Don Davis, Forum News Service, Published October 13 2012
Blanks must be filled in if Minnesota voter ID law OK’d
If voters approve the proposed constitutional amendment, state legislators will take the brush to canvass next year to provide a detailed picture.
Even before that picture is on display, those taking sides on the issue are saying how they think things would look in a voter ID world.
For instance, cost estimates to implement voter ID range from a few million dollars to more than $100 million. What legislators decide next year would determine the actual cost.
Voter ID opponent Take Action Minnesota claims that if voters must produce a photo ID before casting a ballot, it “would stop students, people with housing instability, communities of color, people with disabilities, rural Minnesotans, older Minnesotans, active-duty service members and veterans from having a voice in our democracy.”
Protect My Vote, which backs voter ID, assures voters: “If your driver’s license has an old address on it, you’ll still be able to use it to vote as long as you can also bring a utility bill, lease agreement, pay stub or other evidence of your new address.”
But the proposed constitutional amendment on Minnesota’s Nov. 6 ballot does not include specifics to back any such claims, lawmakers on both sides say. Decisions about how to implement the amendment, if it passes, would come in next year’s Minnesota legislative session or by the courts. Those decisions would shape voter ID.
“Constitutional amendments are just broad brush strokes of public policy,” said Sen. Scott Newman, R-Hutchinson, the Senate author of the plan. “There is nothing unusual here.”
Among the issues to be determined would be what government-issued IDs would be accepted for voting, how to handle ballots of people who show up at polling places without an ID, how people sending absentee and mail-in ballots can be treated “substantially equivalent” to in-person voters, what the state would do to provide free IDs to people and where to get money to fund the program.
While the Legislature is supposed to deal with such questions if the amendment passes, Rep. Ryan Winkler, DFL-Golden Valley, said there is a high likelihood the courts will be involved.
“One thing we know is the people who support voter ID and those who oppose voter ID are willing to go to court in order to have their view of the world enforced,” Winkler said.
Newman agreed there is a good possibility of lawsuits, but said specifics coming out of the Legislature would need to be a compromise, which could lessen chances of a court case.
Last year, the Republican-controlled Legislature passed a bill to establish a voter ID requirement in law. Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton vetoed it.
So this year the GOP, with little Democratic support, passed the proposed constitutional amendment to establish a voter ID requirement. Proposed amendments go directly from the Legislature to voters.
But to pass a law providing voter ID details, the Legislature and governor must agree. Dayton insists that any election-related law have significant bipartisan support.
“We have got to put a bill on Gov. Dayton’s desk that he can sign,” Newman said.
The senator said that in an Indiana voter ID case, the U.S. Supreme Court provided some “broad guidelines” of acceptable laws.
Among issues the Legislature, and perhaps the courts, would need to decide if the amendment passes:
• Photo ID. The proposed amendment says the photo ID must be government-issued, but a specific definition is needed, such as whether a state college ID would be accepted.
• Provisional balloting. A voter who does not take a photo ID to the polling place would be allowed to cast a ballot, but that ballot would go into a box and not be counted until the voter shows election officials an ID. The Legislature would need to decide how soon the voter needed to produce the ID.
• Absentee and mail-in ballots. Voters who cast absentee ballots by mail could not show a photo ID to election officials. Neither could those in rural precincts that allow all voters to mail in ballots. So legislators would need to decide how they would comply with what the proposed amendment said in those cases must be “substantially equivalent identity and eligibility verification.”
• Free ID. While most people assume the state Public Safety Department would provide IDs to those without any, how that happens is up to the Legislature.
• Funding. Like with all appropriations, the Legislature would need to find money to pay for the voter ID requirement.
Don Davis reports for Forum Communications