UPDATE: Senate Approves Voter ID

Senate approval puts the issue on the November ballot.

Updated 9:30am 4/5/12: The voter ID question is now in the hands of the electorate. by a 35-29 vote, the state Senate approved sending a proposed constitutional amendment to voters this November. If Minnesotans approve it, voters in future elections will have to show a state-issued photo identification to vote.

The measure would also set up a complex system of "provisional ballots" to handle voters who register on election day or who vote absentee. Opponents say many of these voters would not follow through with the required steps to make their votes count. 

Original Story: The Minnesota Senate takes up the controversial "Voter ID" bill today for what could be the last time.

The bill, if approved today, would place a constitutional amendment before voters in November's general election. The Senate and the House had previously approved different versions of the measure. The state House of Representatives approved a new version of measure late Tuesday night, the same one the Senate is voting on today.

Southwest Minneapolis' state Sens. Scott Dibble and Ken Kelash have hit out at the bill numerous times, calling it "a popularity contest for who gets to enjoy freedom."

"Just because it's a constitutional amendment doesn't make it constitutional," said Dibble earlier this year. "No-one has the right to bar anyone from a vote. Despite claims to the contrary and the false evidence that's provided, proponents of this legislation have not made the case and the evidence is abundant that people will be kept from voting if this legislation is passed."

"We brought a statutory plan last year to the governor and he vetoed it," said amendment supporter Sen. Julianne Ortman (R-Chanhassen). "But we think it's so important that we'll bring it to the voters."

Julie Monahan April 05, 2012 at 12:33 PM
Requiring ID to vote should not keep someone from voting. If it does, that's there own fault. Requiring ID simply keeps the chances of fraud down. What's so controversial about that?
AmberG April 05, 2012 at 09:07 PM
First of all, voter ID fraud is extremely rare. Secondly, 1 out of every 10 voters doesn't have government-issued ID for various reasons (never obtained, lost, stolen or revoked). In order for these people to vote, several months BEFORE the election, they have to get an application for a birth certificate, have it notarized, and bring it to the Government Center with a check for about $20 (or $40 if you need it in a few days). To further complicate the process, the person takes their certificate somewhere else to get a voter ID card.. Ask yourself, who is going to spend the money and take the time to do this? Now, imagine the population that do not currently have government ID's. Do you think these are people with plenty of support and resources, or more likely, are they people who use public transportation and other public services? If it is primarily people who need and use public services, and if they don't have a car or cash or time to go get the form, get it notarized, get it to the government center, pay for the certificate, then find out where to get their voter ID card and pay that fee.... Do you see how it might be difficult for that population to continue to vote? So if this passes, we have a whole group of people who will certainly not vote in future elections. The elderly, students, the poorest people in our community, will be silent. This is not about fraud; it is an attempt to silence the members of our community who most need our help.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »