Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


The Minneapolis Foundation generously supports MinnPost's Community Sketchbook coverage. Learn why.

Advocates for poor register homeless voters, worry about ID amendment

MinnPost photo by Mike Dvorak
Deborah Handley is among hundreds of homeless and formerly homeless people across the state filling out Minnesota Voter Registration Applications so they can vote in the November election.

Like many Americans, Deborah Handley has had a lot on her mind lately to distract her from the upcoming elections: her joblessness, newly diagnosed diabetes, a past battle with cancer and, oh, yes, her homelessness.

That’s changing. Settled a few weeks ago into an efficiency apartment at Higher Ground on the outskirts of downtown Minneapolis, the 58-year-old former waitress and bartender is working to get her life together – and that includes preparing to vote in next month’s elections.

She is among hundreds of homeless and formerly homeless people across the state filling out Minnesota Voter Registration Applications so they can vote in the November election.

Her issue? She’s worried about losing Social Security. “I don’t have a pension,’’ she says.

Advocates for the homeless hope to bring 1,000 more voters to the election rolls this fall —  not an insignificant number in a state with the recent history of a very close U.S. Senate election – as part of a statewide effort that includes smaller private shelters as well as the big players such as People Serving People, Catholic Charities of St. Paul and Minneapolis and the Minnesota Coalition  for the Homeless.   

High stakes

Organizations working with the transient poor have been helping to register homeless people living in temporary housing and recently homeless voters for more than a decade. But this election is high stakes, they say.

Passage of the proposed voter identification amendment, as its supporters describe it, or the voter suppression or restriction amendment, as its opponents refer to it, could be a game-changer limiting voting rights of the homeless, advocates for the transient poor say.

“[Voting] is their constitutional right,’’ argues Colleen O’Connor Toberman about persons living in emergency shelters and transitional housing, with a friend or even under a bridge.

She reflects back on a time in this country when voting was exclusionary and limited to white, male landowners. “If you don’t vote, politicians don’t listen to you,’’ says Toberman, who heads up a voter-engagement drive at Our Savior’s Community Services, which provides emergency, transitional and permanent housing in Minneapolis.

Often, she says, the homeless feel marginalized by society. Voting is one way they can have a voice, she says. 

‘More protection’

Amendment supporters maintain the Legislature will do what it takes to provide proper, free identification to the homeless, the elderly and students to allow them to vote in the precinct where they live. Supporters argue the identification provision reduces voter fraud.

State Sen. Scott Newman, R-Hutchinson and chief author of the measure in the Senate, says that under the proposal, if a homeless person doesn’t have proper identification, such as a driver’s license, the state would be the required to provide an ID. “To me, [the voter ID amendment] is more protection for these people,’’ Newman argues.

But advocates for the homeless say the proposed amendment could disenfranchise many of the transient poor.

They argue it’s all too easy to lose traditional forms of establishing one’s identity — a birth certificate or Social Security card — through multiple moves or to misplace a driver’s license when it does you no good because you can no longer afford a car. Loss of such documents make getting a valid, government-issued photo ID described in the proposed amendment harder, advocates say.

They point out that the homeless include persons displaced from their homes by mortgage foreclosure and squeezed out of affordable housing by a housing market with vacancy rates at about 2 percent. 

But amendment supporter Joey Gerdin, a volunteer with Voter  ID for MN PAC, says, “The reality is you can’t get any government service without proving who you are.’’

Last March she tested the system, Gerdin says, and “dressed up as a homeless person’’ and lined up at Dorothy Day Center in St. Paul,  a program of Catholic Charities, for a free meal. She says she was turned away because she had neither identification nor a birth certificate.

(Update: According to Ana Ashby, public policy organizer of Catholic Charities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, it is not Catholic Charities’ policy to require identification for first-time use of services, and lack of ID does not preclude someone seeking assistance from receiving services from the Dorothy Day Center. “During the process of registering clients with our agency, we issue a Community Card, which serves as their ID within the agency during subsequent visits,” Ashby says. “It assists the agency staff with referrals for services within the agency and makes it easier to track the services used at our many sites. Because the card is issued by Catholic Charities and not the government, it would not fulfill the Photo ID amendment’s prerequisite for voting.” )

Many advocate organizations, including Catholic Charities, oppose the proposed proposed amendment. Catholic Charities says: “Many of the 34,000 people we work with annually do not have a valid, government issued ID or the means necessary to obtain documents to get a valid ID.’’ 

