I’ve been asked to take part in Google/ABC News’ digital election coverage next week. They are talking to people in all 50 states to, determine “why your vote matters and what issues influenced your vote.” As I have stated many times, I am a fiscal conservative with some liberal social leanings. This election is a difficult one for me because of how I weight issues and their importance to me and my fellow Americans. While thinking about this upcoming interview I really began to more seriously consider why and how I will be voting myself.
My biggest concerns at the national level are related to the economy and taxes. I think we need to spend far less on the nice-to-haves and much more on the must-haves like our physical and digital infrastructure. If taxes need to rise to cover these costs, so be it. However, considering we spend far less of our GDP on infrastructure than other industrialized nations of our size and caliber, I think we need to be reconsidering how we spend the public’s dollars.
While this is all well and good, this election cycle I am mostly concerned with two issues being voted on right here in Minnesota: Voter ID and the Marriage Amendment.
We have discussed both of these topics on the site before. While other conservatives, such as Chris Gerlach believe we should limit the rights of our fellow Americans, I have made it clear that I fully support granting equal rights to all citizens of legal age in our country regardless of their creed, color, or sexual orientation. Not one single intelligent argument has been presented which is not full of hatred or irrelevant religious moral belief. While plenty of individuals have spoken to both sides and no one is going to change their minds based on my ramblings, it is important to note that if you’re voting “Yes”, you’re on the wrong side of history. Very much alike those who were against integration or interracial marriage, those voting “Yes” will eventually be overruled as their outdated and bigoted beliefs fade into oblivion.
Just last evening I was in the car listening to a radio commercial supporting the amendment. The group paying for the commercial were apparently horrified that children in Minnesota as young as second grade would learn that our Constitution would embrace ALL people, not just those they deemed acceptable. There’s nothing I find more abhorrent than parents teaching their children to dislike other people based solely on their own misguided personal preferences. But hey, if you don’t want your children to learn that people have equal rights in this country, there is always homeschooling and it’s your right as an American to exercise that option.
As a fiscal conservative I have a real problem with Voter ID. The conservatives have done an excellent job convincing the American public (regardless of political belief) this is a must-have without providing a single viable argument which proves their case. Setting that aside and ignoring the liberal’s claims of disenfranchisement of the elderly, homeless and minorities who normally vote for them we’re left the single most telling reason why this should not be implemented: COST.
Estimates for Voter ID adoption in Minnesota range between 15 and 150 million dollars. For the conservatives to claim that this is a worthwhile venture while ignoring this cost factor is irony as its worst. For a group so high key about cutting costs in Minnesota to lower the tax burden, I am shocked they would propose voters support the opposite of what they were championing for just two years ago. Honestly it shows just how disconnected the conservatives are and how confused they are about their constituency.
Aside from my issues with the high cost, it’s clear the legislation will do nothing to stop what they claim it will. Those who want to vote fraudulently will continue to do so. It won’t stop the handful of felons who have been the only ones found guilty of illegally voting because IDs aren’t updated with your voting status. It won’t stop those who really want to vote “dead and often” as they would be making fake IDs and shuffling between vote sites to continue their slow and inefficient way of illegal voting. Instead we will continue to fear ballot stuffing and, most recently, leveraging the poor security of e-voting machines (championed by the conservatives) to potentially shift elections without anyone having to cast a single vote, ID or not.
Perhaps if there was clear language for the planned legislation already prepared, there would be less what-if scenarios to fear. Perhaps the legislation would be inexpensive and make sense, accounting for all of the concerns laid out above as well as the hundreds of others people have brought up over the last few months. Unfortunately that language does not exist and we must trust our legislators will do the exact opposite of what they normally do and make a law which not only is inexpensive but also makes sense and we all know that’s just not going to happen.
I realize I am probably not going to change one single mind either way here but there isn’t one good reason why you should vote “Yes” for either of these amendments in Minnesota. If you read no other articles about these topics, I strongly recommend these two links.
