Al, it's not that "religion should stay out of it", it is that laws and amendments should not be passed based on what a religion or religious book says....meaning that gay marriage should not be denied because the Christian Bible says it is an abomination. The organizations above are not doing this.

Where are the court cases, where are the convicted criminals spending time in prison for this?

There is REAL disenfranchisement that occurs every election but Republicans aren't doing anything about it...

Every time there is a recount in any election there are always votes that get changed - so that means that either the votes were counted incorrectly the first time - or on the recount...

This means that there are LOTS of votes that are being counted incorrectly - you may vote for Romney but it might be incorrectly counted for Obama (or vice versa) now isn't that really a problem - and yet we hear nothing about it...

I love this country because of the freedoms, but freedoms attached to responsibility
but I really get upset when people abuse our country and take advantage of it ($ , privilege of voting etc) There are many immigrants to American, BUT to be able to take advantage of our freedoms YOU NEED to be here legally, otherwise DON'T take my money!!! My parents did it right, my grandparents did it right WHY can't these people. It is NOT that hard to get Proof of WHO you are to vote. On a second note, the gov. should NOT change the definition of marriage. Now having said that Yes it is up to the individual if they want to marry the same sex or the opposite, even though I believe 2 sexes were created for a reason. Gov. should NOT dictate religion or any freedom of choice, that is why we live here. Any gov. control, except when it has to do with our safety should not happen. The bills need to be revised, and not written as is.

Since Margaret has posted the ridiculous LWV piece which concisely outlines all the lies and misleading statements the Left have been spouting for years about voter ID, here's a couple links to the other side of the argument which debunks everything the League of Liberal Women Voters would have you believe.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ProtectMyVote/videos?view=0
http://www.protectmyvote.com/?page_id=875

Also, this thread is about Voter ID, not the marraige amendment, so all the 'vote no because laws and amendments should not be passed based on what a religion or religious book says" are way off the mark. No Voter ID argument is based on ANY religious grounds.

Susan's comment is the very definition of a 'strawman' argument. Shame on you, Susan, for trying to put words in the mouths of supporters. And shame on these churches for putting their weight behind undermining the integrity of our election system.

Margaret.

What's not reported and not easily detected is vouching fraud. On the day of the election -- someone can come in and vouch for up to 15 people to vote. This with one (or more) utility bills with an address on it. It's very disingenuous to say that the only fraud that has been reported is felons voting - as the largest voter fraud hole is the ridiculous vouching that goes on in this state. And yes, voter id will fix that issue.

minnpost.com, the most misleading, leftest media out there. Margaret, do you expect intelligent, non-sheep, folks like us to believe facts from minnpost? The problem with Minnpost is that they neglect to give the public all the facts; essentially misleading and taking advantage of those who are uninformed. So sad, we can now add "Democrat" as the new religion as I see it everyday how the DFL platform blinds those that claim they have faith to vote against God.

Margaret

I can't find the figures either -- but vouching is rampant at higher ed towns and urban centers. Vouching is much less prevalant in suburban/exurban/rural areas.

Double voting in two states (while against the law) is very easy to do (absentee vote in one - get vouched for in the other) and the chances of getting caught are small since it crosses multiple state lines.

And it is instances like the one noted in the last election that gets me riled up to fix it. By the way - we are talking about the MN Daily here ...and not FoxNews that featured this

http://www.mndaily.com/2010/11/08/students-may-face-felonies-over-illegal-voter-vouching

Everybody know that Pawlenty was a RINO--Republican in name only. So what does that prove? Exactly nothing.

I have seen this allegation that "even the Republican lawyers acknowledged.... no fraud". I would appreciate some sources of this information. I can imagine the lawyers not alleging fraud during the recount, because it would be irresponsible to make rash accusations without proof, and proof is mighty hard in voter fraud. (No ID, remember?)

But.... This comment suggests that the lawyers said that there was no fraud, which I have a hard time believing.

Point to something specific, please.

Daryl - Please post this information. Could it be because there are same day registrations that make up the difference? Otherwise, you may assert that there is fraud, but the facts are that there have been two full State recounts that have found no fraud, no identifiable cases of impersonation. Only a few felons who voted before they had their rights restored.

I can't speak for Al Anderson's assertions on fraudulent vouching. I believe you have to complete a form at each precinct (by the lead election judge) that details each instance of vouching. I assume these have been made public somewhere, but I have not been able to locate the link so I can't say the number.

My first vote was an absentee ballot because I was out of the country on a study abroad program. When I first moved to MN from college, I had to register same day at the election precinct. I had a roommate vouch for me because we were all sharing an apartment and I was not on the utility bill. I found the system to be easy and have voted in each election.

