That's why the absentee ballot is worded as "substantially equivalent" on the ID. It leaves the legislature with some wiggle room. That said, exceptions have to be carefully considered. There is a difference between "exceptions" and "loopholes". Loopholes are exceptions that get abused.
http://wtvr.com/2012/10/20/attorney-general-wont-investigate-worker-arrested-for-dumping-voter-registrations/
https://www.theprojectveritas.com/node/149
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4kf4j8ULSU&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5tJpVWVusk&feature=relmfu
1) Anyone has the opportunity to do likewise without having their post deleted and 2) You are ok with people using that form of communication here. I find this one-sided approach to Patch editing to be far too common place with the Patch...which is why the Patch has little credibility with fiscal or social conservatives in regards to political/news features.
I would really like to see the proof that voter id prevents anyone from participating in the shaping of our public life together or disenfranchises anyone who has a legal right to vote in his home precinct.
http://www.mbtshoesukshoes.com/ http://www.burchshoes.com/ http://www.tory-flats.com http://www.bagsforgirl.com/ http://www.borsegucci-italia.com http://www.gucciuk-bags.com http://www.gucci-outlethandbags.com/ http://www.gucci-forsale.com/ http://www.louboutin-shoescheap.com/ http://www.hermesbagssale-outlet.com/ http://www.christian-louboutinoutlets.com/ http://www.christian-louboutinoutlets.com/