The first, appearing in The New Yorker is a must and the second, written by reader Joey, is simple and to the point and gets to the heart of the matter from the viewpoint of an intelligent, conservative, Christian:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/10/29/121029fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all
http://www.widewhite.org/2012/10/presidential-election-minnesotas-marriage-amendment-voter-id/
—
How are you voting on Tuesday? Have you changed your stance about any of these issues recently? If you are voting “Yes”, why? If you’re voting “No”, why? What sorts of issues do you have either way? What articles have you read which you feel are important pieces to the puzzle? Whatever you have to say about this one go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
November 2nd, 2012 at 8:04 am
Simple decision for me on Vote No for marriage…
On the Voter ID, My opinion doesn’t matter one way or the other for this response, but what baffles me is the cost. Why in gods name does it take that much to check an ID? Possibly I’m missing a bigger picture on it, but really, it’s a simple process.
November 2nd, 2012 at 8:07 am
Training, education, providing IDs to people, etc, etc.
November 2nd, 2012 at 8:54 am
These are easy vote “no” amendments despite what you feel about gay marriage or voter id. They just shouldn’t be amendments. They are not about how our state government is run. They’re laws, not amendments, and should stay that way.
November 2nd, 2012 at 8:59 am
Many reasons to vote No for the marriage amendment. I do not want others telling me how to live my personal life, especially the government for starters. Even though this would not impact me if it passes, it is the principle of it. I really do not see a difference from this and having it say only same race can get married (I also think marriage should not be limited to only 2 people but that is a topic for another day). I also cannot tolerate legislation with religious underpinnings. Can’t think of a single reason to vote Yes on that issue and it should legal for same sex to get married already.
For voter ID I was going to vote yes as I’m not opposed to the idea. Then I realized it shares a reason I’m voting No for the marriage amendment. It changes the Constitution. I do not see this issue as significant enough to warrant that. I do not think there is enough of a problem that requiring an ID would fix. In other words, I do not really care if people are not required to show an ID even though I am not opposed to the idea of having to do so.
So 2 No votes from me..
November 2nd, 2012 at 9:40 am
One of the Vote No argument about Voter ID I’ve heard, but hasn’t gotten much play is that we are permanently writing 2012 technology into our constitution. While today a “government issued picture ID” is common place, it is very possible that in 30 years we will have technology that is much different for establishing our identity than a card we carry around with a picture on it. Do we really want the government forced to continue to issue a card for the sole purpose of voting if technology has long ago moved past them?
November 2nd, 2012 at 10:09 am
Re: Voter ID amendment. I realize that it is up to the legislature to actually pass the laws implementing it, but the cost estimates – “15 to 150 million” – are backed by what? And, is it really an estimate if it uncertain to a factor of ten?
November 2nd, 2012 at 10:13 am
Zapiens, here’s a pro-voter ID website’s claims about the high costs associated: http://www.protectmyvote.com/?page_id=1568
The reason for the wide range is because we simply do not know how the legislature will handle the decision. The liberals will likely want to make every decision uncomfortable and expensive so as to turn public opinion against the amendment as well as extend access to those they feel are being disenfranchised at any cost.
November 2nd, 2012 at 10:17 am
God, I can’t wait for this damn election to be over. What I’ve taken away from this whole thing is that people on both sides of the issue can’t keep a civil tongue. The venom and invective hurled at the two sides is what’s truly intolerable for me. Have a healthy debate about something, that’s fine. Agree to disagree. Accept people as more than a “yes” or “no” on a ballot. And realize after this election is over, despite what everyone says one way or another, you truly have no idea what way they voted, because their individual vote is private. Which is the way it should be. And what of the people who didn’t vote? Which side do they stand on? Do you find them “bigoted and close-minded” because they didn’t vote no, or do you find them “buying into the liberal agenda” because they didn’t vote yes?
I’m sorry. I’ve had this issue at the forefront of my mind this week, not because of how I’m voting, but because someone I care about very much decided to assume I was voting a certain way, and tried to make it a defining moment of our friendship, despite the fact that she was incorrect in her assumption. Maybe I’m alone, but I can disagree with a person’s stance on an issue and not hate them or think less of them. And I would not assume someone’s position on an issue. And I’m definitely not saying anyone here is doing that. I just think that a lot of people overall have lost their civility to these issues on both sides, and it truly upsets me.
November 2nd, 2012 at 10:28 am
Claire,
FWIW, not voting on the issue equates to a “No” vote automatically.
November 2nd, 2012 at 10:33 am
Claire, I can respect someone who is voting for Romney, even though I’m a liberal. I can respect someone who is voting for the Voter ID amendment, even though I think it is terrible. I absolutely CANNOT respect someone who is voting for the Marriage Amendment. It is pure hate.
