Results show Koochiching County voters favor
first proposed amendment, oppose the second
In two high-profile and historic measures, Minnesota voters defeated two constitutional amendments — one proposed to ban gay marriage and the other to require voters to have a photo ID — on Tuesday.
The first proposed amendment aimed at defining marriage in the state’s constitution as union of one man and one woman, resulted in a close, emotional contest.
As of Thursday morning, with 99 percent of state precincts reporting, the estimated percent of yes votes came in at 47.62 percent — the amendment needed at least 50 percent to pass. In Koochiching County, the proposed amendment received 3,504 yes votes and 2,910 no votes. The question was left blank on 73 Koochiching ballots. Similar ballot measures have previously passed in 30 other states — Minnesota is the first to defeat it.
“This is fantastic news, and I’m proud of Minnesota today,” Sen. Al Franken said in a statement Wednesday. "We are the first state to defeat a proposed constitutional amendment like this one. This amendment would have written discrimination into our state’s constitution and added to the barriers same-sex couples already face to the full recognition of their families. There’s still a lot of work to do, but this is a great day.”
Tuesday’s result doesn’t change Minnesota law, but it means the state Constitution won’t include language defining marriage as a union between one woman and one man.
For Rainy River Community College student Brandon Shofner, the outcome of Tuesday’s vote became personal.
“I am gay and I don’t think a stranger should be able to decide if I should be able to marry the person I love,” the 18-year-old told The Journal. “In this day and age, everyone should be given the same rights.”
Shofner has done his research. He pointed out that about 50 years ago, interracial couples were denied the right to marry, and now “you see it all the time,” he said.
“I hope in the future, it won’t be uncommon to see children being raised by two fathers or two mothers,” he added.
Sue Hamly, a paster at the local Faith United Church, wrote on The Journal’s Facebook page that she, too, voted no on the proposed amendment.
“I have too many friends and loved ones who can’t get married if they want to because of the state law discriminating against them because they are same gender couples,” she said. “I hope that some day soon I will be able to officiate at their weddings, but for now at least we haven’t written discrimination into the constitution. Committed couples should be allowed to marry, no matter who they are or what their gender. God loves all people.”
According to Minnesota Public Radio News, exit polls showed that men tended to favor the amendment and women were more likely to oppose it. Similarly, voters over the age of 50 were strongly in favor and those under 50 opposed the amendment.
John Helmberger, chairman of Minnesota for Marriage, the group leading the efforts to pass the amendment, said on the group’s website, “Despite the disappointing outcome of this election, we rejoice tonight that marriage is still marriage. We know that God has defined marriage as between one man and one woman, regardless of the efforts of some to overthrow His design. We give thanks to God for His creation of marriage, and we commit ourselves to work and pray that attempts to redefine marriage in our courts and legislature will not succeed.”
Via Facebook, Carmen Morehead said she was one of the yes votes. “We don’t live in the same America anymore,” she wrote.
The campaign was the most expensive ballot contest in state history, MPR reports. The main group opposing the amendment, Minnesotans United for All Families, brought in nearly $10 million in cash donations. Minnesota for Marriage raised more than $5 million.
“It was a waste of money,” one International Falls resident said of the efforts. “I hope in future elections, we move on to something more important.”
Voter ID
The second amendment question on ballots, designed to require voters to show a valid photo ID at the polls in future elections, also failed to hit the 50 percent threshold in Tuesday’s election.
As of Thursday morning with 99 percent of the state’s precincts reporting, 46.33 percent of voters marked yes on their ballots.
In Koochiching County, 3,570 voters marked no on their ballot and 2,819 voters marked yes. The questions was left blank on 98 ballots.
In a statement, Michele Kimball, AARP Minnesota state director said, “AARP is pleased that Minnesota voters have rejected the Voter Restriction Amendment. This is a victory for the integrity of our elections system and for the ability of all eligible voters to maintain fair access to voting. This amendment could have denied seniors and veterans who’ve given a lifetime of hard work and service to our country the most fundamental American liberty — their right to vote.”
The statement continued that although a photo ID requirement sounded simple to voters at first, Minnesotans asked the right questions about the far-reaching impacts of this amendment, Kimball noted.
“As our campaign to educate voters in a nonpartisan way continued, more and more voters across the state became aware of the complications and unanswered questions involved in this amendment,” the statement said. “In the end, Minnesota voters from all political perspectives agreed that this amendment was too costly, complicated and would result in too many unintended consequences, especially for older voters.”
Voter ID has become popular around the nation, and the issue polled well in Minnesota until it started losing ground recently, according to the Pioneer Press.
Since 2001, nearly 1,000 voter ID bills have been introduced in a total of 46 states. Thirty-three states have passed voter ID laws, and 30 were in place for Tuesday's election, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Polls in Minnesota showed strong support for the measure early on, but the margin lessened significantly recently.
RRCC student Mariah Childs said a requirement to present an ID to vote would have been challenging for her as a student.
“It makes it harder for college students to vote,” the Milwaukee, Wis., native said. “If (candidates) want to get more people to vote, why put restrictions on it?”
On the other side of the issue, RRCC student Shqueta Randall also of Milwaukee, disagreed.
“I don’t think it’s fair to people who do have an ID,” she said, adding she voted yes on the particular amendment.
Sevon Simon weighed in on The Journal’s Facebook page that he also voted yes on the second proposed amendment.
“It seemed odd that I wasn’t asked for (my) ID to verify my identity and since it would be free IDs for those that need them, then I see no reason not to do it,” he wrote.
Franken voiced his support for failure of the second proposed amendment.
“I’m glad that Minnesotans made the right decision by rejecting this amendment," he said. "It would have disenfranchised many law-abiding Minnesotans — including many senior citizens, young voters, and members of the armed services. And it would have been incredibly expensive and cost local governments countless taxpayer dollars. This amendment would have been bad for Minnesota, and I’m happy that it’s not part of our state’s constitution."
Koochiching County Commissioner Rob Ecklund said he, too, voted no on the marriage and voter ID amendments.
“The constitution is supposed to guarantee our rights, not restrict them,” he said.
