MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) — Minnesota will have two constitutional amendments in the next election, after the House and Senate voted in favor of the latest on Wednesday.

The votes for the Voter I.D. amendment fell nearly entirely along party lines. Republicans voted for it, but Democrats opposed it.

Republicans largely support the bill. They consider it fraud prevention especially in a state with a history of close elections. But Democrats say it’ll suppress votes of students, minorities and elderly Minnesotans, all largely democratic voters who don’t have access to a voter I.D. or would be burdened to get one.

The amendments will ask voters simple yes or no questions, like the one below:

“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?”

If you leave the amendment question blank on the ballot, you’re essentially voting no for it. In order to actually vote for the amendment, you have to fill in yes.

The other constitutional amendment, so far, is a ban on gay marriage.

The reason for two amendments in one election comes down to simple politics. Mark Dayton is a DFL Governor, but the Republicans control the legislature.

“The legislature can put constitutional amendments on the ballot without the approval of the Governor, so they’re getting around a Governor that opposes these particular Constitutional Amendments,” said Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota.

Pearson said there could be other constitutional amendments brought up before the November election.

Comments (72)
  1. Paul Solinger says:

    Oh yeah. Gays can pretend to be married, but won’t be allowed to legally be married. That sounds like a ban on gay marriage to me. Why don’t you pretend to have a brain.

  2. buddyjake says:

    I can see the voter ID method being passed, not the one on gay marriage.

    1. Atention WCCO says:

      Did I miss something? I thought that we were going to vote on a marriage ammendment stating one man/one woman, not a “ban on gay marriage”. Either WCCOs reporting is seriously bias or the ammendment terms have been changed. I’m guessing it is the first. I am 100% in support of a marriage ammendment, but if the wording has not been changed to be a “ban on gay marriage” I might have to rethink my position. Get it straight WCCO! (No pun intended.)

      1. definition says:

        The amendment is a ban as same gender marriage would be what? Unconstitutional, therefore a ban. Call it a definition, but will same gender couples be given a marriage license? No. They will be constitutionally disenfranchised.

        definition of ban: To prohibit, especially by official decree.

        1. Frank says:

          Wcco does not like anti-gay comments. Do you know how tough it is to even post one?

          1. definition says:

            You just did.

        2. Frank says:

          Just as prohibition was not a “beer ban” but rather a ban on ALL alcohol. Gay people can still marry. I know a gay man who married a woman, and they have a happy marriage with four children

          1. definition says:

            Frank, that is one argument that holds no water. Prove it.

  3. BillyBob says:

    Well Pat, my gender neutral friend, the only thing that’s obvious is that your primitive intellect can’t handle change.

    1. Tom says:

      @ Billybob

      You are correct. Apparently Pat and people like believe they have right to stop to consenting gay adults from getting married. And yes you are correct they cant handle change.

  4. Johnny says:

    the gay marriage ammendment wont pass. Talk about discrimination. I also say the voter id ammendment will fail. If the repubs say there is all this voter fraud how is a voter id ammendment going to pass? Every homeless person and illegal alien is going to be able to vote. How about a jobs bill and infrastructure bill repubs? Never going to happen.

    1. truthOutlaw says:

      I agree Mr. Bush

    2. Tom says:

      @ Johnny

      They wont do a job with infrastructure because that would mean spending money. So instead they concentrate on non-sense like this stuff. They want to keep the nutty social conservatives happy. And even though the State Supreme Court ruled 7 – 0 saying there was no evidence of voter fraud with Coleman or Emmers case. But the conservatives believe there is because their two guys lost close elections.

  5. aeiou says:

    Oh Pat, that’s so nice of you. What a loving and kind attitude. It’s all take and no give but that’s called love, not hate. Thanks!

  6. Pat(notPat) says:

    Both amendments, if passed, restrict the lives of Minnesotans. Both are gestures meant only to enliven the most conservative voices in our state. The republicans have no achievements to run upon after two years of dominating the legislature, so they hope that these two nuggets will get out their voters.

    Both amendment propositions should be voted down. One would restrict voters and reduce voter turn out; one would enshrine bigotry in our Constitution.

    Vote NO in November!