So I fall into your group of people who think less of others based on their votes. And I’m really okay with that. I don’t want friends who are voting for that garbage. I don’t want friends with hate in their heart.
November 2nd, 2012 at 10:38 am
Hey Bill,
I’m sorry, I meant someone who wasn’t going to the polls. Their vote actually doesn’t weigh in.
November 2nd, 2012 at 10:39 am
Clarie, then I have a problem with them for a completely different reason.
November 2nd, 2012 at 10:48 am
Kassie, I understand what you’re saying, and my only point is that you can only go by what they tell you they’re voting, not what they actually vote for. Maybe it’s a distinction that makes no difference, but it’s enough to give me pause.
November 2nd, 2012 at 11:21 am
I have already voted by absentee. Two No’s on the amendments. Per many above my reasons on the marriage amendment need no explanation.
On Voter ID I voted No mainly because it is a solution in search of a problem. Also since the laws that are passed are generally in states that have or had Republican legislatures, I believe it has nothing to do with voting integrity, and everything to do with fighting demographics which are not friendly to the current makeup of the GOP. Its just another wedge issue I also agree with Bill that the costs are unknown.
Finally I fundamentally disagree with government by referendum. The state of California is completely f***ed up now and mainly as a result of govt by referendum. The legislature should do their job and pass laws. If they get vetoed, then tough. If the majority doesnt like the laws or the vetoes, then elect a new legislature or governor when you get your next chance at it.
My neighbors have a Vote Yes on the Marriage amendment sign on their lawn. Do I hate them? No. Do I think they are wrong? Yes. My wife and I just cancelled them out anyway.
November 2nd, 2012 at 11:25 am
This sums up my feeling on both amendments, cited from Brian Lambert in Minnpost who posted it:
And … yet another argument against legislating through the constitution. In a Strib commentary, prominent attorney David Lebedoff writes: “There are three things that no rational person should ever do:
1) Choose to sit in the middle seat of an airplane.
2) Buy a watch on the street for a dollar.
3 )Vote “yes” on a constitutional amendment. … We fought a revolution to achieve consent of the governed. So let the people govern. At the ballot box. At elections. You count the votes, and the majority wins. People who want to carve in granite something that is already against the law are simply afraid that the majority might someday change its mind. But the right to change one’s mind over time is also known as democracy.”
November 2nd, 2012 at 11:42 am
No on marriage. Consenting adults should be able to form mutually acceptable relationships of any ilk without any outside interference.
No on ID. I came to MN for college and was able to register and vote using my school ID my freshman year. It was an excellent introduction to democracy and a right I cotinue to cherish 20+ years later.
November 2nd, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Sadly, I think the two amendments, and the idea that both are “republican” in nature, is the reason that this whole election will be decided based largely on issues which have nothing in the world to do with the business of getting our country moving forward again.
I will be voting no on the marriage amendment, mainly because its stupid. I dont know yet how I will vote on voter ID, as in principal I dont think its a horrible thing to have to show ID to do something as important as voting. In practice, I agree that its largely stupid, and sadly a waste of everyones time.
In my opinion, these issues are a giant fail by politicians in both parties. They seem far to happy bickering about ridiculous crap like this, as it allows them to “create” hot button topics that fire up their core voters, while ignoring the real issues facing our country. Taxes, debt, infrastructure, security, healthcare, education, etc.
November 2nd, 2012 at 1:18 pm
I’m voting NO to both. In addition to the cost factor you mentioned also consider that Frank Schubert, who heads a Michigan based conservative lobby group was paid $3.4 million to help organize the effort here, as well as 3 other states. He has a good track record starting with the defeat of the California gay marriage proposition in 2010 so this should not be taken lightly despite the fact that the opposition has raised more money then Minnesota for Marriage.
I feel that the voter ID amendment is just a way for the GOP to make Democrats disappear. Even if there is this massive voter fraud going on all over the nation as they claim, it still wouldn’t be a factor in most elections for if you tally up the number of documented voter fraud cases there is no practical way that this would work. If one uses simple logic, you can see that such an organized effort would simply not work on so many levels that it is laughable to even consider that this would be any kind of “threat” to our democracy.