“Traditionally our clients, people who have experienced homelessness, are low turnout. Yet they are the people most vulnerable to changes in government. [They need to] make sure their voices are being heard,’’ explains Ashby.

“It’s good to continually remind ourselves we need a representative democracy where everyone turns out to vote,’’ says Ashby. The organization has helped register about 200 people so far, with a goal of 500.

People who have “not experienced the challenges of being homeless or living in poverty or having a disability or simply being very old really don’t understand how difficult or nearly impossible it can be to obtain a government I.D.,’’ says Daniel Gumnit, executive director of People Serving People, a Minneapolis housing organization.

Voting and participation in civic life is an important component of “moving people from desperate situations to stability and integration with society,’’ Gumnit says, stressing their get-out-the-vote effort is non-partisan.

Current Minnesota law is less restrictive than the proposed amendment and specifically addresses homeless persons and defines their residence as where they sleep. That includes an emergency shelter, a friends’ home, or even the space under a bridge, according to the provision.

Under current law, persons not registered by Oct. 16 or who live at a location with no mailbox may bring to the polls with them someone to vouch for where they live.

Handing out voting information

One afternoon last week Ashby from Catholic Charities handed out Snickers candy bars and voter registration information at a table set up in the lobby of Higher Ground, which is operated by Catholic Charities. About a dozen people pass or stop during the hour I’m there.

She asks them if they’ve registered to vote, if they know that since they’ve recently moved into the new facility they have to register their new address.

She talks about two proposed constitutional amendment votes on the ballot, adding: “We’re urging people to vote ‘no’ on the photo ID amendment.’’ 

Some rebuff Ashby’s efforts. Would you like to register? she asks a young man in his late 20s.

Hesitating, he answers, “No.’’

“Why not?” Ashby asks him.

“Nothing goes my way,’’ he replies.

Other residents, like Donald Hurt, 59, grab the opportunity. Though he’s lived in Minnesota for 22 years, he’s never before voted, he says.

Why now? “I’m concerned about the status of unions,’’ the economy and keeping America “safe and secure,’’ says Hurt, a former union worker on medical disability.

Another man, Howard, signs up but refuses to give his last name because he’s recently out of jail. He’s eligible to vote now, he says. “I did my time. Everybody should vote. I like to see a good person in office, somebody for the people, not for himself.’’

A smiling Handley, the former server and bartender on disability, says having a place to call her own at Higher Ground and getting back to voting are steps back to normalcy.  “I’m a Democrat. I always vote Democrat,’’ she says.

Comments (38)

  1. Submitted by Rachel Kahler on 10/08/2012 - 11:02 am.

    A bit of honesty?

    “But amendment supporter Joey Gerdin, a volunteer with Voter ID for MN PAC, says, “The reality is you can’t get any government service without proving who you are.’’

    Last March she tested the system, Gerdin says, and “dressed up as a homeless person’’ and lined up at Dorothy Day Center in St. Paul, a program of Catholic Charities, for a free meal. She says she was turned away because she had neither identification nor a birth certificate. (Catholic Charities requires that persons needing such services go through an intake process and then issues them “Community Cards.’’)”

    Ms. Gerdin is being less than honest, here. A “Community Card” is not a government issued ID. Not being able to get free food after refusing to get a “Community Card” from a non-governmental charity is not the same as being denied voting rights without having a government issued identification. But…I guess if you have to get hyperbolic to justify voting yes on the ID amendment, then I guess that’s what you do. Don’t let the facts get in the way.

    • Submitted by Kenneth Kjer on 10/08/2012 - 07:04 pm.


      You need no ID to get Social Security or Medicare.

    • Submitted by Joey Gerdin on 10/08/2012 - 09:04 pm.

      Rachel go stand in line at CC


      I brought a witness. How dare you call me a liar!
      I was asked for identification first and then a birth certificate. NO ONE OFFERED HELP TO GET THIS “community card” you speak of.

      I stood in the vestibule for about 5 minutes to see if they would change their minds, asked again for a meal, third time I asked if I could get a meal and I was told no,again, not without ID. They would not help me.

      What is disgusting and pathetic about this is most of the people at Catholic Charities are paid and they are getting my tax dollars. They along with most of the organizations against voter ID are either paid directly by my taxes or they get government funding. It appears to me they are more interested in their government subsidy that teaching one to fish.

      As far as the amendment goes, it provides for ID for those that cannot afford one so that kind of blows your arguement.

