Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
One of the most despicable aspects of the current political scene is how callous operators
have adopted a strategy of announcing false statements and practicing distortion in an
effort to have trusting folk vote against their own interests and the best interest
of our state. Historically Minnesotans have been proud to lead the nation in voter participation.
Now we have operatives that want us to join a well designed national orchestrated effort
to suppress votes. That's how I would characterize this season in which cynical decisions have
been made to move in wolf-like fashion wearing lambs' fleece to restrict voting.
Why else would loud voices rush into the media marketplace, guns drawn, protecting Minnesota
from voter impersonation, when they know full well that there's been no, that is to say
zero cases of voter impersonation identified in the state of Minnesota.
Why else would some manipulators raise their voices to a fever pitch claiming to save Minnesota
from voter fraud, when in 2008 election, 2.9 million votes were cast and the convictions
for voter fraud totaled 113. That's a whopping four-thousands of one-percent of those casting
ballots.
Analysis of this minor number concluded not that voter fraud was a threat to our system,
but that a very small number of people who did not know they had lost their right to
vote attempted to vote.
Now if some of our fellow Minnesotans were genuinely concerned with this very insignificant
threat to the integrity of the voting process, a cost effective legislative remedy was already
offered by Representative Bobby Champion and passed in 2010 with strong bipartisan support.
And was then vetoed by former Governor Pawlenty.
So instead of an economical strategy to notify those ineligible to vote, a cumbersome, very
expensive, some estimates up to $23 million, effort is proposed to amend the state constitution
and according to analysis by the Secretary of State, suppress voting opportunity for
over 700-thousand Minnesotans.
I consider civil rights, the civil rights movement to have been one of the great shapers
of my life. I experienced rules that required African-Americans to move to the back of the
bus, climb to the balcony of the movie theater, and drive across town to the one hospital
in Knoxville, Tennessee that allowed African-Americans treatment. We fought then against the discrimination
and we waged war against the poll taxes and the literacy test and any other devices designed
to narrow the participation of people, who could shed blood for the country, but who
could not participate in the election of office holders.
This attempt to require photo ID in Minnesota is a descendant of other efforts to deny voting
rights through the years. Let us agree together that this devilish enterprise will not succeed
on our watch.
The state constitution is no place to restrict anyone's rights or abilities to vote. The
constitution is set up to protect rights, not to strip them away. This amendment discriminates
against the poor and the elderly who are the most likely to lack picture ID's with a current
address and have difficulties obtaining the documents they would need to overcome that
barrier to vote.
At a time when more and more people distrust politicians and government and fewer and fewer
people across this country vote, making voting harder makes no sense.
At a time when as a nation we're promoting democracy around the world, why do we seek
to limit democracy in Minnesota?
The proposed amendment which deals the number of people, the number of poor people who would
vote also as well. And also it sends the wrong message to our new citizens and our new voters
that we will encourage this for the new privilege and new opportunity for us. And that's the
legacy we're going to leave for our kids for the future.
In thinking of this, and how it would effect those that don't have the proper ID or those
that don't have the avenue to get the proper ID such as my mother, who is 84 years old
elderly woman, who is from the deep south. She does not have a birth certificate. And
we call that generation 'the greatest generation' America has ever seen. What a tragedy it would
be for her to try to go vote and because she does not have ID, as this bill would require,
she would be turned away as she was when she lived in Mississippi.
In order for us to be a great state, we needs everyone's voice. We need everyone to exercise
their voice and use their vote —something that is a right to be protected, not a privilege
to be earned. This requirement would not be a burden for me. I've got my drivers license.
It would not be a burden for me to show it when I showed up to vote. But it would be
a burden for hundreds of thousands of Minnesotans and it is wrong for the majority to take away
the rights of any minority.
I believe this constitutional amendment is certainly unnecessary. Even after two of the
most closely scrutinized elections in this state's history there have been not a single
conviction for voter ID fraud and that's the only kind of fraud that this would address.
While supporters of this amendment may portray it as preventing possible, hypothetical future
fraud, it will have a very real and chilling effect on the people that I have pledged my
life to serve.
We cannot, we should not, we must not use our constitution as a means to silence the
voices of our brothers and sisters. We need everyone's voice to keep Minnesota great.
Thank you.