Weather Forecast


Letter: Don't limit voting right

I urge you to vote no on the voter ID amendment.

The voter ID requirement is a solution in search of a problem. Furthermore, the "solution" is not at this point at all well-defined. The only language in the proposed amendment describing the ID is that it be a "valid government-issued photographic" identification.

What does that include? We won't know that until the Legislature passes laws explaining what is and is not acceptable.

A previous letter writer listed a number of items she claimed absolutely would be acceptable. There is no current list of what would be accepted in Minnesota. Without having this kind of information in advance, we have no idea what we are voting for in this provision.

Some states which currently have voter ID laws require the ID to have an expiration date, generally one which has not yet passed. Thus, an expired driver's license would not necessarily be a valid ID; nor would many student IDs, which list no expiration date at all.

Some states require an ID to have a person's current address on it. What happens if you move a few weeks before the election? Some states specifically exclude student IDs. Under Minnesota's proposed amendment, an ID from St. Olaf or Gustavus Adolphus would clearly not be valid, not being "government issued."

There are simply too many questions, and too many potential problems with this additional expensive (for citizens and for the State) hurdle to exercising an absolutely fundamental right.

Other letter writers have talked about needing ID for things like cashing checks or buying alcohol. No one has a "right" to do those things; they are privileges. The right to vote must not be restricted. Vote no.

Ramona C. Lackore