      You want to call me a liar again, here is my number 651 231 2772. Have at it.

      • Submitted by Pat Berg on 10/09/2012 - 08:21 am.

        Foggy definitions

        I don’t know about you, but I define a “government service” as one provided BY the government – not by an organization that happens to have some portion of it’s funding come FROM the government.

        But then again, I’ve always been uneasy about all the cans of worms that started getting opened when Bush launched his faith-based initiatives.

        Beyond that, your quoted statement is quite vague: “The reality is you can’t get any government service without proving who you are.’’

        “Any government service”? “Proving who you are”? That’s as vague as the wording of the proposed amendment itself. Elsewhere in this thread Kenneth Kjer describes getting enrolled in both Social Security and Medicare (both programs pretty clearly meeting the definition of “government service”) with nothing more than a 15 minute phone call.

        Trying to equate your little Oliver Dickens charade at the Catholic Charities with the overarching issues surrounding the proposed voting amendment is oversimplistic, disingenuous, and misrepresentative of what is actually at stake.

      • Submitted by Rachel Kahler on 10/09/2012 - 09:26 am.

        Phone number online

        I don’t recommend putting your phone number online for all to see. I have no intention of calling you to argue about whether you needed identification or a birth certificate to get food. You’re much more apt to get phone calls from people who have nothing to do with this site, this topic, or even this state.

        If it makes you feel better, though, I called the Dorothy Day Center. In order to utilize the Dorothy Day food shelf, you do need a state ID (it’s not clear whether such an ID is a photo ID or other) and be one of the first 20 at the door. So, I was wrong.

        However, the point remains–getting food from the food shelf at Catholic Charities’ Dorothy Day is not the same voting at a polling place. Private charities and businesses (such as banks) should not be held to the same standard as the government, and vice versa. Further, equating the requirements of a US citizen to have ID for various privileges that are not constitutionally guaranteed to requiring an ID for one of the most basic constitutionally guaranteed rights is misguided (to give the benefit of the doubt).

        If you have a problem with tax money and tax exemptions going to religious organizations, take up that banner. I would gladly help you. But saying that your experience at getting food (fraudulently, I might add) from a private organization is the same as the basic right of voting is a false equivalency.

        In fact, your experience points out just what a hardship it very well could be if don’t have an ID. Heck, don’t you think that a person that’s been turned away for FOOD would get an ID if they could?

        • Submitted by Pat Berg on 10/09/2012 - 11:15 am.

          Patriot PAC

          It’s not her personal phone number. Googling it brings up the organization Patriot PAC. It also brings up Voter ID for MN PAC and the website for the SD49 Republican Committee.

          I guess with PACs you’re not only unlimited with the amount of money you can collect, but also the number of different PACs you want to set up to collect that money. Best elections money can buy!

          And they’re worried about voter ID . . . .

        • Submitted by Joey Gerdin on 10/09/2012 - 01:09 pm.

          I put my # out there because I stand by what I say. On no public domain do I use fake names or #s.

          If you are so damned concerned about the poor, how many people have you helped get an ID? An ID is a hand up. It allows people access to services that they are currently denied. It allows them a job, a bank account, a library card, the ability to take the SAT, ACT, LSAT, access to clinics, perscriptions.

          Secondly, I had no intention of eating at DD, I was doing research in order to make a decision. I have a friend that has volunteered at DD for years and she is the person that told me you needed an ID. The old saying is “trust but verify” is great advise. That is why I went there.

          “Giving the benifit of the doubt” Really? Under that premise I could show up at your bank and clean out your account?

          • Submitted by Rachel Kahler on 10/09/2012 - 03:02 pm.


            I never suggested that you could show up at my bank and clean out my account. What topic are you on?

            As for a leg up, certainly. But I think that if a person can’t afford an ID, it’s the least of their worries. Most are not going to worry about taking the SAT, ACT, LSAT, or any other qualifying test for higher level education because, although many of them offer waivers for test fees (without a waiver, they cost from $35 to $160 for the basic test and more for the add-ons), they require other documentation (e.g., tax records) and to say nothing of the actual cost of getting that education even if you pass the test. If you don’t have the money to get an ID, you’re much less likely to have the documentation needed to even take those tests. So…who cares about the ID when you can’t afford to take the test? It’s not a free pass to anything.

