Dayton Decries Photo ID Push With A ‘Veto’
I posted a story on this last week and thought that it wasn’t a bad idea to require more identification to vote. My point was that government issued ID’s are required for the most basic things such as opening a checking account so why not require such identification for something as important as voting?
With the governors veto, did I underestimate the ramifications of this amendment? If the only argument is based on changing the Constitution then I hold my opinion. Of course the Constitution is the foundation for this country, but that doesn’t mean that parts of it aren’t dated and open for change. We are a smart country, a leader in many areas throughout the world. I would hope that would mean we are smart enough reinvent ourselves as needed.
What do you think? Are you in favor of this amendment or not? I would love to hear both sides of this issue.
Gov. Mark Dayton couldn’t keep the voter ID amendment off the November ballot, but he said on Monday he will do whatever he can to convince voters to defeat it and kicked off his pledge with a symbolic veto of the amendment.
“Although I do not have the power to prevent this unwise and unnecessary constitutional amendment from appearing on the Minnesota ballot in November, the Legislature has sent it to me in the form of a bill,” the governor wrote in a letter to the speaker of the House, three days after legislators passed the legislation by party-line votes. “Thus, I am exercising my legal responsibility to either sign or veto the amendment. I am vetoing the amendment and its title; I urge Minnesotans to reject it in November.”
Republicans quickly shot back, calling the governor’s “mock veto” an attempt to mislead voters.
“The governor’s action today misleads voters by suggesting the governor has the authority to override the Legislature’s right to place a question on the ballot,” said Senate Majority Leader David Senjem, R-Rochester.
The battle over whether Minnesotans should be required to show photo identification to vote now shifts out of the Legislature and to the state’s airwaves, websites and water coolers.
For the next seven months, both sides will be working to convince voters that the proposed ballot amendment is either a common-sense measure to prevent election fraud or a partisan maneuver that could disenfranchise thousands of Minnesotans.
“We know we’re the underdogs; we recognize that,” said Dan McGrath, executive director of Take Action Minnesota, one of the grass-roots groups rallying to oppose the photo identification amendment. “We have to organize a strong and united campaign to help Minnesotans understand that any manipulation of the constitution for narrow political gain is a bad idea.”
Within the week, McGrath said, a broad coalition of groups will step forward to spearhead opposition to the ballot amendment, organized through the OurVoteOurFuture.org site.