Why would I want to risk committing a felony that would (ironically) take away my right to vote? There’s no way you could organize that many people to commit fraud to influence the outcome your way. IT DOESN’T SCALE! It’s just a smoke screen by the right to limit access to minorities, college kids, and older people who may skew DFL, it will also limit older GOP voters as well. So this really isn’t about that either.
It’s really about returning to the Jim Crowe days. This is the new “poll tax” – the expense and hassle of obtaining an ID. Even if the ID would be provided free of charge by the state, you still need to go to some government agency and stand in line, then wait until you’re called to get your picture taken, fill out forms, most people will not do this because by the time another election rolls around you will have forgotten the requirements (If you knew them to begin with) then show up on election day only to be handed a “provisional” ballot that will only count if you bring in some form of ID later on (I don’t know how that process would work once implemented though).
Comparing voting with the “well I need to produce an ID to get on a airplane (or insert any other activity that requires an ID) therefore it should be like that for voter ID” is another apples-to-oranges comparison that doesn’t fly because it doesn’t take into account the fact that there is a reason ID requirements are lax for voting in the first place – your constitutional rights. It’s been this way since the civil war because the Supreme Court ruled long ago that excluding classes of people from the voting booth simply because of their circumstances is unconstitutional.
Nobody in the GOP power structure really wants full voter turnout as they generally don’t do well when that happens, so the more they can disrupt that process, the better off they are.
That’s the bottom line and that’s why I’m voting NO!
November 2nd, 2012 at 1:25 pm
Thanks for this post Bill.
If either one of these amendments comes even close to passing I will be very disappointed. Both should be voted down by a huge margin.
We rarely have any sort of political/election signs in our yard, but we did feel strongly enough to purchase and display a ‘Vote No’ sign in our front yard.
November 2nd, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Nurd, you are, as all people who are against this do, making it sound horribly difficult to obtain a picture ID.
Lets just take a step back from the ledge and admit that the vast majority of people in our country already have picture IDs. I think its also safe to admit that an even higher percentage of people who vote already have photo IDs. I am willing to be that its like 99+ percent. I would be further willing to bet that the only sizeable percentage of voters who dont have a photo ID were delivered to the voting booth on a bus by one of the two political parties. So, while I agree that this is largely being pushed by the republican party for thier own agenda, you are being a hypocrite to try to say its not being opposed by the democrats for the exact same reason.
Hard to pick up a bus load of homeless people, feed them a hot meal, and ask them to stop by and vote for obama if they have to prove who they are and/or where they live.
Having identification is not a burden, its a fact of everyday life. All that said, I will probably still vote against it, but its annoying to me when anyone pretends that any politician is not working on an agenda.
November 2nd, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Chad,
I don’t disagree with anything you just wrote which is why I pretty much stuck to the cost argument. We don’t need to fund this high cost venture. Because of that, and because everyone has a right to vote, we cannot go down this road plain and simple.
November 2nd, 2012 at 2:09 pm
Dave,
While I’d like to agree with you about both getting voted down soundly, Voter ID is polling at better than 60-40 in favor of passage.
I hope the polls are wrong.
November 2nd, 2012 at 2:14 pm
lefty,
The reason the polls are favoring a landslide in favor of the amendment is because, like Chad has already mentioned, most people believe having an ID isn’t a barrier to vote because so many already have them. The problem is, like with most things on election day, people simply don’t educate themselves enough about the details of an issue to be fully aware of all of the pros and cons of people, potential legislation, or amendments and instead choose to vote on their own poor misconceptions, taken at face value, instead.
November 2nd, 2012 at 2:23 pm
What??? I had no idea an election was coming up. Someone should run a commercial or put up some signs or something. If nothing else, talk about it on social media or the radio.
November 2nd, 2012 at 2:41 pm
I can tell you based on where I work that the voter ID amendment really will cost the state a lot of money. Minnesota would be (should be?) required to provide IDs to folks who cannot afford a license on their own and the state pays per card issued..
November 2nd, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Anyone who clicked through the link Bill included to the post I wrote on this already knows where I stand, in opposition to both amendments. But can we please stop shunning and berating with insults those we disagree with? That’s why we’re in this mess in the first place. Attacking and dehumanizing the opposition with insults isn’t exactly an effective strategy for encouraging them to change their minds.
November 2nd, 2012 at 3:37 pm
The Marriage amendment is an easy NO.
