Especially true for the Photo-ID amendment. The title suggested by Ritchie was downright silly to me.

The biggest problem is that the proposed amendments are do not indicate (particularly the voterID) what the bill actually says what it will do. It isn't just abt showing up and presenting an ID. The bill doesn't even address what will be accepted, and as those who worded this proposed amendment said "that can be decided on later". That includes a way to put off same day voting, as well (if you look at mail in absentee voting language) the same thing. It is purposely worded to be vague so people really don't know what they are voting for, and what will happen after they do vote does matter. Examples are : Types of ID required for absentee voting, in person voting and same day voting. They specifically took out definitions in the proposed VoterID bill. Why would you vote on anything that you don't actually have that defined information?

Well Amy, when there was a chance to pass this as a bill the details were all there to see. Constitutional amendments state a principle such as the right to bear arms. In this case you're voting on whether photo identification is required to vote. If it passes it's up to the legislature to decide how it's implemented. After that it'll probably take a trip through the court system as those who don't like the legislature's interpretation try to bend it to their preferences.
If you followed the Legacy Amendment it specified that a tax would be collected, generally what it was for and where it would go, but the details were left for the legislature and eventually the courts to hammer out.

I agree. A waste of time and money. Which we have to pay.

"Many insiders are supporting these measures because they're convinced they can eliminate impoverished voters who disagree with them. The previous Florida Republican Party chair admitted as much in sworn court testimony."
"Insiders" don't want impoverished people to vote? That's absurd - unless you can provide proof. How about a link to the Florida Chair testimony?

Here's the testimony by Jim Green on issues including suppressing the black vote: http://www.scribd.com/doc/102252163/Jim-Greer-deposition-transcript-part-2

Here's a nonpartisan news story about his testimony from Tampa Bay Times:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/jim-greer-denounces-florida-republican-party-officials-as-liars-right-wing/1242157

Thanks for the links Colin. I've seen numerous citations from this story used to accuse republicans of voter suppression and bigotry. It's a bit reassuring to read the actual story and realize just how sour the grapes are in Greer's world.

Colin Lee, Really. Some guy who is trying to get a severance out of his former employer, who isn't going to get it because he failed to disclose he had conflicts of interest by owning a fundraising company and lying to the committee about it...that's your source? Who gives no details whatsoever about the alleged conversation and describes it in loaded terms...that's your evidence of voter suppression by all groups pushing for voter id?

winoceros, I see you're having trouble disproving a negative. Let me help you. George W. Bush's U.S. Attorney Generals had the same problem after he hired them and told them to find evidence of voting fraud. When dozens of Republican-appointed attorney generals said they could find no evidence of intentional fraud to prosecute, he fired them and replaced them on the spot, causing the U.S. Attorneys scandal. Their Bush-appointed replacements still could not find evidence of intentional voter fraud. In Pennsylvania, both Republican and Democratic sides admitted that there was no evidence of in-person voting fraud, the only kind which Voter ID has anything to do with.

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/state/state-acknowledges-there-is-no-evidence-of-voter-fraud-645985/

If Minnesota Republicans really wanted to stop voter fraud, why did they reject the cheaper, FAR more effective, and bipartisan solution of electronic poll books, preferring instead to disenfranchise 4%-8% of all voters who are mostly poor and minority groups.

Both proposed amendments are designed to build an electorate that will favor conservative candidates by 1.) reducing the number of voters overall and disenfranchising a segment more likely to vote for moderate or liberal candidates, and 2.) stirring up the far right on moral/religious issues that will get out the vote for candidates that are otherwise lacking in merit. There's no "putting the politics aside." Both proposals are entirely about favoring one political ideology over the others.

Yes, you are right. Money definitely better spent in our schools!

Perception is everything. There is anecdotal evidence that voter fraud could possibly be a problem and we've had two recent election recounts decided by a razor thin margin. Add to that the fact that few trust Richie to be unbiased and the recounts were on candidates with totally opposing views, and it seems reasonable to take steps to reassure both sides that the process is as legitimate as we can make it. If Coleman had been declared the winner by a republican secretary then it would be the democrats screaming for this.
Using the money for the schools involves an entirely different perception.

Our schools have more than enough money, they lack anyone with the brains needed to spend it.
Do we need flat screen TV's in the corner of every hall way?
Do kids need a million dollar cafeteria for a half hour lunch?
When I talked with the Superintendant about a teacher the kids say did nothing for an hour every day, his response was "If you were three years away from retirement would you do your job"

The schools will never improve as long as they are run by unions that make it impossible to fire poor performing teachers. No matter how much money you throw at it, like the city of IGH it is a spending problem.

Accountability is just too simple of a concept for a lot of people to grasp, they all think it has to be so complicated.....

You need a ID. to drive, buy a gun, own a business, open a checking account, buy beer...... yet ID to Vote is an issue???? Seems its a no brainer...

Come on, Jon. You state, "I have been to 5 of those hearings, and they just flat out will not answer questions about the details, They expect you to sign on to a contract and a blank check, and they say just trust us we'l fill in the details next year."
I think you have the Voter ID Amendment confused with Nancy Pelosi talking about ObamaCare when she said, "We have to pass it in order to find out what's in it." Legislation was created, debated committees and both the MN House and Senate. The bill was accepted by both Houses but not by the Governor. The bill was thoroughly vetted. The truth: Everyone who is a legal MN resident can still vote in MN by Absentee Ballot or with Same-Day Registration. We all just have to bring a photo ID (provided free if you don't have one) to show we are who we say we are. The legitimizes our elections. What's wrong with that? What are you so afraid of?

jmh, You had better gets your facts straight. In the last election we had dead people voting. Dogs and cats have been in the news as having received registration forms sent to them. While it may be difficult to tell to what extent voter fraud exists, it is documented that there is a large amount of voter fraud. However without people having to prove who they are, documentatiion is even more difficult. If there were a union election, do you think that there would be anyone voting who was not a registered member of the union, and they have to prove it! Then ask yourself this question, "Why is it that the Democrats oppose Voter ID? Why don't Republicans oppose voter id? Who is it that benefits from illegal votes?

