If Orville Freeman lived to vote under Minnesota’s proposed voter restriction constitutional amendment, he would have to vote provisionally says Jane Freeman. That’s because he moved from one apartment to another by the time voting began. Unless he could prove who he was, his provisional ballot would not be counted.
“What on earth do you think would bring out a 91-year-old on a blustery day like this, from a comfy blue chair? Well, I’ll tell you what would bring her out, is this deceitful, outrageous amendment.”
That’s the kind of system, Freeman says, that doesn’t belong in Minnesota. A spirited, yet small rally of voter ID opponents gathered at the First Lutheran Church near Metro State University in St. Paul ahead of last night’s debate.
“Send it back,” cried organizer and SEIU Local 26 President Javier Morillo. He believes that this amendment is flawed, vague and will disenfranchise not only the elderly, but those who are casting absentee ballots or change addresses. Voter ID supporters challenge that claim as misinformation.