Coming off a dominant 48-0 win over Rhode Island last weekend, the Minnesota Golden Gophers square off against the Nevada Wolf Pack, who come into the contest at 1-2. This game kicks off at 12:30 p.m. PT/3:30 p.m. ET (2:30 p.m. CT) on Saturday, September 14 with a live broadcast on Big Ten Network, and streaming live on demand.

• WATCH: Minnesota vs. Nevada live for free with Fubo (free trial) or with Sling (cheapest streaming plans, $25 off your first month) or see more streaming options below.

What TV channel is the Minnesota vs. Nevada game on?

When: Kickoff takes place at 12:30 p.m. PT/3:30 p.m. ET (2:30 p.m. CT) on Saturday, September 14.

Where: Huntington Bank Stadium | Minneapolis, MN

TV Channel: Big Ten Network

How to watch live stream online: If you don’t have cable, you can still watch this game live for FREE with Fubo (free trial). If you are out of free trials, the cheapest and best way to watch this game and more football this month is by signing up for Sling (promotional offers, cheapest streaming plans), which is $25 off for the first month if you add the “Sports Extra” package that includes Big Ten Network, SEC Network and a few other sports channels. If you already have a cable or satellite subscription, you can watch the game on FOX Sports Live by signing in with your provider information.

What TV channel is Big Ten Network on?

You can find out more about which channel Big Ten Network is on in your area by using the channel finders here:: Comcast Xfinity, DIRECTV, Dish, Verizon Fios, Spectrum/Charter, Optimum/Altice.

Minnesota vs. Nevada spread, latest betting odds

Spread: MN: -17.5 | NV: +17.5

Moneyline: MN: -1000 | NV: +620

Over/Under: 43.5

After years of Republican-led pushes to implement voter ID laws in Nevada, the question will be posed to voters this November.

Voter ID is among the many election-related policies that have pitted Democrats against Republicans nationwide for years. Republicans have argued it is a necessary measure to ensure election security, while Democrats have said it could disenfranchise voters who do not have a form of identification.

While polling has shown wide support for establishing a voter ID requirement, Nevada is one of 14 states to not require a form of identification while voting, and instead relies on voters’ signatures to verify their identity. 

Read below for more information on the implications of the ballot question and the history of the debate in the Silver State.

Summary of what it does: The proposal would amend the Nevada Constitution to require all in-person voters in Nevada to present a valid photo identification — such as a driver’s license, passport, student ID card or concealed weapon permit — before voting.

It would also require those voting by mail to include part of a personally identifiable number — such as their driver’s license number or Social Security number — alongside their signature.

If a majority of voters support the question this year, it would be placed on the 2026 ballot, when another affirmative vote would change Nevada’s Constitution.

How did we get here?: Repair the Vote, a PAC led by former Clark County GOP Chair David Gibbs, filed the petition for the ballot question last November.

A group of well-known Democratic-linked attorneys quickly sued to block the question on the grounds that its description of effect (a 200-word summary of the measure included on signature forms) failed to outline its full implications. The suit also argued that the measure would require a funding source without providing one, and that it was akin to an unconstitutional poll tax because most of the identification options require some kind of payment.

A Carson City judge dismissed the lawsuit in February, and the state Supreme Court upheld that ruling in April, determining that questions regarding a poll tax should not be addressed before the election.

In July, the initiative qualified for the November ballot after election officials verified 131,590 valid signatures and passed the threshold of signatures needed from each of the state’s four congressional districts (25,591).

This is the second attempt at a voter ID ballot question by Repair the Vote. In 2022, a judge blocked a question on the grounds that its description of effect was argumentative. The ruling came too late for the group to amend the question’s language and gather enough signatures.

A bill last year pushed by Gov. Joe Lombardo, a Republican, would have established voter ID in Nevada, but it never received a hearing in the Democratic-controlled Legislature.

What have other states done?: Nine states have enacted strict photo ID laws for voting, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Three states have voter ID requirements but do not require a photo and instead accept documents such as bank statements.

Twenty-four other states have some form of a voter ID law, but they are less strict and have exceptions, such as signing an affidavit of identity or having poll workers vouch for a voter’s identity.

