Minnesota Voter Identification Amendment, Amendment 2 (2012)

Amendment 2
Quick stats
Type:	Legislative referral
Constitution:	Minnesota Constitution
Topic:	Elections
Status:	d

An Minnesota Voter Identification Amendment, Amendment 2, was on the November 6, 2012 ballot in the state of Minnesota as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment were it was defeated.

The proposal would have required that all voters in the state show photo identification before voting. Legislation to enact similar laws without a constitutional amendment passed both chambers of the Minnesota Legislature, but were vetoed by Governor of Minnesota Mark Dayton.

Election results

See also: 2012 ballot measure election results

Minnesota Amendment 2
Result		Votes	Percentage
d No		1,535,948	53.62%
Yes		1,362,976	46.38%

These results are from the Minnesota Secretary of State as of November 7, 2012, at 11:20 a.m. CST with 4097 of 4102 precincts reporting. This results section will be updated daily until the final results have been certified in about three weeks.

Background

In late February, 2012, Minnesota lawmakers reportedly began considering an alternative to the voter ID amendment. The alternative is a so-called "electronic poll book" and is currently circulating the legislature as a bill. Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has touted the poll book as a less expensive option that would allow election officials to look up existing drivers' license photos or take new ones of voters at polling places. Secretary Ritchie spoke to a House committee on the suggestion saying that it would be an easier system for many voters, his examples included those who no longer drive, or those who have changed addresses whiteout updating their ID. Some in the legislature see the bill as a diversionary tactic or as a law to merely augment the amendment, such as, state Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer who said, "We see it as complementary, maybe, but not a substitute." Others, such as, Republican Senator John Howe see it as an alternative to using the amendment process, saying, "I can’t speak to whether this does anything on the constitutional amendment for photo ID. But I can tell you that I personally, along with many of my colleagues, want to see things done as much as we can legislatively."

Text of measure

The question presented to the voters was as follows:

Photo Identification Required for Voting.

"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to require all voters to present valid photo identification to vote and to require the state to provide free identification to eligible voters, effective July 1, 2013?"

• YES
  
• NO

Constitutional Changes

The proposed amendment would amend Article VII, Section 1 of the Minnesota Constitution.

Support

• The campaign to pass the amendment is led by the Protect My Vote ballot committee.

Supporters

• Senator Scott Newman
• Former Senator Norm Coleman
• Dan McGrath, chairman of Protect My Vote and executive director of Minnesota Majority

Arguments

• Sen. Scott Newman, the bill author, called the proposal an "additional measure of integrity." According to reports, Newman said his proposal is to add "photo ID mandate to age, residency and citizenship voting requirements already in the state Constitution."

• Some supporters argued that the perception of voter fraud and the resultant damage in public trust is just as damaging as actual voter fraud. They argued that a voter ID system would not only help to curtail fraud, but also restore confidence in the election system.

Opposition

Opponents

• American Association of Retired Persons
• League of Women Voters of Minnesota
• Minnesota Common Cause
• American Civil Liberties Union
• Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie
• Former Vice President Walter Mondale
• Former Gov. Arne Carlson
• Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie
• Minnesota Council of Churches

Arguments

• "A new voter ID would disproportionately affect older voters because we know they're less likely to have the required identification," said Amy McDonough, a spokesperson with AARP. The AARP, or American Association of Retired Persons, is against the proposed measure.

• In an article printed by MinnPost.com, Secretary Ritchie argued that the amendment would effectively end same day registration and voting. According to Secretary Ritchie, because the amendment stipulates that identity and eligibility must be verified before a ballot can be cast, the ballots of voters who registered at the polling place would not be counted until some time after election day.

Tactics and strategies

• In February the ACLU of Minnesota offered a $1,000 reward to anyone who could find a convicted case of voter impersonation, a kind of voter fraud that would be prevented by the voter-ID law. In March, Dan McGrath, of Minnesota Majority, claimed the prize showing court records of 2008 case in which a woman voted twice, once in her own name, and once in her daughter's name through an absentee ballot. Chuck Samuelson, executive director of ACLU-Minnesota, said he would review the case and award the prize if everything checked out, however, he did add that the fact that prosecutors found the case means that the current system is working without voter ID.

• The Willmar Area League of Women Voters has planned program on the amendment to be held at 7 p.m. on May 14 at the Bethel Lutheran Church in Willmar.

