Skip to Content

Support MinnPost

Minnesota’s Photo ID proponents, opponents readying for ballot battle

Dan McGrath, executive director of Minnesota Majority

MinnPost photo by James Nord

Dan McGrath, executive director of Minnesota Majority, a group that supports the Photo ID amendment.

 The political battle is already gearing up over Minnesota’s proposed Photo ID constitutional amendment, which was approved last week by the Legislature.

At least three Ballot Question Committees have filed with the state board that tracks political organizations, and more groups are poised for the fight.

Some groups are focusing on legal issues, preparing litigation opposing the amendment, which would require voters to show an ID and affect same-day registration and absentee balloting procedures.

Others will focus on the political campaign, with both proponents and opponents trying to persuade voters about the Republican-backed initiative that will be on the November general- election ballot.

 “Nonprofits were crucial in getting the Legislature to consider [Photo ID], in getting it passed through the Legislature,” said Steven Schier, a political science professor at  Carleton College, “They will be very important in the public debate about it coming up to the vote on the constitutional amendment.”

The groups are planning extensive media buys throughout the summer and fall, as well as strong grass-roots efforts to reach voters face to face.

“Clearly the GOP believes it’ll be an electoral advantage for them over time to have Voter ID,” he said. “The Democrats feel it’ll be an electoral disadvantage. That’s going to facilitate fundraising, and there should a fair amount spent on both sides of this.”

Ballot committees

The campaigns surrounding the Voter ID amendment are still in their infancy.

A broad coalition of groups that oppose Photo ID launched the most recent Ballot Question Committee Thursday at the state Capitol.

Our Vote Our Future is backed by TakeAction Minnesota and, among others, AARP, the AFL-CIO and the League of Women Voters.

At a press conference launching the campaign effort, Dan McGrath, TakeAction’s executive director, said that many details – including a proposed budget – are still up in the air. He also declined to say how the money would be divided among campaigning and advertising.

Our Vote Our Future press conference
MinnPost photo by James NordTakeAction Minnesota Executive Director Dan McGrath walking away from the podium on Thursday after unveiling Our Vote Our Future, a coalition of groups against Photo ID.

But McGrath did stress the strengths of the coalition, which includes statewide groups that have hundreds of thousands of members and budgets of their own.

“We have lots and lots of organizations who are already expending resources on this issue, so we as a campaign already started with an extraordinary infrastructure in place to reach people where they’re at,” he said. “With that said, we recognize we need to raise dollars, but we’re working to devise exactly how much.”

McGrath also acknowledged that amendment opponents face an uphill battle. Public Policy Polling reported Jan. 30 that 65 percent of Minnesotans favor a Photo ID requirement.

“We recognize that we are the underdogs in this fight,” he said. “But we also know that the conditions to defeat the Voter ID amendment already exist.”

In addition, the League of Women Voters could register its own ballot committee soon with the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board, according to the group’s executive director, Laura Fredrick Wang.

Likewise, the Minnesota chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has a separate committee dedicated to defeating both Photo ID amendment and the marriage amendment, which also will be on the ballot.

The groups on Thursday also took an obligatory swing at Photo ID, which they say will disenfranchise at-risk voters, end Election Day registration and introduce an enormous new bureaucracy in the form of provisional balloting.

McGrath said it’s the coalition’s goal is to spread “three truths” among voters – that it’s “costly, restrictive and unnecessary.”

“Putting lipstick on a pig will never entice me to want to pucker up -- and perfume on an aroused skunk is not going to make me want to draw closer,” said Alfred Babington-Johnson, CEO of the Minneapolis-based Stairstep Foundation, which assists community improvement programs.

Alfred Babington-Johnson
MinnPost photo by James NordAlfred Babington-Johnson, CEO of the Stairstep Foundation, speaking against Photo ID at the press conference on Thursday.

But supporters of Photo ID dismiss all of the claimed potential problems.

Minnesota Majority is the main group behind efforts to pass the Photo ID amendment. The group’s executive director, who is also named Dan McGrath, had a more detailed plan about how his side intends to win.

McGrath said he hopes, the Ballot Question Committee he chairs, raises about $3 million before the election.

“What I hope to do at the end of the campaign is kind of a mass media saturation campaign for the month of October,” he said in an interview. “I want wall-to-wall TV coverage of our ads, and this will get us there if we can raise that much money. The other stuff is pretty inexpensive.”

