 | ||
| (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes) |
In a little-noticed yet significant development on election day,
Minnesota voters defeated a constitutional amendment that would have
required them to present a government-issued photo ID to cast a ballot.
It was the first time voters had rejected a voter ID ballot initiative
in any state.
In May 2011, a poll showed that 80 percent of Minnesotans supported a
photo ID law. “Nearly everyone in the state believed a photo ID was the
most common-sense solution to the problem of voter fraud,” says Dan
McGrath, executive director of Take Action Minnesota, a progressive
coalition that led the campaign against the amendment. “We needed to
reframe the issue. We decided to never say the word ‘fraud.’ Instead we
would only talk about the cost, complications and consequences of the
amendment.” According to the coalition, the photo ID law would have
disenfranchised eligible voters (including members of the military and
seniors) dumped an unfunded mandate on counties and imperiled same-day
voter registration. On election day, 52 percent of Minnesotans opposed
the amendment.
The amendment’s surprising defeat has ramifications beyond Minnesota. “There’s been an assumption of political will for restricting the right to vote,” says McGrath. “No, there’s not.” The amendment backfired on the GOP. “Voter ID did not drive the conservative base to turn out in the way that Republicans thought it would,” adds McGrath. “Instead, it actually inspired progressive voters, who felt under siege, to fight stronger and turn out in higher numbers.” The minority vote nearly doubled in the state, compared with 2008. Minnesota was a microcosm of the national failure of the GOP’s voter suppression strategy. READ MORE
The amendment’s surprising defeat has ramifications beyond Minnesota. “There’s been an assumption of political will for restricting the right to vote,” says McGrath. “No, there’s not.” The amendment backfired on the GOP. “Voter ID did not drive the conservative base to turn out in the way that Republicans thought it would,” adds McGrath. “Instead, it actually inspired progressive voters, who felt under siege, to fight stronger and turn out in higher numbers.” The minority vote nearly doubled in the state, compared with 2008. Minnesota was a microcosm of the national failure of the GOP’s voter suppression strategy. READ MORE
Also by the Author
Why We Still Need Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (Racism and Discrimination, Supreme Court, Voter Rights)
New voting restrictions prove why the Voting Rights Act is as relevant as it ever was.
The backlash to voter suppression laws led to higher turnout among young, black and Hispanic voters.
