Passage of the voter ID constitutional amendment this fall would require Minnesotans to present a government-issued photo identification at the polls starting in 2013.

But details on much of the rest -- what kind of ID, what happens if you don't have one, how much it would cost and who pays -- aren't clear.

And they won't be unless the 2013 Legislature passes a law on the amendment and Gov. Mark Dayton signs it.

In the absence of specifics, advocates on both sides have been forecasting what the law would look like using a variety of sources -- the language of a vetoed 2011 Minnesota bill, the experience of other states, the intentions of the amendment sponsors and informed guesswork -- often in combinations that bolster their political argument.

Mary Jane Morrison, Hamline University law professor and author of the 2002 book "The Minnesota State Constitution: A Reference Guide," is a photo ID opponent. The amendment is so unclear and so much is yet undetermined, she said, that even photo ID supporters should vote no in November.

"I think that voters are buying a blank slate," said Morrison. "This is not good work from the Legislature. This deserves an F."

But Dan McGrath, chairman of the pro-amendment group, said that even though there would be areas for the Legislature to define, "there is no real uncertainty or ambiguity about what the voter ID amendment is going to do."

"It does exactly what it says it's going to do and nothing more," McGrath said -- basically, people voting in person would show government-issued photo ID, and those not voting in person would provide something substantially equivalent.

The Republican-led 2011 Legislature passed a photo ID law, but Democratic-Farmer-Labor Gov. Mark Dayton vetoed it, saying he didn't believe voter fraud was a major problem in Minnesota and calling the state's elections system "the best in the nation."

A newly elected Legislature will be seated in 2013, and Republicans might or might not still be in charge. Dayton, though, still will be governor.

If Republicans retain the majority, presumably they would try to pass a bill that retains as much strictness as possible without triggering another veto. Overriding a governor's veto requires a two-thirds majority in each chamber.

If DFLers take over one or both chambers, any law they pass likely would be written in a way that leans toward maximizing access rather than minimizing fraud.

And if the Legislature failed to pass a bill or failed to override a gubernatorial veto, it likely would fall to the courts, Morrison and McGrath said.

Minnesota would be a pioneer in a couple of ways if the measure passes.

It would be the first state with Election Day registration to adopt strict photo ID requirements, and it would be the second state to put voter ID in its constitution rather than in law. (Mississippi is the other; its law is not yet in effect because it requires implementing legislation and federal approval.)

The following are some of the key questions -- many submitted by readers -- that remain unresolved for some voters as they consider the amendment.


Scott Newman, R-Hutchinson, sponsor of the amendment in the Senate, has mentioned driver's licenses, passports and military IDs as "valid government-issued photographic identification."

McGrath noted that the amendment doesn't require that the ID show a current address; it just has to be government-issued.

"That can be a Georgia driver's license or state ID card. It could be a passport, military ID, tribal ID, Minnesota driver's license, Minnesota state ID card," he said.

People who have recently moved would establish residence the same way they do under current law, he said -- "utility bill, a voucher, residential housing lists, student fee statements, tuition statements, you know, things like that."

McGrath said he doubts the Legislature would accept University of Minnesota student IDs as valid government-issued photo ID. But students could vote using a driver's license from their home state.

Vouching at the polls doesn't necessarily have to go away under the amendment, McGrath added, but it would be vouching for someone's residence, not their identity.


Amendment supporters argue that fraud occurs in Minnesota and that much of it likely goes undetected. Opponents say the state's elections system is among the best in the nation and that the small number of fraud cases has to do with ineligible felons voting -- which would not be addressed with photo ID.

Minnesota Majority reported in October 2011 that 113 people had been convicted of voter fraud committed during the 2008 election. These were cases of ineligible felons voting.

But a study of that same election published in November 2010, based on a survey of county attorneys, found 26 convictions for ineligible felons voting. Seven cases of voter-impersonation fraud -- the type that would be prevented by photo ID -- were investigated, but there were no convictions.

Nationally, "there is no evidence of extensive fraud in U.S. elections or of multiple voting, but both occur, and it could affect the outcome of a close election," stated a September 2005 Report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker.

The U.S. Supreme Court's 2008 opinion upholding Indiana's photo ID law said that even though the record did not show any in-person voter-impersonation fraud had occurred in that state, "such fraud has occurred in other parts of the country."

A study released in August by News21, a national investigative-reporting project, found 2,068 cases of election fraud in the 50 states and the District of Columbia since 2000. There were 96 convictions. Most of the accusations involved absentee ballot fraud and voter registration fraud. There were 10 cases of voter-impersonation fraud and one conviction.


Much will depend on the details of what the Legislature adopts.