I’m the odd liberal who sees nothing wrong with showing an ID to prove who you are before voting but was already going to vote against it because we don’t amend the state constitution for this purpose. I attended an event last week discussing the Voter ID amendment and this proved to me that this badly written bill should not be approved by anyone. It has too many unclear parts to it. If written into the Constitution, the legislature has no say in how these questions get resolved. The State Supreme Court wil be the only ones with the power to define the ambiguous parts of the amendment. It will be tied up for years.
November 2nd, 2012 at 3:37 pm
While most people do have a photo ID, many do not. And many do not have a photo ID that would be acceptable to vote. While no one knows exactly how this will be translated into law, it is expected that the ID will have to show your current address and not be expired. Current address means exact address, including your exact apartment. IDs that do not meet this include tribal IDs, passports, student IDs, and military IDs.
And again, MOST people have them, so it is okay to disenfranchise those who don’t?
I have a very different view on IDs than most Minnesotans being an election judge and having worked in the welfare office.
At the polling place I worked the last couple years, we same day register hundreds of people on the Presidential election day. Most do not have the correct address on their ID, meaning we use one of the other options. Mostly an ID with another address on it, or a passport, and a utility bill with the current address. It is a poor district with many students and mostly renters (Steven’s Square in Minneapolis).
With my job at the welfare office, I rarely saw an ID that was current. Lots of expired IDs, out of state IDs, IDs from addresses long since moved from or IDs that just weren’t legal anywhere. When we introduced the requirement to provide citizenship and ID verifications for Medicaid we got lists of all the places around the country where all birth records were destroyed. We spent lots of money trying to track down birth certificates from around the country going on people’s best guesses as to where they were born. This was especially true with the elderly and people of color. For food stamps, which requires an ID, I denied people regularly who just couldn’t come up with one. When you have no permanent address, getting an ID tends to not be your number one priority.
Ultimately, this is maybe 5% of the population, tops. Not a huge number. But disenfranchising even one person is wrong. Our number one right in this country is the right to vote, without it our other rights are meaningless.
November 2nd, 2012 at 3:42 pm
Let’s be serious though, by this definition, people are disenfranchised from voting no matter what requirements are put in place. We’re simply talking about the degree of disenfranchisement.
Not everyone can produce a utility bill (or other required piece of mail) that’s 10 days old on election day. People routinely forget about this requirement until election day and are then scrambling to find the necessary documentation. When I moved to Minnesota, I was one of those people. The documentation I tried to use the first time didn’t work and I had to run back home and dig through the trash to find something acceptable. This was all within a half hour of closing time at the polls.
Once a voter is registered, it obviously gets much easier. And I agree in not wanting to make that process more difficult. I just don’t think disenfranchisement is a very good argument since any restriction, including any requirements already in place, by definition disenfranchises someone.
November 2nd, 2012 at 3:46 pm
Joey’s comment was the 40,000th comment posted to the site! Here are the other milestone comments:
5,000th on 2/22/2009
10,000th on 8/26/2009
15,000th on 2/12/2010
20,000th on 8/23/2010
25,000th on 2/16/2011
30,000th on 8/24/2011
35,000th on 2/14/2012
November 2nd, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Joey, you are right, not everyone can produce a utility bill. That’s why we also accept electronic versions of utility bills including cell phone bills, certain student fee statements, and certain rent statements. People who live in facilities can have the facility vouch for them, same with dorms. People with no ID or utility bills can have their neighbors/roommates vouch for them. We work with people who have limited reading skills or who are disabled to help them get registered, surpassing barriers inherent with those issues. All the while never asking someone for any indication of who they may be voting for. I can’t imagine any eligible citizen in Minnesota, under current law, who would be disenfranchised here unless they are physically unable to get to the polls.
November 2nd, 2012 at 5:37 pm
Some eager little pissant called here the other night to talk me into voting yes on the marriage amendment. I used a nice little old lady voice to say that, no, I wasn’t a self-righteous bigot. He didn’t know what to say. So I asked him if he was voting yes, and he said he already had. I asked him if he was a self-righteous bigot and he said he should let me go as he had 100 other people to call. I asked him to please not call them and hung up.
I think these “yes” people are, to use an old-fashioned term, dirty-minded. Why is it there business what goes on in anyone’s bedroom as long as no one is breaking the law? Are they so cruel that they would deny people familial support systems that they probably enjoy themselves?
