OUR OPINION: Ritchie let politics sway ballot decision
July 16, 2012 at 4:30 pm in Grand Forks Herald
As Minnesota secretary of state, Mark Ritchie may have had the authority to rename the two amendments as he did.
But he should have had the wisdom to show more restraint. Continue Reading
What hypocrisy! From the state who’s AG and SS got together to agree that a yes vote means no on the SIoux name, and a no vote means yes? Did not the Herald claim that change was a good idea?
Dennis needs a primer on MN politics it appears. And he should look up the meaning of the word “polarized”. Mother Theresa could have proposed a ballot measure and if the republicans supported it, no democrat would. And vice versa!
There is also that troublesome prospect that seems to rear it’s head on many consitutional change initiatives. The Truth! It matters, and it makes a difference in how people vote!
Republican language in both cases was faulty and misleading. In one case it was designed to make it look like gay marriage is legal in the state now (it is not) and the measure would ban it, in the other it was designed to imply that no ID is needed to vote in MN now (not the case) and ignore any mention of a number of troubling changes that would be enacted by a yes vote–all of which coincidentally just happen to favor republican candidates–and will greatly increase the cost to vote and deny voting rights to many eligible voters.
Like or Dislike:
1 
7
Tim: you are wrong to say an I.D. is needed on election day in Mn. 95% of voters are already registered and do not need to show an I.D. It’s a big deal and you missed that. I registered to vote here about 30 years ago and haven’t had to show an I.D. since. Photo I.D. on election day is going to be a disaster in most precincts.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Thanks Alvin for stepping in to help the concern. You need an ID to register to vote in MN. Whether that’s 3 weeks or more ahead of time–or less than 3 weeks where the only way to do it as at the polls with MULTIPLE sources of ID to display. In either case, ID was needed to be allowed to vote.
The presumption is that people are assuming false identities to vote–first that would take knowledge of someone who is eligible to vote and in what precinct they live–second to be successful it would have to slip by the safeguards designed to insure that isn’t a problem.
Bottom line–the problem is VERY minimal.
MN’s supreme court right now is mulling over the legality of the legislatures actions here. We have an open court, i.e. their deliberations are heard in public. So far strong concern has been expressed by the justices regarding the broad impact of this legislation on the legal right to vote, as well as strong concern that the language for the initiative falls far short of telling the whole story on what a voter would be voting for. One justice even said that maybe they should require that all of the statutory language be printed on the ballot!
The other strong concern they have is wading into a matter they have agreed is mainly political. They generally try to avoid that.
None of their deliberations has supported in any way that the intent of this legislation was simple and restricted to a photo id. They know the real intent behind this is political and they know the language from the legislature is misleading . Should be interesting to read their decision and see how they rule.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
I practically begged a couple of Republican legislators to oppose the ID requirement but was told it’s needed in the bigger cities. Not one election official agrees. If this type of fraud is even a problem, it’s minimal, as you say. If not for the political motivation, they’d agree that this is putting out a candle with a fire hose. I don’t know about Tom Dennis’ concerns, but Ritchie is right to make an effort to educate. This is one time Republicans should oppose something pushed by their legislators. I’m so disappointed in my party.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1