Lon,

1) Please cite specific references to your "large amount of voter fraud" claim that you speak of
2) Union elections have *nothing* to do with the Constitutonal right for a person (and through it's Amendments) to vote
3) Nobody benefits from "illegal" votes, the Democrats are claiming disenfrachisement of the lower income class voters

Please read the study by the New York University School of Law:

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/truthaboutvoterfraud/

Lon, you are so wrong.

I thought showing your ID made sense also, until I realized what this meant for my father. He is a 72 year-old housebound quadriplegic who currently votes by absentee ballot. It costs him nearly $100 to rent a van plus $50-$100 for a home care worker to go with to get a photo ID. He would need it for no other reason. My father was an employer in his community until his disability got worse, and forced him to retire. He is on a very fixed income, in fact this little venture to get an ID would almost be the cost of his groceries for one month. Although my father is a quadriplegic, he does have feeling in his limbs, in fact they are very sensitive and often get painful spasms when his body is subjected to sharp movements or drastic changes in temperature, such as with a van ride.

I think everyone needs to sit back and realize that just because it's easy or common sense for you to carry an ID, doesn't mean it is quite so simple for the disabled, the elderly, and the young.

Why should my father be punished because you feel that this is a 'common sense' issue? If there was a real problem with voter fraud in this state, I could see the point, but there is not. If there is proof of voter fraud, then I want to see it! Minnesota will spend millions to fix a problem that does not exist, solely for the purpose of suppressing votes of those most likely to vote for Democrats. This is the real reason for this, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise!

Susan - HogWash! Your father can continue to vote Absentee Ballot. The Voter ID Amendment does not change Absentee Balloting or Same Day Registrations in MN. Your father cannot legally go to the doctor or a hospital without an MN picture ID. So either your story is embellished or your poor father never goes to the doctor. Either way, shame on you for trying to mislead The Patch readers.

Cindy, how dare you! My father goes to the doctor once a year, and does not have to show an ID, as he has gone to the same doctor and clinic for the last 30 years, and they know him. And for the record, I have never been asked for a government ID at the doctor either, so what are you talking about? Yes, my father can still vote by absentee ballot, but if you had actually read what I wrote instead of deciding I was a liar, you would see that I was talking about getting an ID, not getting to the ballot box.

I AM NOT misleading anyone, and for you to imply that I would make any part of this up, is beyond insulting! Your motivation here is questionable, and changing your name for every thread gives you zero credibility.

I am not a liar and have told my father's story here this entire year, whenever this subject comes up. I stand behind my comments and name, and those who don't are the ones who's honesty should be questioned.

Cindy, I have no idea what clinic or hospital that you go to, but you are never required to show a government ID. As far as (for example) Fairview or Park Nicollet goes, all they care about is your insurance card. And, if the information is current in their records, they don't even ask for it during a visit. I think you owe Susan an apology.

These proponent arguments for voter ID just perplexes me.

And Cindy- secondly, please read:

http://www.sos.state.mn.us/index.aspx?page=1730
http://www.sos.state.mn.us/index.aspx?page=1728

Your claim of Susan's father being able to continue to vote absentee without a government ID is false, at least for now. To me, it appears that the state itself isn't sure how to address absentee voting and identification verification as well as same day regisstration if the amendment passes.

So please, it is actually you who appears to be misinforming the Patch readers. Either do your homework, or please stop posting on this website and confusing people, especially prior to an election.

First of all, yes you do have to show an ID at hospitals and clinics. Stillwater Medical Group and Lakeview Hospital both ask for it before every visit. Why? To avoid fraud. Hmmm.... But then again, if health insurance isn't a constitutional right then it's okay to require ID, correct?

I have NEVER been asked for a government issued, picture ID at Stillwater Medical Group. I wonder how they would check the ID of a four year-old...sure, card the mother, but she could be bringing the neighbor's uninsured kid in, right?

After thinking about this further, I should probably say that I haven't been to the clinic yet this year. So, if this is a new change at Stillwater Medical Group for 2012, or was implemented with ObamaCare, I would not yet have been asked for ID. Anyone else have any info on this?

When the people who are against the amendment are for the language change and the people who are for the amendment are against the language change it seems evident that there is indeed a bias in the proposed title.

Bias isn't the problem, Joe. One side is driven by a bias called epistemology-- bias for the truth and skepticism in the face of indefensible and irrational claims. The other side is driven by confirmation bias, a tendency to favor information that confirms existing beliefs by anecdotes or false statistics without valid or statistically significant evidence.

Are you seriously arguing that we must accept beliefs of those people who let their confirmation bias overwhelm truth? Are you saying we should govern by anecdote?

There are thousands of documented UFOs sightings every year. Should we accept that they really occurred and ask the media to report them as fact or should we weigh evidence and make a decision biased by the scientific method? Why should we ever hold hearings at the Capitol or in court if we simply make decisions in the absence of evidence?

I imagine your point was well argued Colin although I'm not certain who you're putting on which side. My point is that even I think Mark Ritchie is a weasel, and our election system should appear legitimate. Maybe there aren't any fraudulent voters, but there could be, and that is a legitimate problem.
Yes, I am seriously arguing "we must accept beliefs of those people who let their confirmation bias overwhelm truth" because to do otherwise is to assume that you or I actually know what the truth is. Your hubris in demanding that your beliefs be accepted as truth and anyone elses beliefs as irrational is typical of the wingnuts on both sides. I'm at least williing to entertain the notion that you might have a clue.
Spaceships? Who knows, I'm willing to look at all of the evidence and admit that while it's not likely, it certainly is possible.

I feel obligated to respond to Colin's appeal to the "scientific method" to ascertain the truth or fiction of the existance of spacecraft from outside earth. Be aware, the scientific method REQUIRES a careful CONTROLLED experiment, wherein ALL potential variables that might influence the observation are in fact held constant, while those variables under study are varied in a defined manner. All decisions that do not meet these criteria are outside the providence of the scientific method. It makes me sick when I see/read/hear people trying to support their position on any issue on the basis of "false" science. It shows both their ignorance of science and its limitations and their susceptibility to questionable "truths". Global warming and evolution are two other subjects to which science can not provide a definitive answer for just those reasons that one can not perform a controlled experiement to verify such theories.

