« Quist wants government to define marriage but so not tell straight people who they can marry | Main | McLeod Co. Chronicle: BPOU Republican executive board crosses line with last minute partisan demands on local candidates »

Oct 03, 2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Phoenix Woman

This needs to be seen by every county elections official in the state. MM's McGrath knows that the facts aren't on his side, so when he's challenged to back up his balderdash, he responds by flinging Snidely Whiplash unwitticisms.

Dear Minnesota elections officials: Dan McGrath and Mary Kiffmeyer hate you. Furthermore, they want you to fail at your jobs, as they use this ALEC amendment of theirs to force you to spend precious time and money (money that won't be available for roads, law enforcement or any of the other myriad needs of a community) on implementing their grand plans to keep tens if not hundreds of thousands of legal voters from voting in this state.

In short, they hate democracy, they hate the common good, and they hate you.

Just thought you should know.

Editor's note: Upon seeing the Avidor cartoon on Facebook, Ms. Wilde said that she felt like Lady Liberty in the image.

Leona Carlson

Thankyou for this story. Clearly the new requirements for a photo id is more complex and with costs. This legislation needs to be more thoroughly thought out and effects anticipated.

Editor's note: You're welcome.

Amy Bergquist

Thanks, this is a great post.

I hope that in the debate tonight someone asks Dan McGrath two very simple questions:

(1) Would the amendment get rid of election-day vouching? [yes - if not then why are all of the proponents of the amendment complaining about how horrible vouching is?]

(2) In your view, is residence in the precinct part of a voter's "eligibility"? [yes]

Follow-up questions: If, as you say, that component of eligibility does not need to be verified via "valid, government-issued photographic identification," then could it be verified by any existing means of establishing eligibility, like a utility bill or a college's roster of students? [yes, as he says in the email exchange above]

But when a person vouches, they don't vouch for the person's identity, they just vouch for the person's residency within the precinct. So by your logic, why would the amendment get rid of vouching?

I'd add that Dan McGrath needs to go back and hit his civics books. In response to the Pennsylvania court ruling on Tuesday, he told MPR: "If Minnesota voters pass the voter ID constitutional amendment, McGrath said it will be protected from what he termed as 'court meddling.'" Most people recall from civics class that one of the jobs of the courts is to say whether laws (such as the laws that will need to be enacted to put the amendment into force) violate the constitution (such as the amendment itself). Yeah, no meddling.

Amy Bergquist

A follow-up: Got my answer in the debate last night. McGrath conceded that the amendment would not end vouching. He said it would end vouching for a person's identity (as opposed to residence), but there is no such thing in MN law as vouching for a person's identity. So vouching for residence - the only kind of vouching we have in Minnesota - would be untouched.

So why do amendment proponents get so hysterical about vouching if the amendment won't do anything about it?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Payment options

My Other Accounts

Important Information

  • All of the statements, opinions, and views expressed on this site by Sally Jo Sorensen are solely her own, save when she attributes them to other sources.

    The opinions, statements, and views of contributing writers are their own.

    Sorensen, editor and proprietor of Bluestem Prairie, serves clients in the business and nonprofit sectors. While progressive in outlook, she does not caucus with any political party.

StatCounter

  • StatCounter

Become a Fan

Bluestem Tweets

    follow me on Twitter
    Blog powered by Typepad