The size of Minnesota Majority’s alliance, which includes several conservative groups, pales in comparison to the 88 organizations that back Our Vote Our Future. However, McGrath, the proponent, said strong support from the public would help his side win.

“We don’t want to spend too little,” he said. “I think the opposition is going to spend a lot more. I don’t think we need to match them dollar for dollar, because … we do have the momentum. We have the public on our side already on this. So our objective is just going to be to counteract the misinformation like what came from Gov. [Mark] Dayton on Monday.”

Dayton that day issued a ceremonial veto, even though constitutional amendments bypass his desk and go directly to the voter. He criticized it as bad policy for eliminating Election Day registration and implementing provisional balloting.

Minnesota Majority’s McGrath and other Photo ID supporters argue, however, that Dayton and Secretary of State Mark Ritchie have no proof that same-day registration will change or that provisional balloting is overly burdensome.

“That’s a cynical ploy to pit a popular feature of our election system against a popular reform measure, but it’s a false dilemma that they’re offering to the voters, because it’s not one or the other. We’re going to have both,” he said.

Minnesota Majority is in the process of dismantling, a tool it used to urge lawmakers to pass the amendment. Despite its popularity in polling numbers, McGrath was often one of the only testifiers in support of the measure during committee hearings,

“It’s up to the voters to decide,” McGrath said. “What we know right now is that it’s got strong support, but between now and November — who knows.”

Litigation efforts

While groups like Our Vote Our Future and ProtectMyVote make their case in the media, on the airwaves and at front doors, opponents aim to use the courts to prevent the amendment from ever getting to the ballot.

Common Cause Minnesota, the state unit of a national citizens’ lobbying organization, said it would partner with the ACLU to attempt to get the amendment tossed off the ballot or rewritten. Wang from the League of Women Voters said her group also is interested in litigation, as it has done nationally.

“My main concern with the constitutional amendment right now is really with the question itself,” Mike Dean, Common Cause Minnesota executive director, said. “It is deceptive and misleading to voters, and that creates an opportunity for a legal challenge.”

Dean said the short ballot question doesn’t fully explain the potential consequences of the legislation, including new provisional balloting and a potential end to same-day registration.

Opponents of Photo ID, including the ACLU, warned during committee hearings that passing the measure would open up Minnesota to a “cottage industry” of lawsuits attempting to parse exactly what the amendment means.

Dean said there isn’t much legal precedent in Minnesota on the issue because we’re not an initiative state. Not only does the amendment face legal challenges before it hits the ballot, but it could also require the courts to interpret it afterward because passage would enshrine it in the state  Constitution.

“This is going to be litigated for at least the next five to 10 years. … it’s going to be full of chaos over the next decade,” he said. “What I expect is that as this gets litigated, you’re going to have election rules that are going to change from election to election cycle, and different courts interpret the rules or the language differently.”

Get MinnPost's top stories in your inbox

Related Tags:

About the Author:

Comments (14)

Media Deception

"Public Policy Polling reported Jan. 30 that 65 percent of Minnesotans favor a Photo ID requirement."

Maybe, but that was a very small sampling of people, and since the question itself was devoid of the consequences of such a change, the outcome was predictable, and therefore not relevant. Of course the idea of verifying voters before they cast a ballot is popular, but it's entirely dependent on convincing people that there is fraud occurring, which there is no evidence to support.

In addition, lazy media constantly reporting that Voter ID is overwhelmingly popular when it could not have been due to the consequences being unknown (as they are now, since future legislatures would have to decide how to implement it if passed), just leads an already ill-informed public to accept these sound bites as fact, when they are far from it.

The media needs to do a much better job of reporting on this, and the so-called marriage amendment so that people do not accept a fate they truly do not want, much less enshrine discrimination and voter suppression efforts into the state constitution.

Voter ID

Not a single Senator or representative that I contacted can tell me how this law will prevent voter fraud. This is another example of outside influence by ALEC, on MN Republicans. If anyone sits down for about 15 minutes, they can come up with at least 20 ways to commit voter fraud with a valid MN DL or photo ID. One has to remember that anyone, you don't even need to be a citizen of the US can get a valid MN DL or photo ID. Minnesota also does not verify whether or not the prime documents that need to be submitted to get a MN DL or photo ID are real or fraudulent. In addition it will prevent felons from voting because the DL data base is not connected to a criminal data base. This is a worthless piece of legislation that should not have been passed.

