Post-Bulle
tin: “The devil is in the details … the case against the amendment is easy to make”
ST. PAUL (October 31, 2012) — The Rochester Post-Bulletin today endorsed Vote No on Voter Restriction. With this endorsement, 59 Minnesota newspapers have called on Minnesota voters to reject the Voter Restriction amendment on November 6.
The Post-Bulletin joins the Minneapolis Star Tribune and the Albert Lea Tribune, Austin Daily Herald, Fergus Falls Daily Journal, Hutchinson Leader, Mankato Free Press, Marshall Independent, McLeod County Chronicle, Mesabi Daily News, New Ulm Journal, Rock County Star Herald, St. Cloud Times, St. Joseph/Sartell Newsleader and Winona Daily News in opposing the Voter Restriction amendment.
In addition, Forum Communications has endorsed Vote No company-wide. Lead by the Duluth News–Tribune, the papers to have endorsed Vote No on Voter Restriction so far include the Alexandria Echo Press, Bemidji Pioneer, Detroit Lakes Tribune, Hastings Star Gazette, Morris Sun Tribune, Park Rapids Enterprise and Rosemount Town Pages. The Forum-owned West Central Tribune of Willmar and the Worthington Daily Globe have written separately in opposition to Voter Restriction.
Other communities served by Forum newspapers include Blackduck, Cloquet, Cottage Grove, East Grand Forks, Farmington, Hancock, Moorhead, Osakis, Perham, Red Wing, Two Harbors, Wadena and Woodbury.
ECM Newspapers — a chain of 20 newspapers serving Anoka, Benton, Chisago, Crow Wing, Dakota, Fillmore, Houston, Isanti, Mille Lacs, Morrison, Sherburne, Stearns, Todd, Washington and Wright Counties — has also endorsed Vote No on Voter Restriction.
Rochester Post-Bulletin
The Rochester Post-Bulletin opposes Voter Restriction because “the devil is in the details —especially when voters are being asked to vote on a proposal that has no details.” And it does not trust the Legislature to iron them out later:
“The photo ID proposal has no implementation language, so we’re being asked to simply trust that our legislators will figure out a fair and affordable way of making sure that no voters are disenfranchised by the photo ID amendment. Frankly, what we’ve seen from St. Paul on this issue gives us little confidence in our legislators.”
There is a simpler solution than putting the Voter Restriction amendment in the Constitution: “If our election system needs fixing, then the Legislature should fix it. That’s its job … Such legislation might require a year or two to perfect, but what’s the rush?”
In short, “the case against voter ID is remarkably easy to make.”