    1. sick of people's BS says:

      Really Pat(noPat) Really. They have nothing to run on. Surpluses, un-employment down, job market improving. I think they have plenty to run on. Finally the people can have a say in what we feel is right or wrong. If the amendments get voted up or down then the people have spoken and it needs to be put to rest.

      1. gcr says:

        The GOP social agenda (the only thing they have done) has nothing to do with anything you brought up.

        1. politicianSUX says:

          so going fr0m a 6.2 billion dollar deficit that was created by the last legislature (DEMOCRATS) and having a surplus has nothing to do with what party (Republicans) that is in office? Going from borrowing money from education under the democrats to paying it all back under the republicans has nothing to do with who makes up the laws? Jobs are coming back in just two short years has nothing to do with the republicans being in office? Housing market is improving as stated in another story on this web site has nothing to do with republicans in office? then really oh wise one, share with us why all of this happened with republicans in office and all the bad stuff came about while the democrats were writing the laws….

      2. Tom says:

        @ sick of people’s BS

        So why should one group of people have a say on what another group does in their private lives?

        1. sick of people's BS says:

          Did I say they did??? Read my comments again. IF the amendments get voted UP or DOWN the people have spoken and it needs to be put to rest.

          1. Tom says:

            @ sick of people’s BS

            Yes i did read your comment. And it said ” If the amendments get voted up or down the people have spoken”. And does fit my question you why should one group of people have a say on what another group does in their private lives. The gay marriage ballot should be voted in the first place. But it is something that they nutty social conservatives cant seem to let go.

    2. Mad Dog says:

      Vote YES in november.

    3. Brett says:

      Vote YES, on BOTH amendments. This “freedom” thing has gotten OUT OF CONTROL, to the point where almost NOTHING is LEGITIMATE anymore. It’s not about “bigotry”, it’s about some kind of reasonable ORDER, and legitimacy. It’s about some kind of “saneness” and “civility”, and the understanding of the natural laws that keep society from spirialing out of control.

      1. Mindy says:

        What a loaded statement. I would say the the Authoritarian Neo-Con Anti-Liberty government, and “the people” which is not inclusive of the entire population is acting out of control. It is about bigotry. Wear the shoe, it fits you Brett.

      2. Tom says:

        @ Brett

        You are obviously afraid of change. If you have your way would interacial couples be allowed to get married? I doubt it! But people who live in a bubble away from reality think the way you do!

  7. Pat(notPat) says:

    Why would we want the Constitution of our state to define “marriage”? Why would a same sex couple not deserve the same societal benefits that other couples receive?
    I think you may have a “bigotry” problem, Pat, not a “marriage” probelm. Maybe we should be defining “bigot” in our Constitution.

    The whole marriage discussion should be taking place in another public forum; the church. Leave state law and state government out of it!

  8. G Dog says:

    How about a Constitutional Amendment to get the rich to pay taxes at a rate at least as high as middle class folks?

    1. Tom says:

      @ G Dog

      Because to conservatives that would be discrimnatiing againest the wealthy and that is something they wont tolerate. But they dont mind discriminating againest people and the poor.

    2. Ace says:

      I am well off and pay 28% in taxes so don’t say that I don’t pay my share.

  9. G Dog says:

    How about a Constitutional Amendment requiring drug testing for legislators?

    1. Tom says:

      @ GDog

      Conservaties wont allow that either as they would feel they are being discriminated againest. This happended in another state recently where people certain would have to be drugges tested but the GOP excepted themselves from that. But in all honesty drugs are not at the root of the conservatives problem they are nuts naturally.

    2. mark trail says:

      How about requiring a drug test for people recieving food or housing from the taxpayer? I have to submit to random UA to work, to pay taxes so others can not work, smoke dope, crack or whatever. Something not quite right about that IMHO.

  10. TTT says:

    How is it that the same people that will supposedly “not”be able to get an ID to vote, magically have one to purchase booze, cigarettes, drive a car, get into night clubs, swipe a credit card, cash a check at the bank and all the other tasks that require an ID?

    What do these people do the other 364 days when they are not voting? Sit and wait for the next election? Without an ID you can not do a majority of what you need or want to do.

    They have an ID for all those items but don’t have one to vote? Sounds like the Dems need a little help in NOvember.