Allan, your anti-science argument is quaint. If ALL variables were controllable in experiments, we never would've invented penicillin, plastic, the pacemaker, or Teflon. ALL variables are NEVER controllable. You just do the best you can. If we accept your premise, we have to throw out all of astronomy and much of geology.

As the SOS he is informing those of what they should know. He does know, it's his job to know, and to effectively communicate. There you go.

Amy, The job of the Secretary of State is to see that there are fair, honest and unbiased elections. His job is that of an overseer, not a campaigner! The fact is that Mark Ritchie is an extreme left wing radical Democrat that does not want fair, honest elections that cannot be corrupted. Why do you think he is opposed to Voter ID? Voter ID will make it harder for illegals to vote, thus harder for Democrats to steal an election.

Gail, I am basing my statement on the number of prosecutions that the state of Minnesota reported. From the statistics I heard, Minnesota was one of the states with a large number of people prosecuted for voter fraud. I am also basing my statement on the fact that if we do not have any voter ID, there is probably a lot of voter fraud that goes undocumented and unproven. People are able to bring in utllity bills and in a previously mention comment, there are those who are paying their telephone bills and continue to pay telephone bills and so on, but this does not prove they are citizens and legally elligible to vote. It only proves they are living here, and possibly living here illegally. I want voter ID to eliminate illegal voters!

Lon wrote: "I am basing my statement on the number of prosecutions that the state of Minnesota reported. From the statistics I heard, Minnesota was one of the states with a large number of people prosecuted for voter fraud. I am also basing my statement on the fact that if we do not have any voter ID, there is probably a lot of voter fraud that goes undocumented and unproven."

Lon, I suggest you fact-check before repeating what you "heard" as fact. The prosecutions for voter fraud in this state is less than one hundredth of one percent of all votes cast. Your information is incorrect, but not surprising after reading all the misinformation out there.

Thanks, Tony. I posted my comment again here, because I want as many people as possible to see it. This amendment is designed to suppress votes, and many may not understand it because they are "average", have an ID, and don't understand why this should be an issue. Well, my point is that this (my father) is the exact type of voter the right wants to suppress.

You can claim that he doesn't want to vote bad enough if he doesn't do this, but in reality a $200 painful outing to get an ID, is asking too much. Yes, he SHOULD be able to vote, but this amendment will make it too difficult for him to do so.....which is exactly what the Republican leaders want.

Honestly, anyone taking the time to vote on these two issues, already knows what they are about, and changing the wording is really not going to make a difference. This was a huge waste of time and money! Although Ritchie had the right, he shouldn't have bothered to waste the taxpayers money.

Susan states, "...and many may not understand it becuase they are 'average'..." Wow, Susan, are you saying many people who aren't as smart as you don't understand the real purpose for the Voter ID Amendment? How condescending of you! And when you state, "Although Ritchie had the right,..." you show the world you are even smarter than the justices of the Supreme Court of Minnesota. My, My...

Why should anyone believe your rants against me, when you can't even stand behind your name? I see you for what you are...and this will be the last note to you - at least, until you change your name again. It is sad that you come after me because I tell a true story about how the voter ID will affect a family member. Have fun with your little campaign. I can take comfort knowing that I am telling the truth. Condescending?....sure, if that's what you want to think, after reading my comments, you go right ahead.

I think Susan used ‘average’ to differentiate relative to the task of voting two populations.

The population that she exists in is one consisting of those opened to extreme life circumstances associated with the vote. The other population referenced as ‘average’, are those of us not faced with like difficulties.

She makes a claim of burden not one of superiority.

Thank you, Jon, for clarifying Susan's "average" comment. I stand corrected and apologize, Susan. I'm not ranting, and I am still Cindy. What is your basis for accusing me of changing my name? The PATCH doesn't allow a person to post under any other name than the one they first registered with.
The language in the Voter ID and Marriage Amendments are clear. There are no hidden agendas. Show a picture ID to vote (the state will provide one at no charge for you if you don't have one). The legal definition of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. What's confusing or vague about that?
Susan, your father's situation is unique and should be taken into consideration. He has the right to vote and should be accomodated. I am very sorry for his illness and difficulty.
However, are you saying the Republicans at the State Legislature know your father is a democrat and intentionally set out to prevent him from voting? Or are you saying every quadriplegic is a democrat? Do you think the State Reps and Senators created the Voter ID bill to prevent ill people from voting? I don't understand how one person's situation could possibly have been the target of the entire State Legislature.
With regard to photo IDs, medical facilities are supposed to check a photo ID and an insurance card for every visit to prevent fraud. It happens that people share their ins cards with others. IDs are required for air travel, buying by check, registering for college,

Cindy, thank you for your apology and I will do the same for assuming you to be an internet troll - my aplogoes. Actually you can have as many profile names as you want on Patch, it's just a matter of the time it takes to set up a new profile. There are several people here who do this regularly (for each new thread) and leave very insulting comments, designed to bait others into a heated reply. I clicked on your profile and saw that you had just created your profile, and left these types of comments for me, so I did make the assumption you were one of the trolls.

Yes, I have heard all the common sense arguments...you need an ID for alcohol, tobacco, flying etc. I bring up my father every time because he is the exact type of voter that this is likely to hurt. Once people accept this as reality, they most often say that yes,, accommodations should be made, or will be made, but I doubt it as it would be expensive o send people out to get IDs for these disenfranchised voters. If there were a guarantee of waivers for voters in these situations, it would be easier to accept, but we won't know this untill AFTER the vote.

Actually, we are a republic. We elect leaders to make decisions on our behalf.

Actually, he is trying to make it clear, that the wording in that "vague" voterID bill is not clear, and it is done that way on purpose. You vote on something that isn't clear or that you know isn't actually finished, and can be changed "legally" later without knowing what it true out come will be? I hope not.