The arguments in favor: Proponents of voter ID say it increases election security and would help rebuild trust in elections. They also say that ID is required for actions such as buying alcohol, seeing a doctor and applying for college — and that elections should be no different. 

Supporters are also quick to refer to the widespread popularity of voter ID laws (a Nevada Independent poll last year found 74 percent of respondents in favor, with just 8 percent opposed) and a 2008 study that found the laws had no effect on voter turnout.

The arguments against: Opponents of voter ID laws say it would make it harder to vote and could amount to disenfranchisement.

They argue that voter impersonation is essentially nonexistent in the U.S. and that the law would particularly affect voters in rural areas and tribal communities because of the long distance to DMV offices. A 2022 study by University of California, Berkeley researchers found Black and Latino voters were most affected by voter ID laws in Texas.

Primary funders: Repair the Vote has received more than $300,000 since launching the ballot initiative, mostly from a Virginia-based group called Civic Voter Engagement ($157,000) and Allen Knudson, a Henderson resident who gave $100,000 in January.

The Las Vegas Sands, whose largest shareholder is GOP megadonor Miriam Adelson, also has financially supported the effort.

The Better Nevada PAC, which is linked to Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo, created an offshoot PAC called the Better Nevada Ballot Advocacy Committee (now known as the Nevada Voter ID Coalition, which is chaired by Lombardo) to raise money for the initiative. Las Vegas Sands made a $1.5 million contribution to the Better Nevada PAC earlier this year, which then transferred $1.4 million to the offshoot PAC.

Battle Born Progress — a progressive group — launched a PAC last month called the Nevada Voter Freedom Alliance to oppose the initiative.

Financial impact: The secretary of state’s office estimated that the initiative would cost the state $6,750 to change processes related to voter check-in and verification of mail ballots, and modify the state’s voter registration system to ensure all necessary data is captured.

The Legislature’s Fiscal Analysis Division also assumed that the state or local governments would incur costs by making the accepted IDs free (to avoid a poll tax). It is unclear how many voters this would apply to and which agencies would be responsible, meaning the full financial impact is unknown.

LAS VEGAS (KTNV) — There has been a rise in threats to election workers since 2020, especially in the battleground state of Nevada.

In our state, election integrity has come under fire.

Between the 2020 election and 2022 midterms, more than half of Nevada’s top election officials left their jobs, many citing threats and harassment.

During the 2023 legislative session, state lawmakers wanted to add protection to poll workers. Both chambers passed Senate Bill 406, which makes it unlawful to threaten, intimidate or harass an election worker. Gov. Joe Lombardo signed it into law.

“Election workers and poll workers are our unsung heroes of democracy,” said Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar.

Aguilar was a strong proponent of SB 406. He told Channel 13 the Secretary of State’s office has been no exception to threats.

“Even in the Secretary of State’s office, we saw situations that were unacceptable,” said Aguilar. “We need to bring decency back to our elections.”

Channel 13 spoke to Aguilar about the ripple effects of election negativity. In terms of finding more workers, he said counties are getting “creative.”

“When we’re not able to retain the talent that we need to have in elections, it hurts all of us because some of that historical knowledge is invaluable,” said Aguilar.

Several voters across our state also testified in support of SB 406 last year.

“The stories used to be about the challenges of getting a set of volunteers, often senior citizens, up to speed on the tech, getting everything done, getting the results in a timely manner, and doing all of that,” said Kent Ervin, a Reno voter. “In the last few years, it has been about the difficulties of having enough poll workers and then having colleagues at the county quit their jobs because of these kinds of threats.”

Donna West, a Las Vegas voter, also testified in support, saying she has seen threats to election workers firsthand.

“During the 2020 election cycle, I was a vote count observer at the Clark County election office and saw the increase in intimidation and violence there,” West said.

Aguilar said in this election cycle, clerks are working hard to make sure Nevada is a “safe, secure and accessible election.” He said the state also implemented a new voter registration system.

“It’s going to bring transparency into the process,” said Aguilar.

Those who harass, intimidate or threaten election workers in Nevada could face up to four years in prison.