    1. Death says:

      A Valid ID 4 voteing has to have your currnet address. LQ stores don’t care about your address, only your age. I happen to move alot do to my work, I don’t want to pay $18.50 a pop everytime I move, & wait weeks for a new ID while carrying a huge piece of yellow paper. Students have the same prob, and old ppl forget to renew (Exp ID is also invalid). Do your homework on how this all works!

      1. hunnybear18 says:

        Check your facts or do your homework. (I might suggest starting with the spelling homework) For one thing, the duplicate ID is $13.50. For another, it is LAW that your ID or Driver License show your new address within 30 days. Also, you need a valid ID to go the doctor now, which includes old people, and in many cases to use a bank card.

        1. keel says:

          B as in “b”…S as in “s” You speak and yet you know not.

      2. politicianSUX says:

        Yes you are so right Death, I want people that only live here to get an education to vote here and tell me who is important to them, not me the local tax payer. As for old people, I want them to tell me who is important to them too, especially since it is only worth their time to vote, but not to be prepared to vote by having a current ID. Yup, those are people I want making decisions for me and my community and children and putting people in office that decide everythign from how much I pay in taxes to if my kids can go out at night..

  11. KEVIN says:

    To G DOG ALL THE DEMS. AND THE goveneor. As Nelson tells Bart Simpson all the time HAW HAW.
    And G dog maybe it’s time for you to go get a job and start paying taxes.

    1. Death says:

      You post so much here I doubt you have a job! Or, your ripping off your employer while waisting their time & ineternet access here! Get a life!

      1. mark trail says:

        sic-you’re not your, wasting not waisting, internet not ineternet.

    2. Tom says:

      @ Kevin

      And maybe its time you leave your little bubble and join the rest of in reality!

    3. G Dog says:

      Kevin my psychotic friend,

      The wife and I just finished our taxes and you might be interested to know that our total tax bill, state and federal, was a tick over $22,00And no, we didn’t get the Mitt Romney 15% rate either.

      How ’bout you Kev? Is there an adjusted gross income after panhandling?

  12. Wake Up says:

    Civil Unions are recognized and every insurance form I’ve filled out in the last 10 years haven’t asked about spouse but rather domestic partner. So as I see it the “societal benefits” the gays want from marriage are notheing more than a way to be “In Your Face”..

    1. @ Wake Up says:

      Yeah, that’s what it’s all about, being “in your face”. They just want to make you uncomfortable and rubbed in the fact that they exist as people. BTW, I am married (and straight), and you are a ignorant paranoid moron.

    2. gcr says:

      What “IN ypour Face”? Obviously have issues with people that are not like you.

  13. Ron says:

    I am all for Voter ID. People are picking the future leaders of the local,state and federal government we need to make sure that they have the right to do so.

    As for the marriage issue. Ban all forms of marriage. We have a divorce rate that is close to 50% so it looks to be an institution that does not work for anyone gay or strait.

  14. truthOutlaw says:

    Here’s the truth this election will raise the dead for sure and they will all be voting against whats right for the people.

  15. Jeff says:

    Guys it doesn’t matter. If both amendments are passed they will be challenged vigorously and probably ruled unconstitutional via a back-door deal even though THE PEOPLE voted them into law. That voice of the people was silenced in Cali earlier this year (or was it late last year?). What happened to “by the people for the people”? No serious measure can be put into law anymore because everyone wants to get only what they want. This nation can’t stand on a bunch of individuals.

    1. sick of people's BS says:

      Well said Jeff. That is exactly what is going to happen. We the people means nothing.

      1. Observer says:

        @Jeff & B.S. The “people” can’t pass laws that violate Constitutional rights guaranteed in the U.S. constitution. That is why these types of laws like voter ID and banning gay marriage will be eventually ruled unconstitutional–the laws discriminate.

  16. Tom says:

    @ MrAntiTeaBagger

    Well the Social Conservatives who want this bad always find something to complain about. They wont be happy until everybody is just as nutty as they are.

  17. Yeller says:

    “Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to require all voters to present valid photo identification to vote.”

    This is too vague. Does this mean student IDs are valid IDs?

    The solution is simple if you do have an ID or properID. Each polling place should have an area where you get the “Free ID” at the polling station. At this station, it would explain what you need to show before getting your ID. Have someone county records on site to handle this. Then, after getting the ID, you could vote that day, same day registration; however, you would get an ID to take home with you.