Again Amy, your statement "You vote on something that isn't clear or that you know isn't actually finished, and can be changed "legally" later without knowing what it true out come will be? I hope not." could be used to describe the Affordable Care Act which should have contained the detail you desire and was passed by people who should have known better.
The detail you want is seldom part of anything you have control over.

Lon, thanks for your reply. First, why does everyone assume that the recounts (and supposed voter fraud) would have swayed the elections so that Coleman and Emmer would have won? And FYI the voter ID amendment will do nothing to stop recounts.

Here are some basic facts, and a study done in Minnesota on voter fraud in 2008:

"Because voter fraud is a felony, County Attorneys are responsible for the investigation of ineligible voting and the conviction of those who commit voter fraud. As such, we went directly to them for information on the types and outcomes of their investigations into voter fraud and ineligible voting.

County Attorneys from 81.6 percent of Minnesota's 87 counties, representing 93.3 percent of Minnesota‟s registered voters, responded to our request for data. The survey gathered both quantitative and qualitative information.

Not one single government-issued identification confirms all the requirements to vote. In fact, in reviewing all types of government-issued identification (i.e. passports, military IDs, driver's licenses, state-issued IDs), THE ONLY TYPE OF ELECTION FRAUD A PHOTO IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENT WOULD PREVENT IS VOTER IMPERSONATION. In reviewing the survey results, we found neither an expression of concern about voter impersonation nor convictions of voter impersonation. IN FACT, LESS THAN ONE HALF OF ONE PERCENT OF ALL INVESTIGATIONS FOCUSED ON VOTER IMPERSONATION.

to be cont.

continued...

Another way of evaluating the survey results is to review the total number of investigations of voter impersonation (7) and compare it to the total number of 2008 voters (2,921,498), which allows us to see that the total percent of all
voters who were investigated for voter impersonation WAS TWO TEN-THOUSANDTHS OF ONE PERCENT (0.0002%). There was not one single conviction of voter impersonation."

http://www.ceimn.org/files/Facts%20about%20Ineligible%20Voting%20and%20Voter%20F

This is a multi-million dollar fix for a problem that does not exist! Where are all the fiscal conservatives?

Fiscal conservatives are right here Susan -- and fiscal conservatives will agree that this is one of the very FEW rightful purposes of government. That is, to hold elections of true integrity. Where legal voters get to have their ballot cast - and only once.

Al wrote: "That is, to hold elections of true integrity. Where legal voters get to have their ballot cast - and only once."

That is great, Al, and I am all for it, but since we don't currently have a problem with voter impersonation, spending millions on this seems a bit wasteful....but that's just me.

Ask a teenager how easy it is to get a fake ID...

Susan, I'm about as fiscally conservative as they come and I'd agree with Al that this is one of the key functions of government. Of course it will have no effect on recounts, except maybe to add an additional level of legitimacy to the result.
What many of the anti-ID people don't seem to understand is that there is a small percentage that truly believe that Franken won the recount due to manipulation of the system by Richie and others. Whether or not it actually happened is immaterial.
You state that there were only 7 investigations into voter impersonation. So what?There were only 18 drivers ticketed on Cedar Avenue for speeding last night too, yet there were thousands who actually sped.
The perception is important.

Thanks, Joe, you know I appreciate and respect your input. Your Cedar Avenue analogy is a good one, and one I will ponder for a while, but I really have to question if this amendment, when passed (because it will) will impede some voters (like my dad), and if we truly have a problem that can be fixed by showing a photo ID at the ballot boxes. We know that people speed, and that is why law enforcement is on the roads giving tickets, but do we know people are fraudulently voting, or that there are enough of these fraudulent votes, and let me remind you that it is only voter impersonation in question here, that can even come close to affecting an election result?

Susan, I'll say again that the perception is important. By not requiring an ID, we give the impression that we[the system] don't care enough to require an ID because it's not important enough to require an ID. We want people to believe that their vote is important, and that it's special enough that we're willing to pay a bit to ensure that it's not misused.
To take the cost argument to the extreme we'd be done with actually voting and use a statistical sample to make our decisions. I'd agree that an amendment is a ridiculous way to do this, and I'd agree that it's likely not a huge problem, but I don't agree that it's not worth doing.

Lon, watched that in court. No fraud, none. I don't think you understand what was going on with that in court. There is no fraud with people voting in place of another, and this whole counting in court was in Absentee voting. You do realize that a lot of votes from that method did not get counted, correct? You do now.

Absentee voting can be confusing, and there were a lot of ballots that were not counted because of mistakes on those ballots. This had nothing to do with a person who walks in and votes as someone else. Again, there is NO FRAUD. Colemen vs Franken was a close vote. You have used that before, but you cannot control what happened there. There was NO Fraud.

Joe, thank you for acknowledging that there is no proof of rampant voter fraud. This is why I find your opinions/views have credibility - we can disagree, but when we choose to admit the shortcomings of our "side", and try to work on an outcome we believe will be better for our country, there can never be a true disagreement.

I understand your position, but will ask one thing about this statement: "By not requiring an ID, we give the impression that we[the system] don't care enough to require an ID because it's not important enough to require an ID."

Do you think 'the system' has given the impression (for the last 200+ years) that voting is not important enough?

Again Susan, it's all about the perception. People are more likely to vote when they believe there's something on the line. Look at the voter participation in local elections that don't coincide with a national vote or even elections for judges and commisioners. School boards schedule bond referendums for "off" years to sneak them through because they know that only those who are really into the issue will vote, and that's most likely those who are for it.
We live in a state where participation is high and the temptation is to take it for granted that it will always be so. It'd be a shame to lose that because people get the impression that their vote doesn't matter.

Joe, since you recognize that voter participation is high in Minnesota, are you saying you somehow want to change the perception of those who already choose to take part in our system?

If it is working in Minnesota, and people readily take part, why do we need to change perception? It sounds as though you are again advocating for a solution to a problem that does not exist.

