GOP evasiveness on voter photo ID leads to MN court challenge

The Minnesota Supreme Court heard arguments relating to the Voter ID constitutional amendment on Tuesday. Opponents of the measure allege that the ballot question wording does not adequately explain to voters the scope of the change in law. The UpTake has compiled a series of clips that seeks to demonstrate what it is that opponents find vague in the proposed amendment and ballot question.

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (7)

  1. Submitted by Neal Krasnoff on 07/18/2012 - 02:08 pm.

    The Uptake has its own agenda.

    “Opponents of the measure allege that the ballot question wording does not adequately explain to voters the scope of the change in law. ”

    Read the law as if you’re not a lawyer, nihilist or a leftist. There’s no problem with the wording.

    The headline of this article belies Minnpost’s assertion that it is “non-partisan”. The Uptake is just another leftist mouthpiece.

  2. Submitted by Dave Eischens on 07/18/2012 - 08:29 pm.

    Attack the messenger because you disagree with message?

    One of the interesting aspects of our media-drunk society is that the distillation of news, knowledge, political platforms, etc. into tasty little soundbites or bumper stickers necessarily glosses over detail that may be in complete opposition to real world effects.

    This is further exacerbated when politicians take cookie cutter marching orders and templates from an unelected entity such as ALEC that is attempting to bend societal rules to an oligarchic agenda. I think we can safely say that such an agenda doesn’t put the general welfare of US citizens first.

    But I had to laugh, it’s actually kind of comical to watch this clip. Proponents of the amendment remind me of 5th or 6th graders trying to bluff their way through an oral report on a book they never read.

    So yes a general question about voters presenting ID may receive popular support. But a thorough examination of the secondary line items and consequences may not. Is that why R’s don’t want the full text of the proposed amendment to appear on the ballot? (hint: that’s a rhetorical question)

    I think this article is merely pointing out the old adage “the devil is in the details”.

    • Submitted by Neal Krasnoff on 07/19/2012 - 06:43 am.

      Unelected

      The left, Mr. Eischens, have their own unelected entities and politicians who take cookie cutter marching orders and templates.

      No difference there.

      • Submitted by Dave Eischens on 07/19/2012 - 06:40 pm.

        I think many on the left wish that were so

        Then maybe they’d actually have gotten Single-Payer/Medicare-for-all enacted. Maybe also tossed the Bush tax cuts for wealthy people in a dustbin some time ago.

  3. Submitted by Steve McAdams on 07/19/2012 - 08:06 pm.

    Really?

    Do we really need to discuss intent? Simply, securely, identify yourself at the poll. We all expect government issue ids. Not the local social club’s. The legislature is to define that id, or so I’ve read. I’m certain military ids will be acceptable. And I have faith that school ids will be ok, if they conform to certain security standards.

    Even SAT, and ACT testing now requires a photo upon registering, and the photo needs to match when you take the test. Where’s the outcry?

    And lets’ face it, how do you identify fraud, if you can’t id the person comitting it?

Leave a Reply