    Instead, of turning this into a political battle, it would simply make it easier for everyone to vote. Unless, we don’t want everyone to vote….

  18. Kevin says:

    ID Yes!!!! GAY Marriage NO!!!!!

    1. really come on man! says:

      why no gay marriage who cares none of our bussiness…..

      I’m sure you do things behind closed doors no body should see sometimes

      who cares doesn’t hurt anyone.

      1. Brett says:

        Nobody cares what happens behind “closed doors”, believe it or not. What most of us care about is what happens on our streets, in the clubs, in our schools, and in the public in general.

        1. Mindy says:

          So tell us Brett, what bars do you and your down low boyfriend frequent? Why are you so obsessed? There is help when you are ready to come “out”.

          1. Tom says:

            @ Mindy

            Good One!

  19. Fred Hayek says:

    Democrats are against voter ID because they think they will lose votes. Why?

  20. Brett says:

    BOTH amendments WILL PASS. The Voter ID is a NO BRAINER, the Marriage Amendment vote might be close, but I predict that it will also pass. Most Minnesotans are NOT being swayed by all of the media-induced propaganda, and have their minds made up already. Dayton should have signed the Voter ID into law LAST YEAR, BIG MISTAKE on his part.

  21. Brett says:

    I know one thing, a lot of things were a lot better around this town in the 60’s and 70’s, than they are now, and I do believe that we, as a community, were a lot more socially conservative back then.

    1. really brett? says:

      Yes, home of McGovern and Humphrey. That’s real conservative, just like Nixon. He was your law and crime guy, and how did that work out? Just keep doing your pharmaceuticals so as not to break that imaginary recall.

  22. Christine says:

    I will VOTE NO on both questions.

  23. Brett says:

    @Tom….change is not always GOOD. It is your types who are NUTS, you think that you have won the war on words, but you are hopelessly mistaken. The proof will hopefully come out this November.

    1. Tom says:

      @ Brett

      Actually its the social conservatives who are the ones who are NUTS! They dont believe that gay people should be allowed to get married because they are not normal. There is no such thing as normal! And I guess in the Social Conservatives mind is if the wife cheats it is the gay persons fault, if the hubby cheats it is the gay person fault, if the couple divorces it is the gay people fault. Social Conservatives have a tendency of blaming others for their problems, because in their delusional minds social conservatives do not do anything wrong!

  24. Brett says:

    It’s called “tough love”…..

    1. Mindy says:

      Explain please as “tough love” has to do with addiction. Maybe what you’re saying is just plain old “tough” which would be more in keeping with your hetero-normative smug comments.

  25. angelcarver says:

    not all voters will be voting in favor of these two amendments. only the normal people will vote these two amendments into law by a landslide.

  26. still hopeful says:

    It’s so amazing to see how folks get so twisted out of shape when it has anything to to with being gay. Not everybody of course, but those who are, are rather entertaining. The big question is, “What are we to do with them?”.

    It’s like having parents, everywhere, that insist on micro-managing my life, without my consent, with no thought given to the American ideal of self-governance, i.e. individual independence, self-reliance, self-disciplined, etc… liberty. When I hear “the people”, it’s obvious I’m not considered one of them.

    I grew up learning that “we” are the government, not those who are elected. They are supposed to do what best for everybody, not fence certain people out. We live in a representative republic not a democracy. In the meantime I am denied but still required to be taxed fully, without true representation.

    It seems then that America may be the home of the brave, but is still afraid of gays. And that’s a very sad commentary.

  27. Hank Rearden says:

    Government promoted marriage as a way to encourage famiilies. Traditional marriage.

    1. Citizen says:

      Yes, Hank. And now government has an interest in limiting population growth. MIT researchers have already produced concern over the next economic depression caused by overconsumption of natujral resources. It would appear to me that gay marriage and gay unions are a very positive step forward in controlling rampant population growth that is damaging the planet.

    2. @Hank says:

      Families, understood. So what about the children of same gender parents who will be denied the same rights and benefits of opposite gender parents?

      Apparently, if it’s not in your paradigm of defined “tradition” then it’s yours to deny others their inalienable rights? Kinda selfish don’t you think? Kind of Un-American too.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Watch & Listen LIVE