Minnesotans should cast no votes on two proposals to amend the Minnesota Constitution Nov. 6.
While discussions surrounding the two proposals appear complex, the reason for voting no to the amendments is simple: They are not necessary.
One proposed amendment will ask: Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?
The other proposed amendment will ask: 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?
Regardless of opinions about gay or lesbian people, recognition of same-sex marriages in Minnesota is already denied under existing law. And approving the amendment won’t solve anything.
Instead, it would push forward a platform that discriminates against some people and that has no place in the Constitution.
Government’s role in marriage is to ensure that a legal contract between two adults is upheld and that role should not include a denial of rights based on sexual orientation. That said, we believe it is the role — and right — of religions and to determine who should be allowed to marry in that venue.
And if requiring photo IDs to vote is a good thing, then such a measure should move through the legislative process, where details of implementation could be discussed and finalized.
Should voters approve the voter ID amendment, the details of implementation, which could be costly to places like Koochiching County, would be developed by the 2013 Legislature. Talk about putting the cart before the horse.
Fair and honest elections are something all Minnesotans should want. But requiring photo IDs won’t make our state’s good election process even better. Instead, there are better, less expensive ways to ensure that voting is free and fair.
Voter ID supporters point to voter fraud when pushing for yes votes on the amendment. But their own numbers show that only about 200 or so problems have occurred, and that was mostly due to felons on probation. Photo ID wouldn’t solve that problem, but providing polling places with lists and photos of people on probation would.
And it’s inevitable that technology will change. Will we amend our Constitution again to reflect such changes?
Like we’ve said before, amending Minnesota’s Constitution should be done so with caution. In these two cases, there is no evidence that Minnesotans’ lives will be improved by taking such an important step in our state’s future.