I fear for people like my neighbor's sister who is disabled, blind and only partially mobile. She lives in a facility where she does not have an ID, has never had a Driver's License and would be severely impacted if the Voter ID were enacted. She has voted in past elections, but that has been a struggle. These additional obstacles might make it insurmountable. Just one instance. But without any proven fraud that voter ID would prevent, this is unjust.

Ms Richardson writes: "Could it be because there are same day registrations that make up the difference?"

No. Once registered, same day registrants are included in the count of "registered".

Daryl, tell me, where do those letters to minority voters, telling them to vote on Wednesday, or to vote at the library, or any other lies to suppress the vote come from? Democrats? Hardly. Why is it every time--every time--I hear of a case of voter intimidation, it is the Republicans doing it?

Daryl - I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt until you started your post with "you people". Now I know just what kind of person you are and will disengage because obviously I am not dealing with someone who is seeking to understand, but rather with someone who labels, ridicules and diminishes. My neighbor's sister is not imaginary, but obviously not someone who would "count" in your world. May your hardened heart be softened.

"You people?" Okay, Mrs. Romney.

Thanks Edward -- I was really getting upset with Al Anderson's remarks!!
If I had replied to the IDIOT, I'm sure I would have been deleted!!

At this point - that situation is nothing but heresay. Nice try.

Vouching is the door that allows most of the fraud to walk through. Very hard to trace fraud through absentee ballots and same day registration (via vouching). Easy to vote in multiple states.

And Kitzer -- just because you're upset -- never gives you reason to call people names. Nice going!

This vouching thing is a red herring. How many people do you know who would risk a felony conviction to get one or two extra votes?

It. Doesn't. Happen.

It is really, really hard to say something "does not happen". The best you can do is say that you have not seen it.

Voter fraud in MN is like that. Because of the way the laws are set up - with ballot secrecy, and no effectively ID requirements, the "felony" is easily avoided because it is almost impossible to get caught. MN Majority found 6000 same-day registrants in 2008 who gave bogus addresses and then voted and that's only of the ones they checked! Some of them may be typos or other innocent errors, but many were clearly fraudulent. Trouble is, since we have no idea who it was who registered same-day - you cannot prosecute.

Sorry folks, this is evidence of fraud, and is way more than the margin of victory in 2008. A photo ID is a truly minimal burden for voters.

VoterID will pass.

Al 'baby' -- I have plenty REASONS to be upset, and right now you are at the top of my list!!
If you think I'm going to say nice going to you - Guess again!!
Also, there have been a few other IDIOTS that have TRIED to tell me what to do!
All of them have been GOPS!

Donald, I want to correct some things here about 2008 and add data from 2010:

The secretary of state’s office differs in their analysis of the data. They reported in a May 1st 2011 memo to the House Government Operations and Elections Committee that 13,363 voters in the dataset who used election day registration on November 4th, 2008 were flagged for challenge or changed to inactive status due to a PVC return, and note, 10,095 were returned because the voter moved either in-state or out-of-state. The secretary of state concluded, “therefore there were 3,262 voter records among the 2008 Election Day registrants for which there is no obvious explanation as to why they were returned.”

2010:
"In total, 1,244 Election Day registrants who voted in 2010 were subsequently mailed undeliverable PVCs for which there is no known valid explanation. Taking into consideration the presumed delivery of 426 to 604 secondary PVC mailings, between 640 and 818 Election Day registrants provided names or addresses that could not be verified, some after two attempts. 399 of those have been referred by
election officials to county attorneys for possible criminal investigation.

The number of suspicious PVC returns following the 2010 non-presidential general election is significantly lower than is documented for the 2008 presidential general election. Voter turnout was lower in 2010, but not in proportion to explain the disparity in PVC returns by turnout difference alone."

A couple more numbers:
2,821,147 people voted in Minnesota in 2008
2,123,369 people voted in Minnesota in 2010

PVC cards are often returned for simple reasons besides fraud. The voter moved (this is the BIG one), the voter was on vacation when the card was sent out, or the voter missed the card in the mail. Many of these things are corrected or are verified with a second mailing.

Donald, this "may" be evidence of fraud, but with only 399 "referred" for prosecution out of over 2,000,000 votes in 2010, I will wait to see the prosecution rates of these individuals before I decide if this is indeed fraud vs. human error.

And apparently it is not "impossible to get caught"....399 are or were referred for prosecution but I haven't been able to find the outcomes of these investigations.