            You don’t need a photo ID to get a library card at the Hennepin County Library system, just “identification showing your address.” I’ve never had to show a photo ID to get prescriptions or go to the doctor, just an insurance card (and I would suppose, barring that, cold, hard cash). Banks are not required to get photo identification for an account, and often rely on name, date of birth, address, and tax ID (SS number for those that have them; tax id nos for those that don’t). In fact, once you’ve opened an account, they generally only rely on your signature and/or your PIN to determine that you’re the owner of the account. ( And I’m pretty certain that there are those employers that don’t give a darn whether you’ve got photo ID–you could be invisible–just so’s you can do the work cheap for cash under the table.

            And you ignore that there are probably plenty of people out there that are not so poor that they can’t actually afford the ID, but can’t afford the time off work to get to the government center to get one. No amount of my volunteering is going to get anybody an ID without them actually showing up. Unless you can convince the government to keep longer hours…

            No one’s arguing that poor people SHOULDN’T have a photo ID. It’s just irrelevant as to whether they should NEED one to VOTE. No matter how many PRIVATE businesses or PRIVATE charities you need to show your ID to, it’s disingenuous to say that it’s the same as voting. And the benefit of the doubt is in the matter of assuming that you simply don’t understand that rather than refuse to.

  2. Submitted by Kenneth Kjer on 10/08/2012 - 11:14 am.

    Voter ID

    First of all I am opposed to the Voter ID because I don’t think it will work unless the State invests millions of dollars in a computer system and create a data base that will allow voting judges to validate the card. That having been said, I also believe that it will be incumbent for the State provide the voter id cards to all residents that are eligible to vote, that would include either having the police or some other department that has people on the street, authorized to find all eligible voters or having a new branch of government that would have people out on the streets registering voters and delivering the ID cards. I don’t believe it will pass muster to have people go to a licensing bureau and sign up if you want to vote. It is going to be more complicated than people think and I foresee the costs from defending lawsuits going into the tens of millions of dollars. Remember the Immigration authorities have the largest and most complete system of ID cards in country. It cost tens of millions of dollars and it doesn’t work.

    • Submitted by Dennis Tester on 10/08/2012 - 12:58 pm.

      I know

      We’ll use the same multi-million dollar database system the corner liquor store or gun shop owner uses to validate our drivers licenses.

      • Submitted by Kenneth Kjer on 10/08/2012 - 05:49 pm.

        DL Validation

        I owned a Gun shop for 5 years, and they do not validate the drivers license. The DL is used only to verify your date of birth. When you call in the information they only check the FBI database for is criminal record and things other than a felony that can disqualify you from buying a gun. Also you do not need a DL with a photo on it to buy a gun, nor do you need a photo ID. The information requested consists of name, residence, telephone number, driver’s license number or non-qualification certificate number, sex, date of birth, height, weight, eye color, and a statement attesting that the transferee does not fall into any of the disqualifying categories. The State of MN is not authorized to allow just any department to use the FBI data base. The normal way businesses check the FBI database is by submitting a set of applicant finger prints. It also is not up to the moment accurate. Also and I know this from having been in law enforcement for over 20 years, is there is no way currently to check someones identity and be 100% correct. The FBI database can be months behind in accuracy depending how quick the police and courts file there records. If someone doesn’t have a set of fingerprints or DNA on file, one out of luck.

  3. Submitted by Michele Olson on 10/08/2012 - 11:18 am.

    Registering the homeless

    It’s hard to explain homelessness to people who have never experienced it. And while I understand why people think it’s important to keep elections honest, I sometimes think that underneath it all, people don’t believe that homeless people deserve a say. I think, if we aren’t careful, we’re going to move back to the time when only landed gentry had a vote.

  4. Submitted by Dennis Tester on 10/08/2012 - 11:19 am.

    I think the least we should do

    is adopt the same identification standard for voting that Dorothy Day uses to provide a free meal.

    • Submitted by Rachel Kahler on 10/08/2012 - 12:12 pm.

      Different standard

      Dorothy Day provides an identification card based on the need for free or cheap food. That doesn’t even meet the standards currently required to vote. So…the least we’ve already done is more than you’re proposing.

    • Submitted by David Greene on 10/08/2012 - 12:58 pm.

      Ok, but then you shouldn’t vote on this amendment. Dorothy Day doesn’t provide a “government-issued” ID.

      Even Dennis says, “Vote no!”

  5. Submitted by Joe Musich on 10/08/2012 - 12:37 pm.

    voter supression is all it is

    If you don’t want certain people to vote you will go to any length to convince yourself of your principles. What is weight of all the words speaking against the logic of the rediculousness of this proposed amendment. How high does fear need to be escalated before things get out of control and we see towns and portions of cities erupt in hate by know nothings ?