Regarding the voter ID, I wasn’t swayed in either direction until recently, when I also realized the cost involved. Essentially, a chain of events could occur with this passing that would involve all sorts of things that the state usually charges for becoming free to all; just in the interest of voting rights. Birth certificate copies, new social security cards, state ID cards, etc. would be all rights become free to all. $$$$$$$
November 2nd, 2012 at 5:44 pm
No on the marriage amendment as I feel that is a misuse of government. If people are gay and don’t want to get married, don’t. If you’re not gay and don’t want gay people getting married, keep your nose out of their business. Am I concerned that some school may mention that men can marry men, or women can marry women to my grandson? No, I’m not.
I’ll probably vote yes on voter id. The secretary of state usually does pretty good managing elections, regardless of the party in that role. I don’t think there will be a real issue and the cost over all will be much more manageable than it seems. We tend (as a state) to take the pessimistic view on costs to do stuff and I think it will be much more reasonable. Do I think it will have a huge impact? no, but I think it will eventually remove some of the bluster when the fraud claims come out of which ever party thinks they were screwed over.
I didn’t have time to get registered to vote this year, so I’ll be registering the day of voting. I’ve done that pretty much the first year of anytime I have to switch polling locations. I don’t see voter id changing the ease that I do that.
Printed out my ballot today and will be doing research over the weekend on stuff like judges, etc.
November 2nd, 2012 at 5:55 pm
Mikeh, thank you for doing the research.
November 2nd, 2012 at 6:41 pm
Chad,
OK I’ll break this down (comments edited for brevity):
“Nurd, you are…making it sound horribly difficult to obtain a picture ID”
No it’s relatively straightforward and I’m glad that it is easy and convenient; I wouldn’t want it any other way myself. But this isn’t about convenience; it’s about the erosion of civil rights really.
“… the only sizeable percentage of voters who don’t have a photo ID were delivered to the voting booth on a bus by one (emphasis mine) of the two political parties…”
So the Republicans don’t engage in similar chicanery?
“Hard to pick up a bus load of homeless people, feed them a hot meal, and ask them to stop by and vote for [O]bama if they have to prove who they are and/or where they live.”
Yep, the Democrats would be in real bad shape if they couldn’t do this anymore. It sure helped them in 2010 when the Republicans took over the house.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I get the impression from the TP boilerplate rhetoric of that comment that you may actually swing right, so I’m glad you are willing to reach across the aisle to help vote this down (my confidence level that this will NOT pass isn’t very high).
November 3rd, 2012 at 12:00 am
No to both, for reasons already well-articulated by many here.
November 3rd, 2012 at 1:45 am
Nurd, my communication was poorly worded. When I said “delivered to the voting booth on a bus by one of the two polical parties” I meant that both parties clearly participate in this activity. I was not singling out democrats or republicans. I did take the cheap shot at democrats in your next highlighted quote, but I have an equally low opinion of both parties.
I do think that its a nice and somewhat trite argument to say that we cant disenfranchise even a single voter. The same argument could be made for even a single case of voter fraud, particularly when we have elections being decided by a miniscule number of votes in many cases.
For what its worth, when I first moved to Minnesota 12 years ago, I was denied the right to vote, and I can say that I was not scarred for life. I attempted to vote, but did not have a current utility bill and had not yet obtained a MN drivers lic. Our utilities were in the name of my girlfriend (wife now). I did not own a cell phone at the time. Really wanting to vote, I asked the little old lady in charge what I could do, and she explained I could have someone vouch for me. I went home, got my neighbor, and went back to again attempt to vote. Denied again. My neighbor, who lived directly across the street, was at the wrong polling location, thus he was not allowed to vouch for me.
Sorry, as I said, I will be voting against this, mostly due to cost, and the general idea that our govt is incapable of efficiently and logically implementing what should be a simple and effective requirement to vote, but I dont think anywhere near 5% of our population is without a photo ID and I think the little old lady claiming she would be unable to vote commercial is just as ridiculous and insulting as the Mass couple whining about their 2nd grader learning that some people are gay.
November 3rd, 2012 at 1:51 am
Nurd, one more comment, portions of my response may have been boilerplate, but again, so is this silly argument that “we cant disenfranchise even a single voter.”