This report: http://wewantvoterid.com/documents/2012_PVC_Report_Final.pdf breaks down the PVC issues. Some of the numbers do not agree with what Susan posted, for some reason, but others do. The link above is using the same source document from the SOS.

Note that the date of the SOS document is May of 2011 - 2.5 years after the 2008 election. Why the delay? One reason proponents of Voter ID are unhappy is that the SOS is so busy campaigning for defeat of the VoterID amendment that he has no time to do his job ensuring election integrity.

Susan is waiting for the prosecutions to happen. Please explain how a prosecutor prosecutes when there is no way to ID the person who voted? The 3262 PVC cards returned for "no obvious reason" were all same day registrants. They may have made errors, but also may have listed parks, abandoned buildings and warehouses to perpetrate fraud.

Who registered? Who do you prosecute? No ID was required at the polling place. Vouching makes fraud easy, and no ID is required of the person vouching either!

We know that 3262 PVC cards were returned with no "obvious reason". Can we really dismiss this as "nothing" and maintain the fiction that there is "no fraud"?

Go ahead and say the number is small, but it is more than the margin of victory. How many fraudulent votes balance one "suppressed" voter?

We have to do better than this.

And on the "outcomes of these investigations".... County attorneys are often in the same class as our SOS - too busy campaigning for the defeat of VoterID to be bothered prosecuting. Mn Majority has been asking for prosecutions, and getting nowhere. There is clearly no enthusiasm for these prosecutions.

Donald, I got my numbers and related information (except the number of voters in each election) from the exact document you linked. This includes the mention of 399 referred for prosecution...maybe you need to ask them how they flagged these, and what their plans are for prosecution as I am not a prosecutor.

Donald wrote: "County attorneys are often in the same class as our SOS - too busy campaigning for the defeat of VoterID to be bothered prosecuting. Mn Majority has been asking for prosecutions, and getting nowhere. There is clearly no enthusiasm for these prosecutions."

Aren't you the one who takes exception to allegations without proof?

True. What proof do you need? The SOS is making public speeches about how harmful the VoterID amendment will be. If that's not "taking a stand", I don't know what is. The SOS's job is to ensure voter integrity. Any obvious partisan leanings are improper. Active campaigning is clearly out of bounds, yet he continues....

Let me quote from this document: http://www.minnesotamajority.org/TheIssues/ElectionIntegrity/tabid/188/Default.aspx

"On October 31st, 2008, Minnesota Majority forwarded such evidence as it has found to date to 30 county attorneys and 30 county auditors. We requested investigation of these irregularities. According to Minnesota law, a county attorney who is notified of such issues shall promptly investigate. Several failed to reply at all, and two outright refused to initiate investigations, even though they are required by law to do so. Failure to investigate allegations of election problems received as an affidavit is a misdemeanor offense and any county attorney found guilty must also forfeit their office under Minnesota statute."

Donald, I will admit that I haven't followed Ritchie closely on this issue, but if you are going to ask "someone in the know" about voter fraud, wouldn't the man in charge of voting in this state be a good authority on the subject?

And wouldn't the county attorneys know what will make a good prosecutable case? So if the people that know the job best are giving their educated opinions on the subject, this is somehow sleazy partisan politics?

Instead of going to my doctor for my next injury or illness, maybe I will ask the mailman's opinion instead because I know he is a Democrat and my doctor is a Republican....seems a bit silly, doesn't it?

Susan wrote: "if you are going to ask "someone in the know" about voter fraud, wouldn't the man in charge of voting in this state be a good authority on the subject?"

I'm going to use your logic and suggest you ask former Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer (the woman in charge of voting), co-author of the Voter ID amendment.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/10/02/photo-id-the-common-sense-solution/

Mary Kiffmeyer wrote: "Nationwide, not a single case of voter disenfranchisement has been shown." I should introduce her to my dad, and if she or anyone else believes that he is a one in a million case, they don't know Minnesota at all.

Yes, Markus, you make a good point, but her statement above shows me that I either can't trust her judgement or I can't trust her knowledge of the electorate.

I have a rule - never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence.

The SOS and county attorneys reasons for their behavior. Nefarious reasons are not my first guess, nor even likely. From their point of view "too busy" is the likely response. Who isn't? If prosecution is really hard - it clearly is - and there are no kudos to be had for success, and lots of static to be reaped for pursuing it, why in the world should they do it? I might be tempted to call this lazy, but I don't know. Maybe they are simply overworked. What is clear is that they are refusing even to try. (according to Mn Maj)

Even if passed, Susan's father is not necessarily disenfranchised. The details matter. The specific procedures for absentee ballots matter. Whether or not he gets help voting matters. Mary Kiffmeyer may still be right, even after the amendment passes. I know of no one who wants people like him to be barred from voting.