  6. Submitted by David Greene on 10/08/2012 - 12:58 pm.

    Joey Gerdin’s actions are appalling. Disguising your identity with the intent to do harm to any organization is just wrong. St. Augustine would be horrified.

    • Submitted by Joey Gerdin on 10/08/2012 - 09:16 pm.



      The reason I went to Dorothy Day Center was to see if it was true that they required identification. If I had wanted to be “appalling” as you claim, I would have brought a hidden camera. The reason I did not was to because I have empathy to those in a horrific position, down trodden, homeless, etc. l I wanted to do was verify facts. You cannot get government services without ID. I had no intent on doing harm to any organization. What bothers you is that they are hypocrites. I think they are more interested in their government subsidies than truly helping people.


      • Submitted by David Greene on 10/09/2012 - 02:03 pm.

        Just Ask

        Why the charade of pretending to be homeless? Why not just ask about their policies? Your intent was to deceive. Saint Augustine would be horrified.

        Your actions are no better than those of the Giles and O’Keefe; and of Murphy & Co.

        > You cannot get government services without ID.

        First, Dorothy Day doesn’t provide a government service and second, you certainly _can_ get government services without a _photo_ ID and sometimes without any ID at all, as explained in several other comments.

        Voting is a right. We cannot restrict it.

  7. Submitted by Karen Sandness on 10/08/2012 - 02:13 pm.

    And I belong to a church that does NOT require

    an ID of any sort to receive free meals or other services.

  8. Submitted by John Edwards on 10/08/2012 - 03:08 pm.

    The last line says it all.

    “I always vote Democrat,’’ she says. This line encapsulates the entire issue. If the homeless voted Republican, you would not see any liberal complaining about the proposed amendment . . . or working to register the homeless.

    • Submitted by Colleen OConnor Toberman on 10/08/2012 - 05:07 pm.

      Actually, I can tell you from all the work I’ve done to register voters that our shelter residents’ political views are as diverse as anyone else’s. They don’t all vote one way–far from it. Some vote Democrat, some vote Republican, some vote third party.

      Our responsibility as nonprofits is just to help people vote; we never push them to vote for particular parties or candidates. We can legally take a stand on ballot measures, but always have to remain nonpartisan in doing so.

    • Submitted by Rachel Kahler on 10/08/2012 - 05:16 pm.

      I would complain

      But, it’s likely that the amendment wouldn’t exist. And that’s the point.

  9. Submitted by Kenneth Kjer on 10/08/2012 - 05:56 pm.


    You don’t need an ID to get Social Security or Medicare. You don’t even need to sign your name. I just retired and all I had to do was make a 15 minute phone call to Chicago, talk to this nice woman on the other end, give her my Social Security number, answer a couple of questions and that was it. I am now collecting SS and I have medicare AB&D. No ID required.

  10. Submitted by Tom Anderson on 10/08/2012 - 06:47 pm.

    If only

    The Secretary of State’s office was doing as much to get citizens registered to vote. They get paid for it after all. But I suppose that it makes more sense to register about a half-a-million people on election day instead. Those long lines are never called voter suppression.

  11. Submitted by Bruce Pomerantz on 10/08/2012 - 09:58 pm.

    Stuck in the 20th Century

    Within many of our lifetimes, one’s validation to vote will be by thumb print or retinal scan except in those states that embedded a state-issued photographic ID in the Constitution, thereby invalidating newer ways to register and vote. I don’t regard this as a major reason to vote against the amendment but it illustrates why most voting laws should be by statute, not amendment.

    If a party that controls both state houses but not the governor’s seat decides to make every vetoed bill an amendment vote, we’ll end up like California, minus the petition-ballot.

  12. Submitted by Amy Bergquist on 10/09/2012 - 05:49 pm.


    The amendment would require all voters voting in person to present “valid, government-issued photographic identification.” The word valid is critical in this context, particularly because in most of the transactions in which people use ID, nobody cares whether the ID is valid.

