House approves voter ID bill

Categories: Voter ID
Voter ID.jpg
Considering the predictable party-line vote, couldn't legislators have skipped nine hours of debate and just voted on the darn thing?
Early this morning, following nine hours of debate, the House approved a voter ID constitutional amendment in a party-line 72-62 vote. The Senate could vote on a companion bill as soon as Friday.

The bill would require all voters to show government-issued ID while voting, but would allow those who forget or don't have ID to cast a provisional ballot. Republicans insisted the new system will still allow for same-day registration, absentee voting, and mail-balloting, though the specifics would be sorted out by next year's legislature.

That means it's possible House Democrats will ultimately be charged with working out a voter ID system not a single one of them supported in committee or during this morning's floor vote.

During the debate, Rep. Joyce Peppin, R-Rogers, said the fact Minnesota and more than 20 other states don't require IDs at the ballot box is "outrageous":
joyce peppin.JPG
Peppin: Voter ID is a "no brainer."
Frankly most people are shocked when they go to the polls and they pull out their drivers license or ID, and the election judge says 'oh you don't need that. That's not required.' And I've spoken to a lot people, I'm sure many of you have. They think it's outrageous. Bipartisanly they think it's outrageous.
Democrats, meanwhile, focused their attacks on the fact that the bill leaves many vagaries to be sorted out by future legislatures. Furthermore, Rep. Steve Simon, D-St. Louis Park, made an impassioned case that the state constitution is not the place to be implementing policies like voter ID.

Simon said (sorry, couldn't resist):
steve simon.jpg
Simon: Constitution not the place to implement policy proposals.
Amending the constitution should only be done when absolutely necessary to accomplish a goal. Not because you can. Not because it feels good. Not because you have the votes. No because you feel passionately about an issue. That's not good enough, and that's not the standard that we've had in Minnesota.
Later, suggesting that Democrats will now feel emboldened to follow the GOP's precedent and pursue policy aims via amendments, Simon said Republicans "are launching a missile in a constitutional amendment arms race."

Polling indicates voter ID is supported by a vast majority of Minnesotans. Will it still be supported by a majority of the legislature when the time comes to work out the specifics of the system? That's up to voters, some of whom presumably won't have IDs when they cast ballots this November.

Previous coverage:
-- Voter ID advances to House floor
-- Minnesota Majority uncovers evidence of voter impersonation, claims ACLU's $1,000 bounty
-- Minnesota ACLU places $1,000 bounty on voter-impersonatin' "rascals"
-- Minnesota Majority scrubs race-baiting imagery from website
-- Minnesota Majority, pro-voter ID group, blasted for using race-baiting imagery
-- Keith Ellison on voter ID approval: "Today is a sad day for democracy"

My Voice Nation Help
17 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Mn Voter
Mn Voter

If a citizen doen't have a valid ID then how do they get government aid? Does a person not need an id to register and get food stamps? or unemployment checks?Do the poor not fly on airplanes? Do they never drive cars and trucks? Do they not fish or hunt or go to a bar?

Just curious? 

Jody
Jody

Yes, they do, and yes they have valid IDs to do these things.

The people who are against this amendment are Liberals who want to give illegal immigrants the chance to vote because they know that they would vote for Democrats.  Just like they do in California.

Kirk the Conservative Jerk
Kirk the Conservative Jerk

I watched this, and it went on for hours and hours last night.I did get a chance to hear from almost every democrat in the house of reps.Many of these people never say anything on the floor.The Dems were proposing their own modifications (amendments) to the bill.Funny though, the democrats say were against it, but they sure had lots of input to the bill.The dems proposed changing language like "issued" to "approved", but appeared to favor the bill.In the end most dems voted against the bill even though they spent hours adding amendments to the bill.

Duh...
Duh...

 It's called trying to compromise, Kurt. Right now, there's not a lot of that going on, at the state, as well as, federal level.

Kirk the Conservative Jerk
Kirk the Conservative Jerk

You must be one of them people that either thinks people are dumb and can't remember yesterday, or you can't remember yesterday yourself.

Look at the way the Republicans were treated during the debate on the federal Affordable Care Act. (Obamacare)  In fact, name one amendment a Republican legislator put into Obamacare.They were allowed very little input or debate.  The Republicans were locked out of the process from the beginning.

Now lets move the focus closer to homeLook at the years between 2004 and 2010 in Minnesota.  How many Republican sponsored bills were passed by the Democrat controlled legislature.  How many were even cosponsored by Republicans and passed by the Democrat controlled legislature.   The standard has been set for "compromise" by the Democrats.And now they wish to change the standards THEY set?

Duh...
Duh...

