ENCORE: Proposed Voter Photo ID Amendment Stirs Roseville Patch Readers

Minnesota Senate approves the measure which will now go to a vote of Minnesota citizens next November. What do you think? Take our pol, then join the debate.


The Minnesota Senate this past week debated, then pased a bill that will present a proposed Constitutional amendment to citizens on whether to require photo ID for voting.

And the issue has proven to be a political football with Roseville Patch readers. The controversy has generated dozens of reader comments in our most spirited online debate since launching Rosevlle Patch nearly a year ago.

Take our poll, then take a look at the comments that are being waged on this issue, both pro and con. And feel free to join the discussion.

The Senate's action means the proposed amendment will now go to Minnesota voters next November, according to a Pioneer Press report. The measure passed mostly along a vote of party lines, with Republicans supporting the measure and DFLers opposing it.

Among the opponents was state Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville. Here are some comments Marty made on the issue:

“The bottom line is you know the intent [of Republican sponsors].”

“No student at the University of Minnesota could use anything but a valid Driver’s License or License ID. They have to get those for those six months just in order to vote, so you’re probably going to disenfranchise a lot of them.”

“Frankly you can use a photo ID that looks nothing like you and an election judge doesn’t know.”

“This bill will disenfranchise students and people with disabilities.”

“A lot of the homeless population served in Vietnam and came back scarred and they deserved the same rights as we do.”

“This bill is going to disenfranchise tens of thousands of people.”

Want to keep abreast of the this and other Roseville Patch news, information and announcements?  Sign up for our free Roseville Patch email newsletter.

Mike Boguszewski April 08, 2012 at 04:55 PM
As I said in my blog in the Patch of a few weeks ago -- http://roseville.patch.com/blog_posts/roseville-blog-the-reality-of-voter-id -- I personally observed voter and election judge behavior that could have been (a) fraud, or (b) a judge simply letting something slide that she should not have. This was not an isolated case -- it was one of more than 20,000 -- that's TWENTY THOUSAND -- cases where post-election verification of a voter at the given address given. It is simply not factual that this problem doesn't exist in Minnesota. AND no one is advocating that we swing the pendulum far to the other side and institute measures like some have brought up from other states -- as I said in a blog response, are we supposed to let excesses in other states scare us away from making our own system better? And as for hidden motives -- I have never, ever, behind closed doors or anywhere, once heard anyone, Republican or otherwise, hope that a voter i.d. law would prevent ANYONE from voting who has the right to vote. I am eager for November so we can see what Minnesotans want to do about voter i.d. -- I believe we will see that this is NOT a partisan issue, and that most people in this state favor improving our system so that THEIR legal vote is not nullified by one of the AT LEAST 20,000 votes cast that should perhaps should never have been allowed. If voter i.d. passes, then the system will get tighter and we will KNOW what percentage of that 20,000 was actually valid.
Tony Yarusso April 09, 2012 at 05:23 AM
Again, he was not driving, and eventually the license was expired, so there was no threat to your safety. He just didn't want to lose the card that was a reminder that he once could. I said that clearly above.
Tony Yarusso April 09, 2012 at 05:25 AM
"Surplus: An amount of something left over when requirements have been met; an excess of production or supply over demand.; More than what is needed or used; excess." It has nothing whatsoever to do with projected amounts.
John Kysylyczyn April 09, 2012 at 05:26 AM
So Tony if I understand you correct, we should not vote for Voter ID because there might be some senior citizens who hold a drivers license that is expired, and they could not drive if they had a valid license anyways, and they don't want to get renewed because the state might take away their expired card and give them an ID card instead, and they would feel bad if this happened? Huh? Are you kidding me?
John Kysylyczyn April 09, 2012 at 05:27 AM
Ah, that is what the state has. More revenue received than was budgeted for and all expenditures have been met.


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 »