Bait n Switch

This is a deliberate attempt to reduce the number of votes cast on election day. I've written a blog entry that explains how this new provisional ballot mechanism will eliminate same day registration, vouching, and possibly absentee ballots for state offices.

On a more basic level I think it's important for everyone to realize that this amendment fundamentally changes the voters relationship with the state. In the last election around 500,000 or 20% of all the votes cast were cast by same day registrants. Right now you have a right to vote on election day and have that vote counted on election day. That right cannot be denied without probable cause, or due process. This government ID requirement creates a whole new front-end process that will eliminate same day registration and prevent tens of thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of votes being counted on election day. Right now no one can say when or even if those provisional ballots will be counted. Basically what this does is create a situation where you need the governments permission in the form of an approved ID to cast a vote that will counted on election day. In other words, voting will no longer be a "Right", it will be a provisional courtesy. The government no longer has to prove you're not entitled to vote, you have to prove to the government that you entitled to vote.

Illegal Solutions Looking For Problems

"Minnesota Majority’s McGrath and other Photo ID supporters argue, however, that Dayton and Secretary of State Mark Ritchie have no proof that same-day registration will change or that provisional balloting is overly burdensome."

There is also no proof of any widespread voter fraud. First find the fraud! Also, forcing anyone to purchase an ID in order to vote is the same as a poll tax and is in violation of the 24th Amendment. This will be struck down in court.

to think they could have avoided all this

If photo ID proponents had just gotten past their obsession with passing an amendment and accepted electronic poll books, we could have had photos without disenfranchisement, an improved method for handling clerical work, and no need for an amendment. Even if DFLers think photos are an unnecessary cost and a solution seeking a problem, we would live with it if it weren't for the threat to the voting rights of people who can't get acceptable IDs. That the MNGOP wants to foist on us the most restrictive photo ID law in the nation might tell us what this is really about: taking away the rights of people who vote for the "wrong" party.

insulting: DFL Panic on display!

It is humorous reading these “flat-earth, DFL types” who are in panic mode in refusing to enter the 21st Century over reasonable voter identification requirements.

Photo ids

The 21st century. How laughable. Panic mode - pathetic republican legislators and their followers.

voter ID

If there are no problems with the voting system, why is it that in the 2008 election, for example, were there 40,000 more ballots than voters accounted for in the state’s voter history file? Why were there several hundred individuals on voter roles that appeared to be deceased. Research showed that several of these individuals actually voted in the 2008 election. Why did thousands of potential felons vote in the 2008 election? There have already been convictions for felons voting illegally. Why did we have over 200 cases in which it appears one individual cast more than one ballot in the 2008 election?

Norm Coleman's recount

Norm Coleman's recount attorney, Fritz Knaak said of the recount, “We were looking for fraud, but we didn't find any."

I wish that Mr. Swanson could be as forthcoming and honest about elections here in Minnesota

No 40,000 over-votes


That 40,000 figure is a completely manufactured figure, the group responsible for it has never explained when or how they came up with it. Neither recount found any over-votes.

voter ID

I wish Mr. Schulze understood that all of the numbers I gave are from Minnesota election results. Most of this did not come out until after the recount legal action was over. If the State of Minnesota had this information out right away, like they were supposed to, the election results would probably have been thrown out and another election would have been necessary.

What election results?


Please show us exactly where your 40,000 figure comes from.

Here's what Norm Coleman's

Here's what Norm Coleman's lawyer said about fraud towards the end of oral arguments before the Supreme Court on June 1, 2009:

Justice Anderson: "Counsel, I’m just going to pause here and ask, is there any evidence of any fraud, any favoritism, or anything other than that the elections officials here in Minnesota tried to do the best job possible in applying the law?"

Joe Friedberg: "Absolutely not. Absolutely not. And there’s no voter fraud. There’s no election fraud."

[Friedberg then changed the subject to the Coleman camp's argument about applying a "substantial compliance" standard to rejected absentee ballots in heavily GOP precincts. Friedberg reaffirmed the "no fraud" point a few minutes later.]

Joe Friedberg: "There’s no evidence of fraud in this election. Maybe it’s the law, maybe it’s the character of the people in Minnesota. We don’t have any fraud."

The data, collected by the Minnesota Supreme Court, shows that 144 people have been convicted of voter fraud since 2009. Furthermore, those who were found to violate the law represent far less than 1 percent of the roughly 2.9 million Minnesotans who voted in the 2008 election.


To add to Mr. Shulze's comment I would point out that of those 144 convictions, none of those frauds would have been prevented by a photo ID.