Poll taxes, anyone? Maybe some intelligence tests? Let's just open up that faucet, shall we? Talk about a solution in search of a problem.

Kirk the Conservative Jerk
Kirk the Conservative Jerk

I watched this, and it went on for hours and hours last night.I did get a chance to hear from almost every democrat in the house of reps.  Many of these people never say anything on the floor.There were proposing their own modification (amendments) to the bill.Funny though, the democrats were against it, so they say, but had lots of input to the bill.They proposed changing language like "issued" to "approved".  And in the end most dems voted against the bill even though they spent hours adding amendments to the bill.  

Many of you posting here have these tired and worn out talking points on this issue.Tell you what I gonna do, I'm gonna help ya out because some of you have gotten so lame in your arguments.  Get you fresh set of talking points here, and be the first of you friends to use the new Talking point.  Watch this video and be educated by your elected officials as to what is the hot, the new, the hip way to combat this bill.

video of house floor here - http : // tinyurl.  com/8xgxp4l(pull out the spaces in the link)

Jody
Jody

Could you imagine the lines of people standing at the DMV if a photo ID was required to collect Welfare benefits?  *chuckle*

Kirk the Conservative Jerk
Kirk the Conservative Jerk

Hey Aaron, why did you delete my comment?Did I expose something about this bill you didn't want me to?

Censorship from CP?????

atrupar
atrupar

Kirk -- I never delete comments. Could it have contained a link? If so, then those comments are routed to our web editor for review.

Kirk the Conservative Jerk
Kirk the Conservative Jerk

Yes it had a link, but I bypass the review process by breaking the link so it's not really a link.  It posted and remained so for a while.  Now the post is gone.  Hmmm....Anyway, thanks for the quick response.

Jen Boyles
Jen Boyles

I went in and approved your comment. Our system thought it was spam, perhaps because of frequency of posts, or that link (spammers also break links to get them to bypass platforms like Disqus).

Ch_Ch_Channing
Ch_Ch_Channing

I love the fact that the people that are in favor of this bill claim our current system is rife with fraud, yet they were elected under it or voted under it and continue to stay in office without questioning the legitimacy of their own positions, or worse, don't question the legitimacy of those they voted for without showing any ID. The irony is going to crush us all to death.

MRW
MRW

So let's play a "What If" game here for a second.

What If this amendment passes in November?And at the same time What If the DFL regains control of at least one chamber of the legislature?What If then the two chambers cannot agree on an enforcement mechanism to implement the amendment?Or What If Gov. Dayton vetoes any attempt to enforce the amendment.

What then?  If there is no enforcement mechanism passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, would people still have to pull out an i.d.?

When the Lottery Amendment was passed by voters in 1988(?), there were legislators who said they would not support its implementation even though the voters had put in in the state constitution.  Can the same happen here?

Kirk the Conservative Jerk
Kirk the Conservative Jerk

I watched this, and it went on for hours and hours last night.I did get a chance to hear from almost every democrat in the house of reps.  Many of these people never say anything on the floor.There were proposing their own modification (amendments) to the bill.Funny though, the democrats were against it, so they say, but had lots of input to the bill.They proposed changing language like "issued" to "approved".  And in the end most dems voted against the bill even though they spent hours adding amendments to the bill. 

Many of you posting here have these tired and worn out talking points on this issue.Tell you what I gonna do, I'm gonna help ya out because some of you have gotten so lame in your arguments. 

Get your fresh set of talking points here, and be the first of you friends to use the new Talking point.  Watch this video and be educated by your elected officials as to what is the hot, the new, the hip way to combat this bill.

video of house floor here -   http : // www. house. leg. state.  mn. us /htv/programa.  asp?  ls_year=87&session_year=2011&session_number=0&event_id=4126

(pull out the spaces in the link)

Kirk the Conservative Jerk
Kirk the Conservative Jerk

I watched this, and it went on for hours and hours last night.I did get a chance to hear from almost every democrat in the house of reps.  Many of these people never say anything on the floor.There were proposing their own modification (amendments) to the bill.Funny though, the democrats were against it, so they say, but had lots of input to the bill.They proposed changing language like "issued" to "approved".  And in the end most dems voted against the bill even though they spent hours adding amendments to the bill. 

Many of you posting here have these tired and worn out talking points on this issue.Tell you what I gonna do, I'm gonna help ya out because some of you have gotten so lame in your arguments.  Get you fresh set of talking points here, and be the first of you friends to use the new Talking point.  Watch this video and be educated by your elected officials as to what is the hot, the new, the hip way to combat this bill.

video of house floor here - http : // tinyurl. com/8xgxp4l(pull out the spaces in the link)

Now Trending

Minnesota Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...