I'll try to be a bit clearer Susan, I'm not worried about the old guys and gals and their voting habits. We know that those people vote. Your anecdotes about your Father and his wanting to vote attest to that.
My concern is that many of the kids raised by the "me generation" have much less of an investment in the process and a shorter attention span to boot. I see them as more likely to abandon the effort if they suspect that everything isn't on the up and up. Many are looking for an excuse not to vote, whether it's because they're too busy, or just because it's fashionable to be against the system. They're also likely to give more weight to sound bites and internet rumors as the downward spiral in political campaigns shows. I haven't seen any evidence that there's rampant fraud, but, as I seem to keep repeating, it's the perception that's important, and we need everyone to vote.

Susan, You have listed a lot of information, most of which is irrelavant. The voter fraud that I am concerned about most is not the voter that is most often prosecuted. In fact the voter fraud I am concerned about is NON-CITIZENS voting. Showing a utility bill does not in any way shape or form prove that you are a citizen and that your have the right to vote. These offenses are not prosecuted, and rarely caught because there is no Voter ID to prove the offense. Don't tell me this doesn't happen because people haven't been prosecuted!
According to the preliminary information I have read and heard, one of the requirements on the Voter ID would be that it would indicate if you are a citizen or not. That would stop illegals from voting!

Thanks for the clarification, Joe. I do understand what you are saying about perception, but I can not completely agree that this is a problem that needs to be fixed. On one hand, I will admit that I have a hard time getting my 19 year-old son to listen to anything political for more than five minutes at a time, but I was the same way at that age, and eventually developed an interest in how our political system works.

I listen to my son and his friends when they are around and they seem supportive of Ron Paul. I think there a couple reasons behind this, but the big reason is that they perceive Paul to be anti-establishment. I have asked them on a couple occasions where Ron Paul stands on certain issues, and they often don't have a clear understanding. What I have also seen in the last couple of elections, are the young people who are passionate and out working for the candidates they support. I have to wonder if there is currently more or less participation in the process by our younger citizens than there used to be. I guess I will check into this further...

Thanks for the feedback, Lon. I have a busy workday today, so I will search out more information on illegals voting, later tonight or tomorrow. Any links you can provide would be helpful and appreciated.

You do, I do. It's not just abt ID, it's type of ID and more then that. You spend your day, you drive? You don't have the same problems of someone else either, nice to think that every situation is like yours - but it isn't. What would happen if you lost your ID just before you voted? The problem with these people who come up with laws that affect so many people is that they are not all like you, and their situation isn't like yours either.

We have a good voting system in Minnesota, it has been improved over time. Someone came along and wanted to discredit it for a reason, and it wasn't for a real good reason either. I find it extremely difficult to watch so many people be "for" something that is against are constitution, and I have heard plenty of the very same people use that very same constitution because they didn't like something. Minnesota has a good history of voting procedures and rules. Some one decided to target it for politics, not at all about "fairness" or any other reason but that. We have those that have worked in our election process that have for sometime and have been honest. We have a few that get carried away with the new age hyper critical & paranoid political commentary - and there is no longer sane ground.
The VoterID fear is based on fraudulent accusations, and manipulation.

You are tired because you actually think that is happening when it isn't. The information that has been provided for you to understand that has been not only objective, but has years of history behind it. The manipulation and twisting information that occurs to instill fear and make people upset is not well warranted. It makes people even more upset, but for the wrong reason. I have never seen anyone helping those to vote, vouching or other wise engaging in fraud. What I did see was people willing to help those who wanted their voice/vote count honestly. To say it's a "Dem" thing is wrong. It wasn't too long ago where we all supported the efforts of people having that chance to vote, and many of us did what we could to ensure it happened, and did so honestly and objectively. Minnesota does not have some evil trolls hiding at the booths purposely voting in fraud.

I suggest that you actively participate on a (non partisan) role and help those who need to understand the process we currently have. It helps people understand the reality on the ground, not the hyperbolic commentary from radio, TV and other media sources. Just do it, and see for yourself. What you experience isn't any thing like what the claims represent. These are people that are voting, real people who honestly just want their vote to count.

Susan, Who conducted this study you are quoting?

Susan

Also, FYI -- the additional "millions" in costs that you like to quote are mostly one time costs (2013, 2014 information/elections). How I wish that most government spending on information were that case

Suisan, Let me first clearify a few points that have been made by me, and also some other in some other threads. First I never said cats and dogs had voted. I said that voter registration forms had been mailed to cats and dogs. Second, the voter ID bill does not give all the detail of "HOW" this would be implemented. I am making the assumption that somehow it would be indicated if the person is a legal voter. If it does not, it would be a complete waste of money! Third you did not provide any proof that this was not happening, only that it was not being prosecuted or documented because the fraud we are talking about is not a felonny - see other posts on this point. I am in total agreement with you that, "Although currently there are strict guidelines for those from another country to get driver's license in Minnesota, there is legislation in the works that will make it easier for people to get licenses. So requiring a license (without proof of citizenship) to vote, will not necessarily stop illegals from voting. " I agree completely!!! But the Voter ID bill is only the first step - it just sets up the ammendment to the Minnesota Constitution that there be a requirement to have an approved ID to vote. How this would be implemented is to be worked out later. An example that may be possible on both MN Drivers' licenses and approved IDs is a checkbox that said "Legal Voter" or "Citizen" or something like that.

Hi Lon, I deleted my comment after finding more information - the amendment itself does say "citizen", but the question does not, so I wanted to give it more thought, and look for more information....but you were too quick. :-)

I think I said that you implied that dead people, cats, and dogs "may" have voted because of your comment about the mailings. Yes, Ken also pointed this situation out, and I am finding the information (about PVC) to be fascinating, although some of the text he quoted is from a Republican or right leaning group, so I just want to verify the SOS's information before commenting.

The proof I gave you negates your claim " "I am basing my statement on the number of prosecutions that the state of Minnesota reported. From the statistics I heard, Minnesota was one of the states with a large number of people prosecuted for voter fraud". The information I gave you was statistical numbers from the actual prosecutors, so yes, I did give you proof.

I will have more to comment on, but want to make sure I have my info correct first. Thanks for you (quick) reply.

Ken, I ask with sincerity because I don't know the answer - what are the non-prosecutable offenses?

"You'll notice that they never mention the non-prosecutable offenses that occurred."

