Skip to comments.Vote 2012: What to expect if the voter ID amendment is passed
Posted on 07/08/2012 11:02:14 AM PDT by TurboZamboni
Passage of the "voter ID" constitutional amendment this fall would establish that, starting next year, voters would have to show photo identification at the polls or cast a "provisional" ballot and return later with valid ID.
But many of the details of how that would be implemented would be left up to the 2013 Legislature, which would have to pass a bill that Gov. Mark Dayton, an opponent of photo ID, could sign.
Scott Newman, a Republican from Hutchinson who carried the photo ID bill in the Minnesota Senate, said that for purposes of implementing photo ID, it doesn't matter whether his party retains control of both the House and Senate in November's elections, nor does it matter that a Democrat who opposes photo ID sits in the executive office.
The constitutional amendment, if voters approve it, would set the "substantive law," he said, and the Legislature's role would be "procedural."
"There's going to be compromise; there's going to be negotiation," but the constitutional amendment will provide the "general outline," Newman said. "The governor will be responsible for signing an appropriate bill."
Or perhaps not, said Rep. Ryan Winkler, DFL-Golden Valley.
It's possible the Legislature and governor won't be able to agree on a law, and the state will head into July 2013 -- the effective date of the constitutional change -- without a roadmap for how to implement the new system.
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
To reach the ballot, the voter ID question has to survive a legal challenge.
The American Civil Liberties Union and others are suing to keep it off this year's ballot, arguing it is misleading to voters.
I get photo ID on my customers when they write a check or use a CC in my Mom & Pop bookstore for a mere ten dollar purchase.
No one is ever confused.
On the other side of the coin, a identification issued by the Federal Government that identifies a person as a citizen would mark the end times.
You think so, but most of the planet already has government-issued ID noting citizenship status, and has, for decades already.
Methinks you’re mistaken about the Mark. . .
My question...Why was it so important for individuals to have a photo ID to show when they appeared to have a book signed by Michelle Obama? YET this administration and their democrat cohorts think a Voter ID is unimportant?
Maybe the issue will go all the way to the Supreme Court... and ... they will.... uuhh.. nevermind.
My point is that the United States does not, and a large number of people oppose it.
Sheesh! To renew a drivers license in GA, one must provide four forms of ID. Voters should be required to provide no less than that to register and certainly a picture ID at the polling place.
“I get photo ID on my customers when they write a check or use a CC in my Mom & Pop bookstore for a mere ten dollar purchase.
No one is ever confused.”========================
Most likely because your customers aren’t illiterate ******bags.
“My point is that the United States does not, and a large number of people oppose it.”
Only illegal aliens and democraps that want them for voters!!!
Get the hell out of our country!
Actually, I thought that was spurious. And, of course, the Imperial Obamas showing what they thought of us little people.
I was merely heaping scorn on the idea that National ID would be the Mark of the Beast, when it’s already pretty much the standard everywhere else on the planet. The United States is NOT the firewall between us and Armageddon. . .
The lefties, ACLU, Democrats, Marxists, et al always think people are stupid and we need to be governed by our "intellectual superiors."
Here's the language of the Minnesota Voter Identification Amendment (2012). Does this mislead you? Are you incapable of understanding a single English sentence?
"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to require all voters to present valid photo identification to vote and to require the state to provide free identification to eligible voters, effective July 1, 2013?"
To presume people cannot understand this is condescending to the extreme.
They probably wanted to suppress black attendance. Bad optics, you know.
True, my point, exactly.