This country is stronger when virtually every adult is empowered with their constitutional right to vote. Few restrictions should limit this right, and a change in those limits should only be made when it’s been demonstrated that the rights of the majority are in danger. There are two principles of a free election on which all should agree. Those who either are not citizens or who have lost their right to vote should not be voting. Every citizen regardless of economic physical condition, politics, religious belief, race, gender or age must be given an opportunity to vote. On Nov. 6, Minnesotans will vote on a significant change in voting rights – a constitutional amendment that would require a valid voter identification with a photograph of the individual voting. If passed, the amendment also says the state must issue photographic identification at no charge. A voter unable to provide a government-issued photograph identification would be permitted to cast a provisional ballot that can be counted only after lawful identification is provided.
The Editorial Board of ECM Publishers Inc., heard presentations by two experts on both sides of this question. One representing opposition to the amendment was Mark Ritchie, secretary of state, and a chief proponent, Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer, former Secretary of State. After those presentations and some discussion, the board voted to oppose the voter ID amendment. Republicans who have proposed the amendment argue that strict voter ID laws are necessary to prevent voter fraud. The editorial board’s primary reason for opposing the amendment is lack of evidence of voter fraud and voter impersonation in Minnesota elections. According to an exhaustive search and analysis of voter fraud by the Carnegie-Knight’s “News21” program, there have been 10 cases of voter fraud and no cases of voter impersonation in Minnesota since the year 2,000. Proponents of the amendment point to 6,200 people who voted in an election whose addresses could not be traced. The inability of following up on the addresses for 6,200 out of two to three million voters is not proof of voter fraud and much less conclusive proof that the constitution should be amended.