The most common of the non-prosecutable offenses is "false identity" voting (providing a name or address that isn't valid). I'll give you one example, though there are others. This example is the "unverifiable voter".

After every election, newly registered voters are mailed a piece of non-forwardable official election mail commonly known as a postal verification card (PVC). The postcard informs the voter of successful registration and contains information about the voter’s polling place location. The card’s other purpose,
implied in its name, is to verify that the voter actually lives in the precinct, at the address provided on his or her voter registration application. When a PVC card is returned as undeliverable mail, the voter to whom it was mailed becomes flagged for challenge in subsequent elections. A challenged voter must provide additional information before being allowed to vote in the next election.

The Secretary of State's office reported in a May 1st 2011 memo to the House Government Operations and Elections Committee that 13,363 voters who
used election day registration on November 4th, 2008 were flagged for challenge or changed to inactive status due to a returned PVC. They noted that 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.”

I have plenty of evidence that this type of "fraud" doesn't exist. Every one counts, the homeless, the elderly and and it doesn't stop there. I have a hard time understanding why you think that changing the Minnesota constitution to disenfranchise so many good people from voting is high on your list of goals. It's manipulation, and it's not okay. It's not a game. I am calling those out: Those, that even while knowing there is good, creditable information out there to proof that this fraud is not taking place, you would still advocate to still up hold this idea. You have not worked with those who this would affect, I have and I fight for those very same people because they count. Every single one of them. I know what difficulties they face. I also know that this new proposed law was not designed by those who are looking out of Minnesota, or it's people. That is evident. Yet you still choose to support something that is a fraud itself. Spin it, use it to manipulate others in Minnesota. There are a lot of people here in Minnesota that don't like those type of politics, and stay far away from it for this reason.

Ken, thanks for the information. I will admit that I don't know much about this specific issue, so I will wait until I have time to do further research before commenting.

Okay Amy, I'll bite. You say you have "plenty of evidence that this type of "fraud" doesn't exist." It's hard to prove a negative so I'd be interested in seeing your evidence. Remember, lack of prosecution proves nothing other than if it happens it's either not caught or it's not prosecuted. The anti-ID folk keep saying that there's no issue, so why don't you end the argument right here and show your proof?

jaw wrote: "Does anyone really believe in statistics sited by ELECTED County officials about investigations into voter fraud?"

Are you questioning the statistics I linked? If you are, I would just like to point out that the numbers above were compiled by Citizens for Election Integrity Minnesota and the Unitarian Universalist Social Justice Alliance/Association of Universalist Women, with the support of a subcommittee of the Voting Rights Coalition....which are NOT "ELECTED County officials." If you think ALL the county officials would lean left when reporting statistical information, I think you may be searching for conspiracies that don't exist.

jaw, I'm glad you went for dinner and thought about the comments here. You have made your points perfectly clear. I especially found interesting?
"Trust me poor people like beer, cigarettes, fishing, hunting, driving and on and on, bringing ID to the polls to vote won't hurt anyone but those that count on voter fraud to hold office."

Susan

Quoting this group -
"Unitarian Universalist Social Justice Alliance" means the data credibility wasnt there to begin with.

If I had said the data showing fraud came from a right of center group....would you believe that?

Haha, oh Al. I will believe a group that gathered their information from the AGENCIES IN CHARGE OF PROSECUTING VOTER FRAUD. They put together and reviewed this STATISTICAL INFORMATION and submitted their findings.

How on earth can you change the actual numbers, depending on which way you lean politically? This is a ridiculous accusation.....at least their numbers are better than the right just claiming that "there is rampant voter fraud"...where are the numbers to back this up? There aren't any, because if the right did a study on this, their numbers would find the same thing, and that would not support their cause!

Go ahead and mistrust the numbers because you don't agree with their political positions, but I will choose to believe numbers and proof, not hyperbole.

by the way, what is left or right, don't believe I visited that country...BTW I'm American

jaw, thank goodness "views like yours" haven't infiltrated the sane and optimistic.

I'm a bit puzzled by your comment. Why in the world would a public defender care one way or another about voter ID or have any exposure to cases of voter fraud? Is your assumption that they're never prosecuted, never discovered, or that they just never happen?

Well, if we don't check any IDs when people buy cigarettes and booze, then we can claim that nobody who is underage ever tries to buy those items. Actually, if you follow the reasoning by the anti-ID people, we can totally eliminate crime if we get rid of law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges. After all (according to them) if a person isn't convicted of a crime, the crime wasn't committed.

Its ignorance Ken, this is common sense and not even worthy of a debate, there is only one reason not to require valid ID.
Anyone with common sense understands this.....

Trust me Ken, every group drinks beer, drives cars, smokes cigarettes, has ID...just bring it to the polls the same as they do the bars....I was in Austin the other day and the guy in front of me at the gas station had to be 80, he had a cane and a 12 pack and they still required ID to by the beer, (Texas requires ID for alcohol for EVERY purchase) not one group has protested it yet.

I have never read comments before that have so well captured the intolerance and arrogance of the redneck faction of the party. The GOP should be beaming with pride! Of-course they are hiding behind a rock as you spout your misinformation, but that's the leadership's role.

This is way too simple and makes way too much sense to ever have a chance. However you still have lines drawn that will irritate somebody. What are you going to say when Al, Jeff, Mary and Steve all want to be in a civil union with Fred, and Fred happens to be a cat or a tree?
I'm not disagreeing with your point because it makes a whole bunch more sense that the mess we have now, it's just occurring to me over the years that maybe there shouldn't be any government involvement in this area at all.

I think sj has the perfect solution! Unfortunately the majority of Congress (those needing to change "legal marriage" into "civil unions") will never do so because they currently receive too many tax and legal benefits from being married themselves. This could all be changed, but it would take real effort and work by our Congress...that last statement actually makes me giggle, a little. And never mind the fact that the far right would then be acknowledging the acceptance of same sex couples.