I doubt having a voter ID requirement would have any impact on elections for either party. As noted before, I think these are silly issues that our politicians love to drum on so they dont have to make tough decisions about the things that really matter. Becuase, quite honestly, other than the idea that we should not be governing with constitutional amendments, which I believe Joey has articulated quite well in this and other threads, this is an issue that has little to no impact on the future of our country.
November 3rd, 2012 at 1:53 am
“Setting that aside and ignoring the liberal’s claims of disenfranchisement of the elderly, homeless and minorities who normally vote for them we’re left the single most telling reason why this should not be implemented: COST.”
Fine, but I wouldn’t ignore the claims of at least potential disenfranchisement.
The cost is a disgrace. The assault on the rights of lawful voters is a constitutional crisis in the making.
Sure, it’s hypocritical for the conservatives to add needless cost.
It’s a fucking crime against their country that ONLY THEY support this election “reform.” Why on earth should any Dem or independent agree to election “reform” promoted by only one party? It’s madness.
November 3rd, 2012 at 9:04 am
I just don’t see the significantly increased cost. Never have. I found a report by the Hubert H. Humphery School of Public Affairs titled Voter Identification: The True Costs. An Analysis of Minnesota’s Voter Identification Amendment.
http://www.mncounties.org/HHH%20Institute%20Final%20voter%20ID%20report%20AMC.pdf
Total costs calculated using what is know right now is around $303,360. other costs are ascribed to; “training” polling workers (they already do this, so I don’t see extra cost) , “validating voters” adding extra time at poles (they already have to validate voters, I don’t see any extra time due to this). And at the end they admit it is impossible to really know the costs.
I feel “additional” costs will be marginal at best. The rest are existing costs of operating government, essentially overhead of the government existing.
For some Minnesota residents that do not have ID today, it will be very difficult for them to get ID, even if it is free using the current system of Driver’s License Agents (DLA). I propose that the DLA’s be authorized to provide temporary roving registrations, allowing them to move their location temporarily to assist with elderly or others unable to travel to existing facilities. Nursing homes, or remote city community centers would be places they can setup. The state would reimburse the DLA’s more for such registrations. This is something the legislature can work on as they hammer out the details of the implementation.
November 3rd, 2012 at 3:02 pm
Chad:
Point taken on the “we can’t disenfranchise even a single voter” impression that I may have left in my original and subsequent comments. My point is that we need to strike a balance between voter accessability to the booth while also maintaining integrity of the process itself.
Initially I thought the same way as you did when this issue first surfaced this cycle: What’s the big deal? Everyone’s got ID right? I used my DL to register when I voted in Burnsville for the first time, and all other places that I have lived and so it was a non-issue for me.
And that’s why this moronic amendment will most likely sail through and pass. The unfortunate consequence of this Is that nobody knows what’s really going on here. its not about keeping the elections “fair” as they have led everyone to believe but rather an attempt to control public policy by outside special interests.
The sad thing is they have the low information voter crowds to do this under the guise of “freedom” and their followers just lap it up.
The Democrats have the problems as the GOP: Polorization. The parties both need to attract centrist voters like they did “back in the day” or we will never break the gridlock we have now.
November 4th, 2012 at 9:47 am
Someone took our “Vote No” on the marriage amendment sign from our yard this weekend. Boo.
Maybe dm could chime in here from an educator’s perspective, but the scare tactics about the effect of a “no” vote on school curricula seem to be off base. Our grade school and middle school kids aren’t taught about marriage at school now, even in its “traditional” form. (No kids in high school in our house yet, so can’t speak to that). Why would that curricula change if the definition changed?
November 4th, 2012 at 1:46 pm
I was disappointed that when MPR hosted a debated on the marriage amendment, they had religious people on each side. It’s not a question of theology: we’re voting on amending the state constitution, not amending the Bible. Since it’s a question of law and policy, they should have had experts on law and policy on each side. It did highlight that no credible, non-sectarian expert on social policy has presented evidence that gay marriage harms marriage, children, or the community.
November 4th, 2012 at 2:39 pm
Jill, I sympathize with your disappointment that any debate over the amendment seems to be religious in nature. However, I think that’s because the only argument in favor of the amendment is religious. I think the Vote No camp knows that it has to make its case to religious voters. They probably feel that presenting Vote No arguments from religious people will be more effective in turning around some of those Yes votes. I think that strategically, they’re right.