I left something out.....

The SOS should not campaign on issues before the voters. It's a conflict of interest, and the voters should condemn this behavior, regardless of which side you're on.

Susan, you made my point for me. Kiffmeyer and Richie are both politicians. Both have an axe to grind. I wouldn't go to either for an objective viewpoint.

If you were assured your father was going to be able to vote absentee without being subject to all the possible obstacles you have envisioned and described in previous posts, what would your objection to Voter ID be?

Edward wrote: "This vouching thing is a red herring. How many people do you know who would risk a felony conviction to get one or two extra votes?

It. Doesn't. Happen."

You. Don't. Know. That.

Markus, if there was a notation of an exemption for those that would suffer a financial or physical hardship by having to leave their home to get an ID, I would now vote yes. I had a big concern about the cost of implementing this, but there are people here who's opinions I have come to respect, and if the FISCAL Conservatives are willing to take on the cost to implement a policy (that we can not prove is needed) then I guess I will give up my argument about cost.

Susan, I watched a lengthy debate on the issue and remember hearing that after age 65 (I think it was 65) the valid ID does not expire. Might have been earlier than that even. There were other things as well to address the elderly and homebound. The people who are behind Voter ID really did think it through and they were exceedingly concerned about two things: ensuring all eligible voters can vote, and preventing fraud. I'm glad to hear you are open-minded about the whole thing.

JoJo, my concern is about voting yes or no when we don't know the details. I understand there was previous legislation (with details) that Dayton vetoed, but I am shocked that we are being asked to vote on something without details....in fact those details won't be decided until after the vote. I'm not quite sure why people (especially Conservatives) are comfortable with this. I can not vote yes to something that could disenfranchise so many of our citizens. If we had the details first, it would seem more honest to me....but we don't, we only have promises, and how well do we trust the promises of our politicians? Especially when it's the opposite side of the aisle making those promises to us. They say they will somehow make it possible for my dad to vote as easily as he has in the past, but no one has to hold them to this, once they get their 'yes' votes.

I think you better put the 'bottle' away and go nighty-night!!
And PLEASE disqualify yourself from being an election judge - for obvious reasons!!

wow, Kitzer... just a reply of insults and name calling? I'm not surprised, facts and logic are not on your side.

Yes, I'm a Liberal!! DAH!!
As far as 'skimming a post' -- I read, unlike you!!
Spew hatred?? Read your own comment, and then let's talk about HATRED!!
Insults?? if you want insults, I'll be glad to give you some!!
Commands?? Sorry, I'm not a GOP!!

Kitzer - Take a deep breath, take five, and come back to this discussion once you're ready to take part in a civilized discussion about the issues rather than calling other commenters names.

JoJo - Your comments aren't models of civility, either. If you're taking issue with Kitzer's style of commenting, please address your comments to Kitzer's behavior directly, instead of making a blanket statement about all liberals.

Respect other commenters in this stream, please. Several of the other participants have been able to, until now. Please look to them as examples.

James Sanna

Yet - when someone like Kitzer posts a message with highly personal insults about someone here - you choose to leave the posts here rather than to delete them.

Why?

Honestly James it is rare to find a liberal who'll reply without offensive name calling, links to liberal blogs as proof for their arguments, and a complete sense of how they're a victim and everything wrong in America is somehow linked to a republican (like bush) or a greedy rich person.

It would be nice if liberals wouldn't escalate every discussion to a heated debate on fairness.

James Sanna -- I see you didnt reply to my comment about deleting highly offensive insulting posts. I hope you agree that by leaving them up you are telling us that
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.

We lead the country in voter fraud conviction since the 1930s I'd have to watch the debate over but there were convictions in the 08 and 10 elections, not to mention all who didn't get caught. Saying we don't need to check IDs with voting in this day in age when you can't drive, smoke, drink, attend school, work, pay taxes, bank, make any major purchase, hunt, fish, rent anything, loan a library book, etc without an ID is just sick.

I need to look into Mr Friedburg's comments. Regardless, it is one man's opinion, and does not trump either contrary evidence or common sense.

***"What about the woman who worked in Secretary of State Mark Ritchie's office until a few months ago, when they discovered she had at least 2 I.D.s (1 fake), had used the fake one to get welfare for years, AND had voted under both I.D.s in elections! "***

Really? A quick google search reveals, from Fox9 News:

***"FOX 9 News checked to see if Victoria Ayoola had voted in recent elections, and it appears that she did; however, she did not use her legitimate identity to vote. "****

Read more: http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/19039429/state-worker-accused-of-drivers-license-social-security-fraud#ixzz29f3hTgGI

BTW - in your zeal to point out she was arrested while Mark Ritchie is Secretary of State, you forgot to note that she was HIRED by Mary Kiffmeyer - a Republican.

