If there's anything we know, it's that the DFL is philosophically opposed to Photo ID's as the method to insure election integrity. We know that because the LWV-MN held an ani-Photo ID protest in St. Cloud last week.
Last year, Gov. Dayton vetoed a photo ID bill. Tim Pugmire's article left out an important qualifier:
Gov. Mark Dayton rejected a Republican-backed bill last spring that would have required Minnesotans to show photo identification to vote. In his veto letter, Dayton noted that the measure would have forced local governments to spend money and that it did not have broad bipartisan support.
Gov. Dayton's veto letter didn't say that the Photo ID legislation didn't have broad bipartisan support. Gov. Dayton's letter said that Photo ID "didn't have broad bipartisan legislative support." That's a significant difference.
Polls consistently show that 75% of Minnesota voters support Photo ID. Less than 20% of Minnesota's voters wouldn't vote for it.
More importantly, the DFL's claims are myths, not facts. Predictably, some of the dimmest bulbs in the DFL's chandelier is repeating the DFL's chanting points:
But critics say the requirement would have many negative consequences. State Rep. Ryan Winkler, DFL-Golden Valley, said he fears voting would be more difficult for senior citizens, college students and other Minnesotans who might not have a photo ID with their current address.
“It creates a burden for voting on people, makes it more difficult, and is just an unnecessary expense and unnecessary hassle for voters,” he said.
Rep. Winkler can't verify his statement. We know this because of something that Sherri Kuth, the Public Policy Coordinator and lobbyist for the Minnesota chapter of the League of Women Voters, said at a Photo ID protest event in St. Cloud:
Late in the forum, Sherri Knuth admitted “Right now, we don’t know how many people would be affected if Photo ID was enacted.”
That isn't the only information to base an opinion on. There's also this information from the Crawford v. Marion County Election Board lawsuit:
After discovery, District Judge Barker prepared a comprehensive 70-page opinion explaining her decision to grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 458 F. Supp. 2d 775 (SD Ind. 2006). She found that petitioners had “not introduced evidence of a single, individual Indiana resident who will be unable to vote as a result of SEA 483 or who will have his or her right to vote unduly burdened by its requirements.”
The DFL has worshiped at the altar of eliminating as many restrictions to voting as possible for years. The truth is that the things that the DFL calls restrictions are often called safeguards by the average voter.
Gov. Dayton, the LWV-MN and politicians like Rep. Winkler are playing partisan politics with election integrity. That's why the Minnesota legislature will put this important election integrity safeguard in the hands of voter, not dishonest politicians.
Comments