The fiscal notes associated with the 2011 bill estimated the cost at about $1.3 million the first year and $3.9 million the second. Local costs were estimated at $8 million to $23 million.

Advocacy groups in Minnesota have released their own estimates, with wildly different results.

The anti-amendment Citizens for Election Integrity Minnesota, along with Hamline University professor David Schultz, released a report last month that factored in the costs to local governments as well as the state. Their report estimated the price tag for both would be between $33 million and $67 million. It added that individuals who lack an ID would need to spend, as a group, between $16 million and $72 million to get the documents necessary to obtain one.

State costs included producing photo IDs and informing voters of the new requirements. Local costs included provisional ballots, electronic rosters for polling places and converting mail-in precincts to in-person.

Pro-amendment Center of the American Experiment released a study last month, though, calculating a photo ID requirement would cost about $2.9 million in the first general election, $915,000 in the second and less in future elections.

The center also said that pairing photo ID with electronic pollbook technology could yield savings of $1.1 million per general election after an initial investment of $5 million.

The amendment says the state will provide IDs for free. According to the secretary of state's office, there are about 144,000 voting-age Minnesotans who lack ID and a total of about 215,000 current voters who lack ID or whose ID has the wrong address.

After reviewing court rulings on challenges to voter ID, the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law has identified three principles that states must satisfy to avoid violating federal constitutional rights: photo IDs have to be free; they have to be readily accessible to all voters; and states have to mount voter education programs.

The center estimated costs for states "will likely run into the millions of dollars per state per year."

Indiana and Georgia have the nation's longest-standing systems of "strict photo ID" -- what the Minnesota amendment seeks. Indiana reported spending $10 million in four years on providing IDs and $2.2 million on voter outreach. Georgia reports costs at $1.6 million over five years.


Academic studies have found stricter voter ID laws reduce turnout by about 2 percent of registered voters, according to Nate Silver of the New York Times' FiveThirtyEight blog.

But Indiana and Georgia enacted strict photo ID laws between the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, and in both states, voter turnout went up -- 54.8 percent to 59.1 percent in Indiana, and 56.2 percent to 62.5 percent in Georgia, according to the United States Elections Project at George Mason University.

Minnesota's turnout dipped slightly between those elections, from 78.4 percent to 77.8 percent.


Amendment opponents say Election Day registration would end; proponents say it would remain in place.

Partly, it's unclear because it hasn't been tried before.

Minnesota is one of eight states that allow voters to register on Election Day and have their votes counted, but none of the other seven has a strict photo ID system. Under strict photo ID, a voter without a valid photo ID casts a provisional ballot and must return within a certain amount of time with proper ID to have his or her vote counted.

According to Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, more than 500,000 voters registered on Election Day 2008.

He says the amendment does away with Election Day registration because it would require same-day registrants to have their eligibility verified in essentially the same way as those who register in advance. That's impossible, he says, in part because the process involves sending out a postcard to verify residence -- something that can't be done while the person is standing at the polls.

Same-day registrants would have to submit provisional ballots, Ritchie says.

But McGrath said the postcard requirement could be removed from the advanced-registration process so it wouldn't apply to Election Day registrants, either.

Then the eligibility verification could be accomplished on-site with the ID itself and either electronic pollbooks or a printed list of ineligible voters available at each polling place.

Election Day registrants with proper photo ID would cast regular ballots, McGrath said. Those without ID would vote provisionally.

Ritchie makes similar arguments about why the amendment would present challenges for absentee-by-mail voters, military and overseas voters and those in mail-ballot precincts -- a total of more than 210,000 voters in a presidential election year.

How could they be subject to "substantially equivalent identity and eligibility verification," as the amendment requires?

McGrath said the outcome needs to be equivalent, not the process. "You don't have to show plastic ID when you're voting absentee," he said.

He said the amendment drafters intended for absentee voters to provide the identification number from their driver's license. "Current absentee ballots already demand that you record that number on the signature envelope. But there's also a check box that says, 'I don't have ID.' That check box will go away," McGrath said.


Provisional ballots typically are sealed in an envelope and segregated from regular ballots, then counted later if proper ID is shown.

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission estimates that in 2010, roughly 1.1 million provisional ballots were submitted, or about 1 percent of total votes cast. About 77 percent of those provisional ballots were counted. The most common reason they were not counted was the voter was not registered.

In the 2008 presidential election, nearly 2.1 million provisional ballots were cast. About 69 percent were counted, according to the Associated Press.

In Indiana, a 2009 study by Michael J. Pitts of the Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis found that of the 2.8 million votes cast in the 2008 general election, 1,039 were by provisional ballot. Of those, 137, or 13 percent, were counted.