November 5th, 2012 at 6:10 am
Whit, while I can’t speak to Massachusets curriculum, in Minnesota “family” is taught around first and second grade as part of a community unit, typically. Community starts as family, and then is typcally expanded from there (family>neighborhood>city>state and so on). so your kids ARE taught about marriage, they just don’t remember it, because really, it’s second grad social studies. Nobody gets offended by second grade social studies.
My guess is that gay marriage being taught is something like “Some families have a daddy and a mommy and kids and some have two daddies or two mommies and kids. Ok kids, now let’s talk about our pets!”
Cleary a liberal agenda aimed at “turning our kids into homosexuals”.
November 5th, 2012 at 8:57 am
A law requiring that one show a universal ID to vote is more sensical when such an ID is universal.
November 5th, 2012 at 7:45 pm
I’m voting no twice because, not only are they terrible amendments in every way, but they also go against our system of representative government. It’s why I voted no for the clean water bill, even though people asked me why I hated fish and clean air. Don’t like the way your state reps are running the place? Get on the damned phone and talk to your rep. Or email them. Or petition them. Or vote for the other guy. Or run for office yourself.
November 5th, 2012 at 10:24 pm
I’m voting no on both. On the voter ID bill, it is so lacking in detail that once passed, you’ll get the legislature fighting over the issues they should have figured out in the first place before ever thinking of putting this before the voters. That is a significant reason the cost estimates are large and variable – nobody can define the cost because not all the parameters have been set. I was going to vote yes, but changed when I realized how poorly written it is. On the second issue, I’m voting no because I don’t believe that legislating discrimination into our constitution is a good idea. Churches, feel free to honor whichever marriages you choose to or not to. Besides, shouldn’t these other couples be able to be as miserable as the rest of us married folk :) ?
(I also voted no on the Clean Water Amendment, even though I directly benefit from the funding from it in my employment). Having lived in Colorado during College, legislation by referendum is a disaster. Their constitution is a mess as a result, with constitutional mandates that funding for some things increase, while in direct conflict with other mandates that require spending less. It doesn’t work folks…
November 6th, 2012 at 12:48 pm
MikeH: can you seriously see Kurt Bills or Gerlach or Dan Hall or Pam myrha voting for DLA to give temporary roving ID’s or registrations? And everyone of the proposals you made (which may be reasonable) will add layers of cost unanticipated.
Seriously, you are missing the point, these Voter ID movements are about reducing the number of voters, not expanding it.
Hell the major media has scare stories every month or so about how white Americans are slowly being overwhelmed by a tsunami of non white , and supposedly non English speaking, population growth. You add the basic makeup of the GOP party and the strongest blocs of the Dem party and its just painfully obvious the intent of the proposals.
Having said that , I agree that the legislature could be tasked to set up some type of law that might work for all….so vote No and send it back to them to get the damned thing right.
November 6th, 2012 at 2:17 pm
I was proud to go to the polls this morning and vote NO twice.
November 6th, 2012 at 7:39 pm
I disagree that these voter id programs are intended to reduce the number of voters. American’s are Americans regardless of their skin color. The number of white Americans afraid of the blending are slowly dying off and becoming much less of a voice even as they try to get louder. If our state reps can’t get their shit together and make voter id work, then Minnesota will elect some that will.
As far as costs, I just don’t care. The task is clearly something the government should be doing, and as such I expect the cost to be both fair, controlled and necessary.
We’ll see how the vote goes.
November 7th, 2012 at 5:15 pm
Mikeh:
Help me here, I interpreted your comment above as:
Because we have less people who aren’t neo nazi lovin’ “master race” types, we should now be able to pass a bill that will make it tougher for those “Blended” types to commit the wholesale voter fraud that apparently is gripping the nation.
Is that about right?
November 9th, 2012 at 2:36 am
Dunno if anybody is still following this story but I found both of bill’s arguments for these two measures to be fully in line with my own. The voter ID is silly because it adds uneccesary cost without providing any quantifiable benefit. The marriage issue I feel a Constitution whether its a state’s or this nation’s should not have amendments in it which are discriminatory. I was pleased to vote against both these measures and even more pleased they both failed.
sory for typos etc in this, its 2:30 freakin am :P
March 8th, 2013 at 7:02 am
[...] voted twice in the same election. Voter fraud was a hot topic during the most recent election and the public was told by conservatives that it was occurring on a large scale even when it most definitely was not. However, this highlights the type of voter fraud which occurs [...]