As far as those votes "that cannot be accounted for from the 2008 election" - are you suggesting that Coleman's Recount Team ignored them before their Lawyer told the State Supreme Court that there was no evidence of fraud?

All those millions of dollars Coleman's Recount Team spent, and they ignored them?

Reasonable people need to consider who is more credible: Coleman's Lawyer at the State Supreme Court, or the postings of anonymous people on blogs.

So.... how well trained will the people at he voting spots be at spotting fake ids?

I suspect that most of them will not be able to spot a decent fake ID and if they call out too many ID's as "fake" but are real - what then?

What happens if you go to vote - produce your ID and the person says "I think its fake" and turns you away - what then?

Tommy - so how would Voter ID have stopped this woman from voting? Assuming her fake ID was decent - she would have shown up - produced the ID and voted without an issue.

Do you really think that all of these poll workers are gonna be pros at spotting Fake ID's? How much training will they receive? Will they be required to pass a test to ensure that they are able to spot a Fake ID? Will an eye test be required since spotting a decent fake ID can come down to fine details...

And no offense to the poll workers but given the age of the poll workers where I vote - and how close and hard they have to look to find names on the voting rolls - I am not feeling really positive about their ability to examine each ID and determine its authenticity.

Rob asked: ***Tommy - so how would Voter ID have stopped this woman from voting?***

It would not have stopped this woman from voting. Please join me in voting no (twice) on November 6th.

It would not have stopped this woman from voting, but it WOULD have prevented her from voting effectively anonymously, allowing for some hope of prosecution.

We used simple ID ap, a cheap internet card reader, and a $50 laptop in the 2012 republican primary elections.

Fake ID's won't work... repeat voting won't work... it's so user friendly a cave man could now be an election judge.

Seriously go to www.protectmyvote.com and get your facts straight before you give yourself a stroke thinking of more lies and what ifs about the voter ID amendment.

Yep it used to be you could vouch for 50 people... now it's only 15 lol

Unlike almost everything else, voting is a right, not a privilege. The burden should be on the government to prove I cannot vote, rather than on me to prove I can. (A database would be the best way to do that.) What constitutes a valid id? Two of my adult kids have lived in 4 different places in the last 2 years and don't have a photo ID with correct address (but do have bills, rental agreements, etc. that prove where they live). Do they get a new voter ID, free, every time they change precincts? Will they receive them in a timely manner? Will they be allowed time off from work to get them? If we choose to not show ID, how long a line will there be at the "come later with your id" place? Will I be allowed time off from work for that? My father-in-law hasn't driven in years and has no picture ID, nor do several of his friends.Will they be provided free transportation to obtain a valid id? If a driver's license is my valid voter id, do I get it free? If not, can I apply and receive a free voter id card, since I shouldn't have to pay to vote? How does a picture ID prevent a felon from voting? What if I don't look like my picture anymore? Who decides whether or not I look like my picture? What if they think I look like my picture, but my Hispanic neighbor doesn't look like her picture, and my black neighbor doesn't look like his picture? Would we be able to stop the use of fake ids just as "easily" as we stop the use of fake driver's licenses? Too many questions.

What will you do if a poll worker looks at your ID and says that they believe it is a forgery and they won't let you vote?

If we don't have people trained to a high level to spot good fake ID's - then what's the point - anyone who is willing to risk the penalties to commit voter fraud certainly aren't going to be deterred by the need to get a decent fake ID.

And if they won't be trained to spot a Fake ID - then either they will let people with Fake ID's go through or they will likely call some real ID's fake and deny people their right to vote...

Kathy, (below my comment here)...
My goodness. PLEASE go to www.protectmyvote.org and learn a few things!!! Nearly all of your concerns are unfounded (I say nearly because I grew tired of your hand-wringing and what-if's). The tireless work of a lot of volunteers has brought us to this point. Fraud is real and is about to ensure the end of legitimate elections. If you aren't afraid for your candidate to stand on his or her own merit, then you MUST vote YES on the Voter ID question November 6th!

