Citizens were not allowed to testify on the bill, which was heard by the Senate Committee on Local Government and Elections. Lawmakers said opportunities to testify had been provided in previous hearings.
If the bill passes both houses of the Legislature, Minnesotans would vote in November whether to amend the Constitution to require voters to show photo identification in order to exercise their rights on Election Day.
 |
| Minnesotans lined a hallway outside the hearing room to oppose the anti-voting rights legislation. Photo courtesy of Minnesotans for a Fair Economy |
According to the Secretary of State, the proposed constitutional amendment would disenfranchise 215,000 registered voters in Minnesota – mainly elderly, disabled and homeless citizens – who do not have a valid driver’s license or ID card with a current address on it. It would also deny the vote to 500,000 eligible voters who use Election Day registration.
James Cannon of Minneapolis, a board member of TakeAction Minnesota, said that so many citizens attended the hearing to show their opposition because “people see it as a step back rather than forward — it’s a backlash to the progress that was made in the last presidential election. This bill does nothing but disenfranchise people who support the ideals of where we should be going as a country. It excludes people based on a made-up problem.”
Senator Scott Newman, R-Hutchinson, the author of the bill, offered fresh amendments to the bill that he said addressed concerns raised in the five hours of testimony during the last committee hearing.
Beth Fraser of the Minnesota Secretary of State’s Office, responding to questions from other legislators, said that some of the new language makes the bill more confusing and risks placing hundreds of thousands of absentee ballots and those cast by same day registrants into a “provisional” category that would require them to present documents at a separate time.
“You wouldn’t know who won any election until 10 days later,” Fraser said. Fraser also raised concerns about 11,500 active duty military citizens who vote absentee.
Communications Workers of America Staff Representative Lawrence Sandoval attended the hearing and said that the amendments offered by Newman didn’t show a need for the legislation or any reassurance that legitimate voters wouldn’t be disenfranchised.
“Senator Newman’s responses also raised more questions than answers,” Sandoval said. “One of the most significant — that Senator Mary Jo McGuire asked repeatedly — was, ‘Who is supporting this?’ or ‘Who is influencing this legislation?’
“There is a lot of corporate money and influence in politics,” Sandoval said. “The 1% is trying to eliminate voting rights in Minnesota, because it will allow them to have even more power for the corporate world.”
This article is based on a report from Minnesotans for a Fair Economy.
For more information
View video of the committee’s debate and vote on The Uptake website.
Share
Citizens were not allowed to testify on the bill, which was heard by the Senate Committee on Local Government and Elections. Lawmakers said opportunities to testify had been provided in previous hearings.
If the bill passes both houses of the Legislature, Minnesotans would vote in November whether to amend the Constitution to require voters to show photo identification in order to exercise their rights on Election Day.
|
| Minnesotans lined a hallway outside the hearing room to oppose the anti-voting rights legislation. Photo courtesy of Minnesotans for a Fair Economy |
According to the Secretary of State, the proposed constitutional amendment would disenfranchise 215,000 registered voters in Minnesota – mainly elderly, disabled and homeless citizens – who do not have a valid driver’s license or ID card with a current address on it. It would also deny the vote to 500,000 eligible voters who use Election Day registration.
James Cannon of Minneapolis, a board member of TakeAction Minnesota, said that so many citizens attended the hearing to show their opposition because “people see it as a step back rather than forward — it’s a backlash to the progress that was made in the last presidential election. This bill does nothing but disenfranchise people who support the ideals of where we should be going as a country. It excludes people based on a made-up problem.”
Senator Scott Newman, R-Hutchinson, the author of the bill, offered fresh amendments to the bill that he said addressed concerns raised in the five hours of testimony during the last committee hearing.
Beth Fraser of the Minnesota Secretary of State’s Office, responding to questions from other legislators, said that some of the new language makes the bill more confusing and risks placing hundreds of thousands of absentee ballots and those cast by same day registrants into a “provisional” category that would require them to present documents at a separate time.
“You wouldn’t know who won any election until 10 days later,” Fraser said. Fraser also raised concerns about 11,500 active duty military citizens who vote absentee.
Communications Workers of America Staff Representative Lawrence Sandoval attended the hearing and said that the amendments offered by Newman didn’t show a need for the legislation or any reassurance that legitimate voters wouldn’t be disenfranchised.
“Senator Newman’s responses also raised more questions than answers,” Sandoval said. “One of the most significant — that Senator Mary Jo McGuire asked repeatedly — was, ‘Who is supporting this?’ or ‘Who is influencing this legislation?’
“There is a lot of corporate money and influence in politics,” Sandoval said. “The 1% is trying to eliminate voting rights in Minnesota, because it will allow them to have even more power for the corporate world.”
This article is based on a report from Minnesotans for a Fair Economy.
For more information
View video of the committee’s debate and vote on The Uptake website.