Editorial: Vote 'no' on both amendments

Talk about it

In the 155 years since the state of Minnesota’s constitution was adopted, changes have generally few and far between. There’s a reason for this. Voters elect lawmakers to the state House and Senate, as well as a governor, on the pretense that they work together to serve in their interests.

It’s no secret, however, that working together — bipartisanship — has become increasingly hard to come by in both St. Paul and Washington. Proof of this at the state level comes in the form of two constitutional questions being presented to Minnesota voters: the so-called marriage and Voter ID amendments.

We would be remiss if we didn’t point out other problems with each amendment, other than the fact that they are merely representative of legislators essentially asking voters to do their job for them.

With regard to Voter ID, which is being brought forward to protect against election fraud (not that it’s currently a problem), the amendment proposal fails to answer questions about what very well could be extravagant costs, never mind what type(s) of fraud would be addressed. And, since the actual language of the amendment won’t be printed on ballots, many voters are likely won’t be properly informed.

With regard to the marriage amendment, many may disapprove of same-sex marriage (as does Forum Communications Co.), and it’s already against state law. Is a constitutional amendment truly needed? If anything, conversation on this issue should persist at the legislative level, not cease with a constitutional alteration based upon a prevailing opinion.

Our constitution needs neither of these amendments, and we urge “no” votes on both.

Tags: opinion, editorials, minnesota, politics