JoJo --- You're the one that is doing all the 'hand-wringing' and 'what if's' on this thread! (Your reply to Susan)
You remind me of an old-maid teacher --
'Don't cross the street, a car will run you over!!'
'Don't look at a man, he'll rape you!!'
'Don't look at the full moon, you'll go crazy!!'
-- Where were you on the evening of September 30th 2012??? --

“The amendment does not require an ID with the individual’s current address; it is only used to verify identity.” Election judges will decide whether I can vote on site or provisionally based on looking at me and my picture. Pretty subjective and subject to interpretation and discrimination. Any penalties for abuse of power? “Voters will always be able to obtain a free state-issued photo ID at any time.” Again, does the law provide that my employer must allow me time off to do so, as it does with voting? Will I be provided transportation if I require it to get my ID? “It requires confirmation of identity and eligibility to vote (citizenship, not a felon, etc).” I had to pay money whenever I’ve needed to obtain a certified birth certificate. Will those now be free? “..would be provided a provisional ballot, allowing them a full additional week to certify their ballot and have it counted.” Will I be able to get a birth certificate or other documents to prove my citizenship within a week? Will the law provide that my employer must allow me time off to do so? (More questions to come if I have time, on absentee and provisional ballots.)

We used simple ID ap, cheap card readers, and $50 laptops in the 2012 republican primary elections without a hitch.

Fake ID's won't work... repeat voting won't work... it's so user friendly a cave man could now be an election judge.

Seriously go to www.protectmyvote.com and get your facts straight before you give yourself a stroke thinking of more lies and what ifs about the voter ID amendment.

The amendment itself does not answer many of my questions. At no cost - does that include no cost to myself in terms of lost work time, in terms of obtaining a birth certificate, for example, to prove my citizenship? Can anyone tell me for sure that the law won't require, say, those moving within past 30 days to go to the downtown Minneapolis courthouse to vote, rather than their precinct? Nothing is said about the timeliness with which the state must provide the id. "Valid government issued ID" is not defined; it says nothing about utility bills + old id. What constitutes "substantially equivalent identity and eligibility verification" for absentee ballots? Still too many questions (and I have more, those are just examples).

Kathy is confusing the amendment with a statute. The amendment is not supposed to have that level of detail in it. That is left to the legislature to hammer out in the statute it creates.

Also, voting is not a right, it is a qualified privilege which can be taken away or not granted at all if the person doesn't meet eligibility requirements. It happens all the time to citizens under 18, those convicted of a felony, those deemed insane or no longer in charge of their faculties. See Alexander v Mineta (2000).

Additionally, If you don't have a birth certificate, naturalization papers or passport (which requires a birth certificate to get), how did you register to vote in the first place? What documentation did you use to prove citizenship? Your comment about the 'burden' of having to get a birth ceritificate is ridiculous as we ALL had to get such documents to register in the first place.

And Rob's assertions are rebutted below, but for ease: all his 'what if' statements are based on the flawed assumption that the state will adopt a certain system for ID. We don't know what they will adopt yet, all we know for sure is the system proposed last year and vetoed by Dayton, would not require election judges to figure out if an ID is real or not. All ID's can be scanned like a credit card and the proposed system called for that.

All this hysteria from Rob, Kathy, et al is just that. None of it is based in fact nor a proper understanding of the law.

That's great Mike, you just wiped out a whole group of retired people who don't drive and rent a home or live in a nursing home....never mind that they spent up to 50 years of their life working and paying taxes.

To Susan: Election judge heads are going to assisted living facilities next week so residents can vote easily. And I doubt Mike meant to omit non-drivers valid ID options, which will be counted as valid ID to vote. For your last point, maybe you should spend some time checking around your neighborhood and offering to drive your elderly neighbors to the poll instead of using them to make a weak point. That's what we do and encourage others to do.

JoJo - I'm sure you would stoop to drive anyone to the polls!!
After all, you'll be sitting there and claiming FRAUD on anyone who happens to have his hair parted on the wrong side or if they have (GASP!!) their ears double pierced!!

JoJo, you have no idea what you are talking about when giving me advice. As someone with a quadriplegic housebound father, I know more about this amendment and it's positives and negatives than most posting here combined. My comment was a direct reply to Mike's comment. How about if you keep your suggestions to yourself when you know nothing about a person's life and/or intentions.

It's funny, other "election judges" and officials have posted comments on other threads about the issue and they seem to contradict your (educated) opinions.

Susan -- AWESOME reply to JoJo!!
As I've stated before -- 'IT' should disqualify ITself from being an election judge!!

VOTE NO ON VOTER ID!!!!!!!!!!

"If you dont have either one of those then you dont contribute to society therefore you should not get to vote." Like if you don't own property, you can't vote? Who are you to judge whether or not I'm "contributing to society"? Should "contributing to society" (and by whose judgment?) be a requirement for voting? Pretty scary.

