Fwd: Amendment would Restrict Voting - for Seniors, the Military, our Neighbors | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: patty (pattypaxearthlink.net) | |
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 17:21:15 -0700 (PDT) |
I hope that this amendment is voted down. VOTE NO and pass this to everybody. It is so very very important to all of us. patty Begin forwarded message: > From: <jmarty [at] apple-pie.org> > Date: August 31, 2012 5:03:06 PM CDT > To: <pattypax [at] earthlink.net> > Subject: Amendment would Restrict Voting - for Seniors, the Military, our > Neighbors > > > > > Amendment would Restrict Voting - for Seniors, the Military, our Neighbors > by Senator John Marty > August 31, 2012 > Supporters of Minnesota's proposed Constitutional Amendment to restrict > voting ask people to ratify it based on an appeal to their narrow self > interest. Despite the lack of fraud from voter impersonation, they imply that > a voter is "protecting" his or her own vote. But blocking tens of thousands > of other Minnesotans from voting because one or two of them might have been > fraudulent, is in not protecting one's own vote. > > Amendment proponents appeal to fear and self-interest, but I want to appeal > to Minnesotans' sense of fairness. It is wrong to place roadblocks that make > it impossible to vote for the senior in assisted living, the soldier serving > in Afghanistan, the disabled woman who is homebound, or the veteran who is > homeless. They have a right to vote too. > > In our democracy, the right to vote is fundamental. Not just for you and me, > but for all citizens of our state. Taking away the vote from our neighbors > under the pretext of preventing "fraud" is a radical step backwards for that > democracy. The constitution is supposed to guarantee human rights, not take > them away from others who Republican politicians apparently don't want to > vote. > > This anti-democracy initiative is present in many states, but the proposed > amendment in Minnesota is perhaps the worst assault on voters. > > The recent Minnesota Supreme Court ruling on the amendment shows that if it > is ratified, people needing to vote absentee by mail would lose their right > to vote. The Court's opinion explicitly said that under the amendment, > absentee voters who couldn't hand the election judge the government-issued > photo identification, would be required to provide "something that is > virtually identical to such identification." There is no way that an election > judge can make a "virtually identical" verification, comparing a voter's face > to their photo ID, when the election judge is in St. Paul and the absentee > voter mails their ballot from a remote outpost in Afghanistan, or from > anywhere else. > > It is not only out-of-town voters disenfranchised by the amendment. The > amendment authors tell voters not to worry about the details because they > will be worked out later, by the legislature. But we don't need to wait to > see the intent. The amendment's authors already showed us their intent in > legislation they passed last year, blocked only by the governor's veto. In > it, they would give almost no alternative to producing a drivers' license (or > the state non-driver ID or a new ID created just for voting) showing the > voter's current address, in order to vote. > > No military IDs would be allowed. No student IDs either. While many voters > assume that "everyone" has a drivers license with their current address, that > simply isn't reality. And if your wallet is stolen, or you misplace your > license in the weeks before an election, you won't be able to vote. > > Students living away from home in a dorm, who would no longer be able to vote > absentee, would need to pay for a driver's license for their new address even > if they are only living there for nine months! Virtually no homeless > Minnesotan, including the many Vietnam-era veterans who are living on the > streets, would be able to vote if this provision is enshrined in our > constitution. They risked their lives for our country, but they are not > good-enough to vote? > > And if a senior in assisted living or a nursing home didn't happen to keep > their no-longer-needed driver's license, can you envision family members or > friends transporting frail, elderly people from the nursing home to the > license bureau to get a photo ID, just so they can vote? > > This amendment isn't preventing fraud. It's preventing seniors in nursing > homes from voting. > > While Republican legislators claim this is about preventing fraud, the only > type of fraud that a photo ID requirement might prevent, is when a person > tries to vote by impersonating someone else. A national investigative report > found only ten cases of voter impersonation in the entire U.S. during the > past decade. > > That's about one preventable voter fraud case in Minnesota every 50 years! > For that, taxpayers would spend $32,000,000 in state funds, plus additional > city and county costs - just for the first year. And, in the process we would > take away the right to vote for tens of thousands of seniors, students, > people with disabilities, people whose license was recently lost or stolen, > and people who are more pressed with feeding their children than paying for a > duplicate birth certificate and other documentation so that they can qualify > for a "free" photo ID card for voting. > > Minnesota has an election system that has relied, successfully, on voters > signing an oath that they are eligible to vote, with violators facing a 5 > year felony penalty. We have consistently had the nation's best voting > system, and the highest voter turn-out. This constitutional amendment would > destroy that. > > The real fraud is the claim that this amendment is about fraud prevention. It > is a blatant attempt to take away voting rights from countless Minnesota > voters. A century after women were given the right to vote and fifty years > after African-Americans were given the right to vote, this amendment would > move Minnesota backwards. > > Our democracy depends, not only on your individual right to vote, but also on > the individual right of all of your neighbors to vote. It's time for > Minnesotans to speak out on behalf of our neighbors and defeat this > mean-spirited amendment. > To the Point! is published by the Apple Pie Alliance. www.apple-pie.org. > If you know others who would enjoy To the Point!, please forward this. > > Free Subscription Address Change Unsubscribe > Permission to quote or reprint is granted if author is credited. > Copyright © Apple Pie Alliance
- (no other messages in thread)
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.