Koochiching County officials are watching as the fight over a proposed constitutional amendment requiring photo identification for voting goes through the courts.
The Minnesota Supreme Court on Tuesday waded into the fray, even as justices asked whether they had authority to strip the measure from the November ballot, rewrite it or take other action.
In a fast-paced hearing, two justices openly objected to the wording of a ballot question, with one calling it misleading and another describing it as “bait and switch.” But several voiced concern about interfering with a ballot question bound for voters.
While prompting an attorney for amendment opponents to describe why the voter ID question that will appear on the ballot is considered misleading, Justice Paul Anderson added, “I think it is.” But Anderson went on to say the Minnesota Constitution seems to give the Legislature sole power to put questions before voters.
Later, Justice David Stras asked: “Why shouldn’t we be hands off with this political question?”
The ballot question at issue reads: “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?”
The amendment that would go into the constitution is 119 words long, describes verification requirements for voters and broadly lays out a provisional balloting system for voters who lack proper ID at the polls.
Because the majority of Koochiching County residents vote by mail, county officials are wondering how mail voting will be handled should the amendment go to the ballot and be approved by Minnesotans.
The details of implementing a voter ID process will be developed by the 2013 Legislature, should it be approved by voters.
Because there is not a way for mail ballot voters to prove their eligibility to vote by showing an ID, mail balloting may not be an option for Koochiching County, county officials recently said.
Koochiching concerns
Should mail voting be discontinued as a result of the amendment, the county would be required to establish polling places that meet federal requirements causing the county to build or renovate buildings to meet codes involved in handicap accessibility and other issues in various areas of the county or to use existing facilities that are up to code and require voters to travel, often many miles in the state’s second largest county, to the polling place.
Meanwhile, attorney William Pentelovitch, who represents the League of Women Voters Minnesota and a coalition of groups, said it is the court’s duty to step in if voters will be deceived. That’s happening here, Pentelovitch said, because the question doesn’t adequately explain what constitutes a valid ID or how the provisional ballots will be handled and counted.
“No voter looking at the ballot question standing on its own would have any idea they are voting to institute provisional balloting,” he told the court.
Chief Justice Lori Gildea pointed out that state law requires ballot questions to be concise.
Thomas Boyd, the lawyer for amendment backers, didn’t even get a word in before an engaged judicial panel began grilling him.
Justice Alan Page challenged Boyd on differences in the ballot question and the proposed amendment when it comes to what identification would be considered valid. The question leaves it at “valid photo identification” while the amendment itself would demand “valid government-issued photographic identification” or “substantially equivalent identity and eligibility verification.”
“Ultimately it’s for all of us to read the proposed amendment and make up our own minds,” Boyd said.
This article includes information from the Associated Press.