Joe, for those who like to use Santorum's argument "well, what is to stop people from wanting to marry animals, or have three people in a marriage?" I would say that there aren't thousand of years of proof that humans and animals fall mutually in love as there are for homosexual couples. The same would apply for "group" marriages, although some religions do allow it. I am sick of this argument, and it holds no merit when looking at history. Two consenting, human, adults falling in love, period. If we don't change legal marriage to civil unions for everyone, then everyone need to be able to enjoy the same tax and legal benefits as others who are legally married....two people, not four, and not animals - these examples are so stupid, it's insulting!

Well Susan, it may be obvious to you that it should only be between two people, but it's equally obvious to the majority in the country that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Don't you find it a bit uncomfortable citing historical precedent when you're for modifying a historical precedent? If you're going to deconstruct traditional marriage you're going to have to deal with the unintended consequences as well.

No but they have one thing in common....THEY ALL HAVE ID

I wonder if all the Republicans read the ACA it before voting no? Or should they be stopped from voting as well?

I was trying to be nice, and even do the research, but if that means that I am stupid and ignorant in your book, well then, so be it.

"ACA" is a joke...People that honestly believe they are to stupid to run their own life and thnk government is better at running their life deserve what hey get...too bad they drag down inteligent people with them.

The founders of this country left Europe to escape a socialist system that prevented then from moving up in society and BARAK OBAMA wants to bring us back there.

He is a socialist, marxist...but don't believe me, read his own words in his own book...

No it is not the same!. All the details were already in the bill, but nobody was allowed to find out what they were. The details were only known to a few people. In the Voter ID bill, if this is approved, next session the details will have to be worked out and voted on by the Minnesota legislature. Everyone will have input in meeting the requirements of the Constitutional Ammendment. You might be interested in knowing that in states that have already passed voter ID laws, the voter turnout has increased. The principle is that you have to be a legal voter is what is at stake here. I don't know of anyone who is trying to restrict Seniors, disabled, handicapped or elderly from voting. As I understand it, and I have to admit that nothing is solid yet, but there are still going to be methods to vote absentee, and it may still be possible to have same day registration, as long at it can be proved you are elligible to vote. Utility bills are not proof of citizenship! That is why you will need proper state approved ID, to prove your citizenship.

That's the problem, Lon...."As I understand it". We don't know, because the details will be worked out AFTER the vote. Not really what I would call a fair and open process. Yes, Dayton vetoed the original bill, but that's not my doing. I would just like to see a little more detail, before voting to change our Constitution....it's sounds very similar to me.

Obama has done more damage to this country, the constitution and the office he holds more then any president in the history of the nation.

His views are not what this country was founded on.

I am so tired of Democrats that think the government can give out anything free, Wake The F.... UP....that money comes from us.

Sandra Fluck is NOT intitled to get BIRTH CONTROL from my paycheck...

jaw, the money only comes from the "us" who pay taxes. It appears that the Obama strategy is to pander to those who pay little or none. It would actually be funny if they only came out and said that the reason they're against voter ID is that they think their own supporters aren't smart enough to follow the rules. As the tax system gets further skewed upward, think the "fair share" campaign, there will be more who pay nothing than who actually pay something. It's actually a brilliant strategy for maintaining power. Of course in the long run the entire country is screwed.

Absoulely on the money Lon...This better be our time now...

No one argues over a safety net Susan but that's where it should end, you are either blind or just plan ignorant not to see the generation after generation that make this safety net a way of life.
It is a simple fact that the government generates NO revenue so people like you believe if they take $50.00 from you and give you back a dollar they are giving you something. Why not keep $49.00 and give them a buck.
What is absurd is the ignorance of the Democratic Party, I can run my own life, eat salt, drink more than 16oz's of coke and they can butt the F...K out of my life.
Leave my wallet alone, I pay enough in healthcare for my family without paying for yours too.
Again tell Sandra to buy her own birth control, the only advantage to us buying it is to prevent that pig from breeding....so PISSED....you bet I am.
I work from 60 to 80 hrs a week to provide for my family, 2 to 4 days running through airports, I don't do it to provide for families of like minded people like you, get a job or go without...

First of all, you don't pay anything for me! I own a business and am an employer...get off your soapbox! And I have yet to see proof that you pay for Sanda Fluke's sexcapades. Or is it that argument that if her insurance company pays for birth control, we eventually all pay for that, because of the higher costs? Isn't that exactly the same as a practicing Catholic who has eight or ten children and has all those brats on his health insurance? Maybe we should limit the number of children our health insurance has to cover, is that something you would want, as well?

You really think the entire Democratic Party is ignorant....you certainly do have some high opinions of yourself to think that your way is the smartest, best, and only way! One person/party can not be right all the time, this is just not possible, it's egomaniacal thinking that is utterly worthless and counterproductive in a civil debate.

So if you can run your own life, and don't want the government's intrusion, how about affording that same philosophy to gay people?

Susan

Here's the question that I personally asked Amy Klobuchar at the State Fair

"I have two children in their 20's who work hard, pay taxes and make good choices in life -- yet, they see example after example of people who have children out
of wedlock and consequently get connected up with every social program under the sun and have a better lifestyle than they do....which my children help support with the taxes they pay. What, Amy will you do to rectify this situation? Her answer? "Bill Clinton worked hard to enact welfare reform in 1996.......". Amy didnt even look at me while giving me answer that didnt even attempt to answer my question.

It's really hard for me to collectively have sympathy for a safety net that is being massively abused by people who either make very poor choices in life or really aren't interested in becoming productive members of society.

There are many who vote for leftists (and more importantly, leftist politicians like Amy Klobuchar) who are highly invested in maintaining big government programs that benefit them ....at the expense of people who carry the load in society.

Al wrote: "It's really hard for me to collectively have sympathy for a safety net that is being massively abused by people who either make very poor choices in life or really aren't interested in becoming productive members of society."

Al, here will be our second time to agree! I do not argue this point at all, which is why I would like to see the entire welfare system reformed. People collecting money from the government should be required to better themselves and be working community service hours if they are not in school, or at job interviews. There is much more to my opinions on the subject, but I'm sure you don't want to read them all. Yes, the system needs to be streamlined and fixed, and getting our politicians to do that seems an almost impossibility, but I can not support a candidate who wants to #1) force their religious beliefs on others through laws, #2) wants to abolish the entire safety net, #3) feels that big business is more important than people - this one is tricky, as big business employs a lot of people, but I think you know where I am going.