Sooo - JoJo - I guess, according to you and ONLY you, that ANYONE that votes NO to this irresponsile travesty, is commiting FRAUD!!
VOTE NO FOR VOTER ID!!

JoJo, if the wording on the ballot indicated a clear exemption where a physical or financial hardship was present - like my dad, or as they did with the "free" ID notation, I would consider voting yes. But since I don't trust our Republican leadership to give this exemption, I will be voting no.

Have no fear though, I am sure this thing will pass as most people don't understand the realities of why many people don't have an ID. Being as those with IDs outnumber those without, it obvious to see how this will go...it's a shame being as we actually live in a republic, not a democracy.

Susan, you say you don't trust the Republican leadership to provide exemptions, but do you trust the Democratic leadership not to be interested in continuing to receive fraudulent votes?

And they are receiving them. I watch it happen every election, and not a single case could be prosecuted, much less proven, but with voter ID, they could be prevented.

I trust that no election official, regardless of party affiliation, would knowingly accept a fraudulent ballot.

There's no way to know if they are fraudulent or not. That's the whole problem. The ballots are anonymous. There is no possible way to retrieve a fraudulent ballot, and no possible way, in most cases, to find out exactly who it was that cast the fraudulent ballot. There was recently a story about a man trying to prove how easy and anonymous voter fraud is. He walked into the polling place in Eric Holder's district in Washington DC and asks if they had an "Eric Holder" on the list. They hand him Eric Holder's ballot without question and he could have used it. He, of course didn't. But if he were actually trying to commit voter fraud, how would anyone ever find out who he really was and prosecuted the case? How? This is why liberals say there is no problem with voter fraud, because there are very few prosecutions. There are very few prosecutions because it is a nearly impossible case to prosecute.

And the cases I see every election are vans full of Hispanics being brought to the polling place a block from my house and two people in the van vouch for them all. Their ballots are not traceable, they are essentially anonymous, and how would you ever retrieve any of these individuals to prosecute them for fraud? They just get back in the vans and leave, never to be seen again until the next election.

Voter ID could prevent all of this.

Al, I can find this quote all over the right's blogs, but I can't seem to find when or where Mr. Carville said it. Do you have any other info? There is nothing on poltifact.com or factcheck.org, and all I can find online is comments from the left saying that the original blogger made it up. Have you found any other info?

I'm really going to miss the H*ll out of you!!
Did you really believe that by LYING you could make us believe you???
Our learning ability TOWERS over yours any day!!
WE are NOT brainwashed!!!
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Hope you have fun with your continued POISONING!!

Nice try Mike but you are the one who wrote: "Perhaps we should give the voters the option of producing 3 forms of I.D.. A valid drivers license, a current property tax statement or a current pay stub. If you dont have either one of those then you dont contribute to society therefore you should not get to vote."

You are the one who brought your and the whole issue's reality to light on this thread - it has nothing to do with "Voter Fraud" it has to simply with eliminating people who people like you don't think should be able to vote.

Now, if you construed this statement to myself being racist: "Why don't you just come out say that you think that only white, male, landowners should vote and just cut through the b.s." clearly you need to re-read the statement or have someone explain it to you :)

I can understand you will want to redirect attention from what you wrote.

Rob needs to get a clue. The government already has the authority to restrict who is eligible to vote.

"In its 2000 ruling, Alexander v Mineta, the [U.S. Supreme] Court ... affirmed the district court's interpretation that our Constitution 'does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.' And it's state legislatures that wield the power to decide who is 'qualified.'

As a result, voting is not a right, but a privilege granted or withheld at the discretion of local and state governments.... the U.S. is one of just 11 nations among 120 or so constitutional democracies that fail to guarantee a right to vote in their constitutions."

Therefore, each legislature has the constitutional authority to decide what constitutes 'eligibility' for each state. Thus some states take away the franchise from felons for life and others only for a period of time. So, by definition, if the legislature decides that a person must prove they are who they claim in order to vote, then failing to do so automatically make them 'ineligible.' So no 'eligible' voter is denied.

And Rob's numbered points are wrong, because they assume the legislature will adopt a certain system over another which no one can guarantee. All we can say is that the system proposed in the legislation that Dayton vetoed would not require ANY of the things Rob asserts.

His sarcasm aside, the security of our election system IS the main concern.

You do realize that licenses can be scanned, right?

Yes, by all means - back to where we started. And here are, once again, the links to information that puts the lie to everything Margaret and the League of partisan Liberal Voters would have you believe about Voter ID.