    Matt Gehring, who works for the non-partisan Minnesota House Research office, says that state law defines a valid driver’s license as “a license that is not expired, suspended, revoked or cancelled.” “And those four terms I just read aren’t really defined in an easy way anywhere.” Link:

    Under Minnesota law, your driver’s license can be revoked, suspended, or cancelled for failure to produce proof of insurance or for repeated traffic violations, among other things. (See Chapter 7409 of the Minnesota Administrative Rules.) I suspect there is a not insignificant number of people walking around with “invalid” state-issued IDs. But they may not realize that they need to get a different ID in order to vote, or they may think they have to clear all of their fines, etc., in order to get a valid ID.

    State law also requires people to update the address on their driver’s license within 30 days of moving. So it would seem that after 30 days the ID with the old address is no longer “valid.” Dan McGrath says that under the amendment you can use an old ID and the current methods of proving a new residence, such as a utility bill, but he doesn’t address whether that old ID would be “valid” under state law.

    Amendment supporters frequently point to Indiana’s voter ID law. It’s worth noting that Indiana’s law does not have the word “valid.” Indiana accepts IDs that have expired within the two years prior to the election. Link:

    Carving the word “valid” into our state constitution would preclude lawmakers from creating reasonable exceptions. A court that is asked to rule on the constitutionality of enabling legislation would be hard-pressed to conclude that an expired, revoked, or suspended ID is “valid.”

    And pity the election judges. Mary Kiffmeyer has testified that college students will be able to use out-of-state IDs to prove their identity. So poll workers will need to be trained to determine on the spot whether IDs from 49 other states and the District of Columbia (a) are not fake, and (b) are “valid” (presumably under the issuing state’s laws).

  13. Submitted by Karen Sandness on 10/09/2012 - 10:34 pm.

    Amy, those facts need to be a letter to the editor or

    an op-ed. That’s a very important point.

    With “valid government-issued photo identification” undefined in the amendment, it could conceivably be up to the election judges in each precinct to determine what constitutes a valid ID.

  14. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 10/10/2012 - 07:52 am.

    The tune it is a changing…

    Guys like McGrath are changing their tune now that they’re trying to sell this dog to a larger audience. The idea that anything other than a “valid” state issued ID is what they’ve had in mind all along is simply dishonest. They’ve been showing people these nifty little card swipers attached to laptops, they even had some at their primary locations, it’s part of the 21st century voting plan. They keep telling people that the evil postal verification cards will no longer be necessary because they’ll have this fancy data base and ID system that will have VERIFIED everyone’s ID.

    These magic laptops don’t exist anywhere. In order to make this system work with all the IDs McGrath and Kiffmeyer NOW say will accept these magic laptops would have to be CONNECTED to the Pentagon (for military IDs), the State Department (for passports), the Social Security Administration (to make you’re a citizen, and they you haven’t died), AND the DMVs of all 50 states. The connection to all of these databases has to be completely glitch free, and the information in all of these databases has to be up to date and flawless. Not only does this magic not exist, it’s not possible, and trying to create it would cost millions. The only solution that could possibly work would be to limit the accepted ID to one of two MN state issued IDs (license or state ID).

    Furthermore, if the ID is not matched to a CURRENT address it’s useless for voting purposes. The whole point of this is make sure that a guy like me who lives in St. Louis Park doesn’t take my ID up to Duluth and vote against Chip Crevack (Ellison won’t need my vote).

    When you look the system Kiffmeyer and McGrath have been promising their supporters and compare it to the system they’re now describing to a wider audience, they not the same systems.

  15. Submitted by Jeff Kline on 10/10/2012 - 04:30 pm.

    Voter ID.

    This is a simple point. If you wish to vote, you MUST provide ID. If you are homeless, you still need to have an ID and many ID cards only have a PO box on them with no physical address. I’ve seen them.
    Please stop thinking that the citizens in this state are stupid.
    You must present ID for almost everything else. Voting will not be any different.

  16. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 10/10/2012 - 10:36 pm.

    Not so simple

    That’s exactly the problem, this has been sold as “simple” but it’s tied up in courts all over the country because NOT simple. And we do not present ID for almost everything, and “everything” isn’t a right like voting.

  17. Submitted by Richard Helle on 10/13/2012 - 12:28 pm.

    Impossible to vote for

    Without knowing how much this amendment will cost and how it’s going to be implemented, it’s impossible to vote for. There’s nothing “simple” about this.

  18. Submitted by Jessica Taylor on 04/17/2013 - 03:50 am.

    It sounds terrifying, but numerous places are beginning to use a brand new tactic to deal with destitute populations, namely relocation. An increasing number of city governments are attempting their hand at relocating destitute people, though it’s not quite what it seems. Article source:

Leave a Reply