2012 Minnesota Amendment 2
proposed amendment to the Minnesota state constitution
2012 Minnesota Amendment 2 (also called Voter ID Amendment) was a proposed legislatively referred constitutional amendment that was on the ballot on November 6, 2012. If approved, it would have required a form of photographic identification before being permitted to vote in Minnesota municipal, state, and federal elections. However, it was defeated with 53.84% voting against and 46.16% for the measure.
Legislative approval
The Minnesota Legislature approved the amendment for the ballot in April 2012 on essentially a party-line vote. The amendment was authored by multiple representatives, notably by Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer, R-Big Lake, who had formerly served as Minnesota Secretary of State. Twenty-four other representatives joined in authoring the bill, and Scott Newman was senate author.
Support and opposition
Institutional support for the measure broke down largely by party, with DFL leaders opposing the amendment, and Republicans supporting it. The two most recent Secretaries of State lined up on opposite sides, with Kiffmeyer pushing for adoption, and Mark Ritchie speaking against it.
The public source identifies “2012 Minnesota Amendment 2” as proposed amendment to the Minnesota state constitution. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Minnesota, Amendment and proposed.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “2012 Minnesota Amendment 2”, the useful work is to connect “proposed amendment to the Minnesota state constitution” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Contemporary correspondence, administrative files and participant testimony can test how later narratives organized the event or institution. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 24, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q17090405. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2012.
Official terminology may obscure informal participation, dissent or communities documented only indirectly. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.
- Event chronology
- Institutional context
- Locating named record creators
Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “2012 Minnesota Amendment 2”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow 2012 Minnesota Amendment 2 primary sources, 2012 Minnesota Amendment 2 archive and Minnesota research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “2012 Minnesota Amendment 2”?
- Who created the surviving record, and for what administrative purpose?
- What chronology connects this entry to wider political or social change?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “2012 Minnesota Amendment 2” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.