So yes, voting for Democrats does occasionally turn my stomach, but I feel I would come down with a full-on version of the flu if I voted from some of the Republicans currently promoting their agendas.

Susan

As if Democrats don't try to shove their version of "religion" down peoples' throats? it may not be called Catholicism or some other "traditional" religion -- but it can fairly be called kneeling at the thrones of "global warming" or "diversity".

Yes, I'd rather shred the safety net and have all charity funneled through private organizations like the Salvation Army or Goodwill or Churches or other organizations. When you have bureaucrats who don't care about taxpayers' money deciding how things are dispensed -- you leave open large gaps of accountability -- just waiting for n'er do well types to take advantage of.

Name one "safety net" program that isn't widely abused and/or is broke. SSDI, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Section 8 Housing, and so on.

Democrats only get elected because they have built up such large numbers of "takers" -- and consequently demogogue fiscal conservatives for having the meanspirited temerity to publicly oppose these programs.

To keep generations of people from being productive members of society by enslaving them to government largesse at the expense of productive members of society is not only wrong...its evil.

I think evil is way over the top, but I get your point.

I wonder, what is the end game for these Democratic leaders hoping to get everyone on welfare and beholding to the government?

The same things were said about FDR by the opposition as he was dealing with the Great Depression.

"Many Americans, however, argued that the New Deal was a Pandora’s box of troubles that violated the Constitution and sought to impose socialism, although socialist leaders like Norman Thomas believed that FDR was not doing enough, complaining that the New Deal was “trying to cure tuberculosis with cough drops.

Initial supporters like the “radio priest” Father Charles E. Coughlin turned on Roosevelt over deficit spending and the Federal Reserve. Louisiana’s “Kingfish” Huey Long challenged Roosevelt, promoting his “Share the Wealth” program that would have restricted how much the wealthy could earn and impose high taxes on those with the greatest incomes.

Communists assailed the New Deal as “social fascism” and called FDR a dictator. At the other end, business leaders, believing they had been made the scapegoat for the nation’s ills, wanted a return to the old economic order, believing that the market would correct itself without the meddling of direct government interference."

Ha. Sounds familiar, doesn't it.

Read more at Suite101: New Deal Opposition: Criticism of FDR's Recovery Program in the 1930s | Suite101.com http://suite101.com/article/new-deal-opposition-a95119#ixzz25SQUyWmc”

And you know what Edward? The critics of FDR and his policies were correct.

We have been paying the price (and people younger than 55 will be paying a unfathomabale price) for decades long socialist programs that give people the illusion of a "free lunch".

"We have been paying the price (and people younger than 55 will be paying a unfathomabale price) for decades long socialist programs"

Yeah. Ryan is right. We need to get rid of Social Security and Medicare. Come to think of it those public schools are a pesky expense, as are those socialist roads and bridges. What a wasteful boondoggle the development of the interstate highway system was . . .

There are real similarities in the two situations although they probably go against the point you're trying to make. First, it was a beauftiful example of not letting a perfectly good crisis go to waste. The social agenda got pushed in the direction Roosevelt wanted it to go and even got the power hungry an unprecedented fourth term. Second, it didn't work.
Are you insinuating that it'll take another World War to get us out of this?

"Are you insinuating that it'll take another World War to get us out of this?"

No. Fiscal stimulus can be accomplished without wars, but you are inferring that a fiscal stimulus (deficit spending) of a high order is required. Yes, that is true.

In the last 3 1/2 years the purported leaders of our wonderful country have spent around FOUR TRILLION dollars that we don't have, with a good amount being borrowed from people who hate us. Not only that, but Bernanke has finished off the retirement hopes of millions by forcing a negative real interest rate on whatever investments they had left after the crash. Those people now have two choices, either work until they die or live off of the government.
So we've got operation twist, the presses have been running non-stop on QE's 1, 2, and probably 3, we own most of General Motors and AIG along with Freddy and Fanny, and your suggesting that some fiscal stimulus through a bit of deficit spending will do the trick? Gee, why doesn't that sound like such a great idea? The only thing Helicopter Ben hasn't done is to make good on his nickname and dump the stuff from the sky. You should really look up fiat currency and check out what this is doing to your standard of living.
And here I thought you were the one who was so concerned with your social security. My mistake.

Edward, There are those that believe that because of FDR and the New Deal that the depression lasted much llonger than it needed to. It also appears to be true that what FDR started has not ended and if you look at the long term, the problems that he created are still around today because of him.
There is this foolish notion that you can spend your way out of debt. I don't know of any reputable finacial expert would recommend that method. Yet somehow spending billions of dollars of "stimulus" is going to help repair the economy? A phrase from scripture comes to mind, "Professing themselves wise, they became fools!"

Of course let's subtract all of the debt run up under Bush - including the debt that was in the pipeline that Obama inherited - including 2 unfunded wars, a massive unfunded Medicare Part D program, decreased revenue due to tax cuts while Bush knew he would be increasing spending...

Obama's hands are not clean.

But if you think that turning control back over to the "Borrow and Spend" Republican Party will do anything - well - just look back when they were in charge and then ask yourself what proof is there that they will actually change anything and not really end up making the problem even worse?

rob, please see above...it's a waste of time. If he does bother to read your comment, he will only come after you with vicious and personal insults which can not possibly be from a rational mind. He only wants to rant, if we ignore him, maybe he will disappear.

Well to start off, Bush was an idiot and not much of a conservative. The republican name really doesn't mean much anymore as far as conservative/liberal goes so I'd consider Bush a closet Democrat at best.
The best we can hope for is that Romney is neither Obama nor Bush. We know that he knows how to run a business and we know exactly where Obama's path will lead us. Our choices are limited and barring a resurgence by Ron Paul there's really no choice at all.

One good thing about Romney is that he could disappoint you today, but when he changes his mind tomorrow, you can be proud again. ;-)

People once freaked out because women and/or people of color voted also.