Proposed amendments to the state constitution have been published in print media outlets for the second time in the first legislative session. They must be passed by the General Assembly again in the next legislative session and reappear, twice, in print media outlets before they can appear on the ballot, as prescribed by law.
By now, those of us who actually get newspapers have seen both the text of the amendments and the many criticisms written about them in the same paper.
Legitimate criticisms include the confusion caused by the inclusion of several legislators’ concerns in one resolution, combining abortion with elections, for instance.
The abortion portion of the resolution has sloppy writing and unclear intentions. Facing an abortion, whether medically necessary or not, is an excruciating decision involving health care considerations.
Women may wonder whether they are covered in an emergency or if they are being treated as second-class citizens who cannot make their own health decisions.
Regarding the portion of the resolution requiring government-issued identification to vote, this would be reasonable if government offices and processes were available to all voters equally. However, we have seen that the issuing offices in rural counties are open two, maybe three days a week, part time. This makes obtaining a required ID card difficult, even onerous.
Regarding voters paying for an independent audit of the election process twice a year when error detection and overlapping protocols are built into the system already, it’s a non-starter. Let’s not fix what isn’t broken.
Source: Berkshire mont