In 14 Cities Patch Covers, Voters Favored MN Voter ID Amendment
How did your city vote on the constitutional amendment to require photo ID to vote?
Here's how residents in a selection of Minnesota cities voted on the proposed Voter ID amendment to the state Constitution, which would have required photo ID at polling places.
Statewide, the ballot measure failed to pass the 50 percent level of support it needed (46.34 percent with all but three Minnesota precincts' results). But if citizens in 14 of these Patch communities had their way, the state Constitution would have a new amendment.
Support for the amendment in these cities covered by Patch ranged from 19.30 percent in Southwest Minneapolis to 61.23 percent in St. Michael.*
"No" in the table below includes ballots on which voter left "Yes" and "No" blank.
NOTE: These are unofficial figures until local canvassing boards verify them. These are the figures available on Nov. 7, 2012, but they may change as election workers revise their estimates of total ballots cast, or their counts of ballots with Yes, No, or no mark for the amendment.
Lake Minnetonka Patch covers several cities, including Minnetrista, Tonka Bay, Wayzata, Mound, Shorewood, Orono, Spring Park, Deephaven, Long Lake and Excelsior.
Stillwater Patch covers Stillwater, Lake Elmo and Oak Park Heights.
- Ward 8: Precincts 2, 6, 7
- Ward 10: Precincts 3–6
- Ward 11: Precincts 1–3
- Ward 13: Precincts 1–9
NOTE: These are unofficial figures until canvassing boards verify them. They are the figures available on Nov. 9, 2012, but they may change as election workers revise estimates of total ballots cast, and tallies of ballots with Yes, No, or no vote at all for the amendment.
The Minnesota Secretary of State's website has definitions for the columns in the table.
Scroll down past this table for conversation-starting post-mortems from a pair of disappointed amendment supporters. Do your views align with how your city voted?
|CITY||YES (%)||NO (%)|
|St. Louis Park||33.30||66.70|
|Oak Park Heights||48.03||51.97|
|Inver Grove Heights||48.63||51.37|
Patch asked people with from some of these cities for their perspective on the amendment's failure Tuesday. Richfield residents and conservative activists Mike McLean and Reed Bornholdt responded. Please add your views in the comment section below.
Needless to say I was very disappointed that this did not pass. And it appears that even if those who did not select Yes or No had selected Yes, it still would not have passed.
It seems that the citizens of Minnesota really do not care who votes.
I blame the GOP leaders of the state for their lack of focus on winning. And Chris do not take this personally but I believe that most of the media is an arm of the Liberals.
I feel that the GOP was given a message back in 2010 to go to St Paul and cut spending. I did not see that happen. Maybe they shouldn't have used so much political capital in these two social issues.
And do not forget that you need a photo id to get a colonoscopy - -
I just find it hard to believe that all of those supposedly disenfranchised voters are able to survive on a day to day basis without a valid [ID].
I share the disappointment of the amendment not passing. A majority of Minnesotan's obviously do not care who votes in their elections ... nor how many times. I have served as an election judge for the past four general elections. I believe my precinct has diligently followed all election rules as enacted by the Legislature and Secretary of State. Our judges have displayed high levels of personal integrity and dedication.
Yesterday, about 20% of the voters in my precinct registered that day (nearly 500 people). Of the 20%, about 60 voters "vouched for" other same day registered voters (but no more than 15 other voters per registered voter). The "vouchees" were not required to show one scrap of proof of residence. Their votes were cast and counted on the promise of the "voucher" that the "vouchee" lived in the precinct and was qualified to vote. Sometime in the future, the City Clerk will mail postcards to the "vouchees" to verify residency. If the postcard is returned as "undeliverable," the City Clerk investigates ... but the vote still counts as it was cast. How could the fraudulent voter be found and prosecuted ... and his/her vote not recognized? This is one precinct out of about 4,000 statewide.
The amendment should have passed as a no-brainer. We simply need to be assured of the identity of each eligible voter and that he/she votes only once in each election.
I too believe it failed as a result of the GOP's relatively weak backing. And yes, Chris, the defeat was dutilfully aided by our willing Liberal media with ads falsely inflating the cost to implement and the imaginary disenfranchisement of certain protected classes, i.e. any Liberal voter, who somehow manage to otherwise live their lives without a FREE, government-issued photo ID. Oh wait, they have to present one to obtain a library card, cash a check, vote in a union election, purchase liquor, pick up food stamps, board an airplane, etc., etc., etc.
*Note: This post has two changes from the original version. The figures for Northfield are now correct, including results from the city's one precinct in Dakota County for which the Minnesota Secretary of State's website had erroneous data. Also, St. Michael now appears as one of the cities Patch covers in Minnesota, increasing the total number of cities in this post to 36, and the number of cities in this post that favored the Voter ID amendment to 14.