• On Sunday, August 26, 2012, 200 individuals marched through Minneapolis in protest of the amendment.

Lawsuit

2012 measure lawsuits
By state
Arizona • Arkansas • Colorado • Florida • Maryland Michigan • Massachusetts • Minnesota Missouri • Montana • Nevada North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma Oregon • Rhode Island
By lawsuit type
Ballot text Campaign contributions Constitutionality Motivation of sponsors Petitioner residency Post-certification removal Single-subject rule Signature challenges Initiative process

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed with the Minnesota Supreme Court challenging the wording of the ballot question itself. Charles Samuelson, executive director of the ACLU-MN, said, "This ballot proposal is incredibly troubling because it asks voters to put an amendment in the Constitution in a manner that is misleading, confusing and unclear."

The court scheduled oral arguments for July 17. Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has asked the court to decide the case by August 27 so that there will be enough time for ballots to be designed and printed for voters to access absentee ballots.

Polls

See also: Polls, 2012 ballot measures

• According to a KSTP/SurveyUSA poll, conducted October 12 through 14, 53 percent of people surveyed said they would vote for the amendment, 40 percent said they would not and 7 percent remain undecided. The survey was conducted with a pool of 550 likely voters and has a margin of error is +/- 4.3 percent.

Legend      Position is ahead and at or over 50%     Position is ahead or tied, but under 50%

Date of Poll	Pollster	In favor	Opposed	Undecided	Number polled
Oct. 12-14, 2012	SurveyUSA	53%	40%	7%	550

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Minnesota Constitution

Proposed amendments must be agreed to by a majority of the members of each chamber of the Minnesota State Legislature.

In Minnesota, the only type of ballot measures permitted are legislatively-referred constitutional amendments. Pursuing a ballot amendment instead of normal legislation would allow lawmakers to circumvent a veto by Gov. Mark Dayton (D). One of the chief proponents of a voter identification requirement is Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer (R). Before attempting to take the issue to the ballot, she pursued two bills which would mandate voter identification via traditional legislation. These bills are as follows:

• Minnesota House File 302
• Minnesota House File 210

House File 210's companion Senate bill, SF 509, has since been passed by the Senate and the House. However, Governor Dayton vetoed the bill on May 26, 2011. Prepared for the veto, Kiffmeyer and others proposed the following ballot amendment: Minnesota House File 1597.

On February 22, 2012, the Senate State Government Innovation and Veterans Committee approved the amendment 8-5 along party lines.

On March 19, the Minnesota Rules and Legislative Administration Committee approved the amendment, thereby passing it on to the full House, where it was approved.

On Friday, March 23, 2012, the Minnesota Senate passed the amendment on a 36-30 vote. This action passed the amendment to the November ballot.

However, the measure was held off the ballot. Another version of the bill was being considered in legislature, therefore a conference committee drafted a compromise bill, one that would be placed on the ballot should the state legislature approve it. According to reports, the compromise bill was passed unanimously by the committee, sending it one more time to the lawmaking body for ballot approval.

This compromise version of the bill was ten passed by the House on April 3, 2012, with a 72-57 vote. The next day it was passed by the Senate on a vote of 35-29.

See also

Suggest a link

• 2012 ballot measures
• Minnesota 2012 ballot measures
• News: Minnesota Voter ID Amendment heads to the ballot

External links

By Eric Veram Ballot measure writer

Email • Submit a link

• Minnesota House File 2738 (status)
• Minnesota House File 2738 (text)

Support

• Campaign website for Protect My Vote

Additional reading

• Minnesota Public Radio,"Amendment proposals include voter ID, tax laws," January 16, 2012
• Star Tribune,"GOP proposing amendments to avert possible veto on legislation," April 27, 2011
• The Minnesota Independent, "Kiffmeyer wants voter ID on the ballot in 2012," April 15, 2011
• Minnesota Public Radio "PoliGraph: Higgins' voter ID claim accurate," March 28, 2012
• Post Bulletin "Answer Man: Voter ID law would affect absentees, too," March 28, 2012
• Alexandria Echo Press "Column - Voters should nix proposed amendments," April 13, 2012
• Newsmax," Fight Over Minnesota Voter ID Amendment Heats Up," October 17, 2012