OK, let’s see if we can unpack this logic: in a conversation about the Voter ID amendment, I noted that I am not 100% against requiring an ID to vote, WITH THE HUGE CAVEAT that the priority has to be to make sure EVERYONE has a valid ID first, and is able to get/replace one quickly, free, and easily (including on the same day they vote so we can still have same-day registration). Special focus given to people for whom it would be a hardship or costly to get one, like the elderly, disabled, and military.

It is only AFTER that whole process is completed that you should be able to make it a requirement.

The response: “Well, that would be very difficult to do, it would take a long time and would be hugely expensive.”

Yes. Yes, it would. But the point, a perfect argument about why the current proposed implementation is so terrible, seemed to go completely over the other person’s head, in spite of the fact that they themselves had made it. That they had just made a great argument against the Voter ID Amendment while attempting to defend it didn’t seem to register, when only seconds before they had pointed out that the amendment wasn’t an onerous requirement because “everyone has an ID”.

Either everyone has an ID already, or it’s practically impossible and hugely expensive to get everyone an ID. You can’t make both arguments in the same conversation.

Vote No on the MN Voter ID amendment. It’s not fully baked.