And as added proof, if she and the LPLV are correct, then where are the hundreds of news stories over the past 2 decades from the 33 states that currently have voter ID reporting all the disenfranchised seniors, collge students and minorities? Trick question, THERE ARE NONE. So this isn't 2 hypotehtical points of view arguing their cases. One side is hypothetical and the other has more than 20 years of real-world implementation.

33 states with voter ID laws
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/09/27/voter-id-laws-in-all-50-states-in-1-map/

Links showing the LPLV assertions are false
http://www.youtube.com/user/ProtectMyVote/videos?view=0
http://www.protectmyvote.com/?page_id=875

The Washington Post story - listing the 33 states with Voter ID is a great resource. Thank you.

Since Kathy doesn't seem to read comments, I'll repeat myself here:

The government already has the authority to restrict who is eligible to vote.

"In its 2000 ruling, Alexander v Mineta, the [U.S. Supreme] Court ... affirmed the district court's interpretation that our Constitution 'does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.' And it's state legislatures that wield the power to decide who is 'qualified.'

As a result, voting is not a right, but a privilege granted or withheld at the discretion of local and state governments.... the U.S. is one of just 11 nations among 120 or so constitutional democracies that fail to guarantee a right to vote in their constitutions."

Therefore, each legislature has the constitutional authority to decide what constitutes 'eligibility' for each state. Thus some states take away the franchise from felons for life and others only for a period of time. So, by definition, if the legislature decides that a person must prove they are who they claim in order to vote, then failing to do so automatically make them 'ineligible.' So no 'eligible' voter is denied.

David, - so you are ok with handing over a "blank check" to the politicians to determine what the ID will be, how it will be implemented, how it will be verified at the booth, etc...?

I don't know but it if ironic that many of the people who don't really trust the government, don't like government intrusion, etc... are suddenly willing to run to the ballot box to give politicians more control over what will be needed to vote...

Now, you may "trust" Republicans or Democrats (or maybe neither so much as I don't really trust either side) but let's say you "trust" Republicans to implement this in a way you find acceptable...

Minnesota is a state were power will swing back and forth and I don't see anything that would keep Democrats from changing whatever rules are put in place for "Voter ID" once they are back in power - and if somehow Democrats gain control in 2012 - they will have the majority power to push how "they" want to implement it...

While I will vote "No" on Voter ID, if it passes, it should be lots of fun to watch the fireworks once voters realize that the "can of worms" has been opened and the fight will be on to determine "how" this will be implemented :)

Yes, Rob. Just as we hand a 'blank check' to the legislature on EVERY law they pass. And were you just as outraged with the Legacy Amendment a few years ago? That had no details either and we 'handed a blank check' to the legislature on that as well.

Your 'conservatives don't trust government' meme is funny given the fact that this amendment actually forces the government to account for who is voting in the election as opposed to now where we have no clue who is voting and all sorts of schemes can be (and are, given the convictions) perpetrated on the People when gov't is not held to account. Very funny, Rob.

And if you don't 'trust' either side to craft this legislation, then are you also against all the thousands of other statutes they craft each year, or is it just this one? And, yes, the legislature will be able to amend the statute in the future, but we have the power to say who will be IN that legislature through elections. What part of a Representative Republic don't you get? This amendment will help ensure that the actuall WILL of the people elects who they truly want making and amending those laws.

My bad, it's only been 1 decade for a photo ID, 2 decades for non-photo ID.

"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?

I have a name for this thing about requiring photo ID for voting. It's called "progress".

Exit polling as a back up measure? You must be joking. You mean where people have the right to refuse answering, and many do, thuse making it an incomplete survey? But you'd use that as a 'smell-test"? Why not just use the polls from the previous month? They would have just as much validity.

There's only one poll that counts, and that's the one taken on election day by those who choose to vote.

Although I take issue with many of the points in the article, the more eyes we have on the election process, the harder it is to cheat.

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.

To Donald Lee's suggestion re: posting election day results:
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.

I'd like this to go viral. Pass it on. We need a slogan: "keep it clean - snap the tape". ;->

I did not see that comment, you'll have to elaborate.

Computers are tools, not solutions.

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.

This is the sort of thing that makes people cynical. I don't know anything about this case, and there MAY be reason for the attorney general is not investigating, but if that AG is tossing applications for partisan reasons, he should be condemned for it. Using his office to corrupt elections should be criminal. If guilty he should be held accountable.

Dems at least appear to be more blatant about their intent to defraud voters.

https://www.theprojectveritas.com/node/149

And here's Mark Ritche (D-ACORN) caught ignoring DFL voter fraud in 2008.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4kf4j8ULSU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5tJpVWVusk&feature=relmfu