Koochiching County party chairmen voice their opinions on state issues

• Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to require all voters to present valid photo identification to vote and to require the state to provide free identification to eligible voters, effective July 1, 2013?

Failure to vote on these two measures will be counted as a no vote.

The Journal asked local party leaders Terry Stone, Koochiching County GOP chairman; and Joe Boyle, Koochiching County DFL chairman, to offer their views on each amendment.

Joe Boyle

Just vote no.

The two amendments to the Constitution are being opposed by many Republicans as well as Democrats. As to the amendment of the Constitution regarding marriage, it is already illegal. Prominent Republicans like former Gov. Arnie Carlson and Wheelock Whitney are opposed to putting this language permanently in the state Constitution. The DFL platform opposes this amendment, and I personally agree with those Republicans and others that believe that this amendment is not ‘Minnesota nice’ and ultimately picks on people. 

Many churches and religions oppose the amendment, and some support the amendment. I personally was impressed with my youngest child and my other children being upset that this amendment was intended to pick on people which was contrary to the values upon which they were raised. 

I think they are the correct. When I hear the debate, I can't help but feel that some people think they can judge others while I thought that was for someone else to do. I also believe that you judge people by actions that harm society that we consider wrong, but not consensual love in private. 

As the father of three adopted children, I have seen and been at adoption conferences where there are many parents that seem to be of the same sex. Those folks seemed like good parents to me, and is regrettable that more people don't adopt, but one should not be judging those folks or restricting those folks as they help others. There are a lot of children out there in need of adoption, and not enough couples participating in adoption. 

I believe in almost every family we have relatives or friends that are gay who not only deserve our tolerance, but our support and requires that we make sure they have protections so that they are not “picked on” by us as citizens and voters of Minnesota. I am quite proud to say that voting “no” on the marriage amendment to me is the right thing to do. 

The amendment regarding voter ID should also be given a no vote. When one requires by law a specific ID, it forces voters to obtain that ID or be denied the right to vote by others.

In Minnesota, each polling location can have both a DFL and Republican observer. Many of these ID laws give that observer the opportunity to object and stop a voter from voting if that citizen does not have the specific ID whether he be Jerry or Mary from Seventh Street that we've known for many years and due to macular degeneration, poor health, lack of funds, or some other cause they don't have a drivers license or voter ID. Students in college often don't have the right kind of ID and change locations throughout college whereby they would be denied the right to vote because they don't have a voter ID with a current address.

In the (Al) Franken/ (Norm) Coleman election contest, not one case of voter ID was found and pursued. As Americans, we support the rights of every citizen to vote their conscience. The voter ID amendment is intended to suppress the voting rights of seniors, students, young people, and those Americans who do not have the luxury of living in the same home for the last 20 years. It appears there is a snobbishness that has been fermenting in our country whereby some people think that because they have money that others, the 47 percent and their children who are living and working the American dream should not vote. 

Most of us, myself included, come from grandparents who were immigrants and to think that one citizen is better than another is un-American. Just voting no to both amendments is the not only patriotic, but ‘Minnesota nice.’

The cost of enacting voter I.D. has been estimated at $100,000 for Koochiching County alone because of mail-in ballots. Its supporters have not explained whether our local taxpayers, us, won’t be paying that $100,000.

Terry Stone

Since statehood, 213 proposed constitutional amendments have been voted on by Minnesotans and 120 of them have been adopted. Since 1898, amendments require a majority of all those voting to pass (Article IX, Section 1 of the state Constitution). This requirement means that there are no innocent bystanders; a failure to vote on an amendment is a no vote.

This is the first time in 38 years that Minnesota voters have had the opportunity to vote on conservative amendments. Since 1978, conservative amendments have been blocked by the DFL-controlled state senate. When voters sent Republicans to lead both the Minnesota House and Senate in 2010, the opportunity arose to finally allow the people to vote on long-standing issues.

 For far too long, the Legislature, the courts and governors have crafted fundamental state policy that frequently would best have been decided by the people and enshrined in our Constitution. It seems unlikely that independent-minded Minnesotans would like a political party or a judge to shove gay marriage down their throats. Judges decided the matter for Iowans. For better or worse, decisions on which the people are divided are best made by the people. Our GOP-led Legislature has provided this opportunity.

 Over the past 40 years, the DFL has frequently used constitutional amendments to raise taxes; every amendment for the last 14 years were tax increases that would have best been decided by the legislature whose constitutional functions include the budget. It is politically inconvenient to be caught raising taxes so the Legislature abdicated its authority and hid behind amendments. Such is not the case this year.

 There are two amendments on the ballot this year. One is a simple requirement that voters actually show that they are the legal voters they claim to be by showing a photo ID. This is a wildly popular measure that has polled strongly for years.

 The two-paragraph voter ID amendment has created a firestorm of misinformation about costs of implementation, about black people, brown people, poor people, students, seniors, military people and old people. Apparently, the DFL feels that fundamental election integrity is a race, age and class issue. A remarkable amount of money is coming into Minnesota to convince us how we should vote on this issue.

 Voter ID implementation could be as simple as election judges asking for identification or a streamlining process that would register votes in St. Paul the second your ballot hits the counting machine. The nuts and bolts of adapting to photo ID will be presented to the governor next year. The only thing certain is that DFL Gov. (Mark) Dayton won’t sign any election changes into law that don’t have strong bipartisan support.

 An additional amendment will allow us to enter the brave new world of genderless marriage or stick with what we know works for us — and a number of other species. This is a mighty fundamental and emotionally charged issue that the GOP-led legislature has wisely allowed the people to directly resolve by ballot.