Yesterday, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled today that Republicans' so-called "Voter ID" constitutional amendment will remain on the ballot and that MN Secretary of State Mark Ritchie is not allowed to re-title the two amendments to better reflect what these amendments actually do. The four judges appointed by Tim Pawlenty voted for deceiving voters, the other two dissented.
Yesterday, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled 4-2 that the Republican legislature get their way and the so-called "Voter ID" constitutional amendment will stay on the ballot.
This amendment is a bait-and-switch. Its purpose is vote suppression. The amendment eliminates same-day registration, absentee balloting and military voting. It makes it harder for students, seniors, the poor and minorities (traditionally Democratic voting blocs) to vote.
It introduces provisional balloting. If you don't have everything exactly perfectly matching, you cast a provisional ballot. You have to go to a designated location within a yet-to-be-determined number of days to prove you get to vote. How many people will do that?
This amendment is bad for Minnesota. Who are you going to trust? The Koch brothers?
The Koch Brothers set vote suppression laws as a top legislative priority for Republicans. They want fewer Democrats voting so their ALEC minions can win more statewide and Congressional seats. Republican legislators, like ALEC member Mary Kiffmeyer, have been doing their overseers bidding and pushing these "Voter ID" laws.
ALEC-backed Republicans in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania have been working hard to suppress Democratic votes in their states.
Or how about MN Supreme Court Justice Alan Page? The Viking great made the Pro Bowl six times and led the Vikes to four division titles and three Super Bowl appearances. He doesn't like the amendment. Page was one of the two dissenting judges yesterday. He called the amendment a "bait and switch" criticizing it as "misleading" and "deceptive."
Page points out how poorly written the bill is, how many aspects are not clearly defined.
Justice Alan Page, writing the dissent called the voter restriction amendment ballot question “bait and switch”, “deceptive and misleading.”
“The plain language of the text of the proposed amendment passed by the Legislature differs markedly and materially from the proposed amendment the Legislature’s ballot question describes,” Page writes.
“The ballot question asks whether the Minnesota Constitution should be amended to require “all voters” to present photo identification. But the proposed amendment as drafted requires only “voters voting in person” to present photographic identification. Unless the Legislature intends to eliminate absentee voting and mail balloting—something that proponents of the proposed amendment steadfastly and specifically denied during the Legislature’s deliberations over the proposed amendment—“all voters” and “voters voting in person” are not the same. “All voters” includes “voters voting in person,” but “voters voting in person” does not include “all voters.” Voters voting by absentee and mail ballot do not vote in person. As a result, voters voting on the proposed amendment will not know from reading the ballot question that a “yes” vote will not in fact require “all voters” to show photographic identification in order to receive a ballot to vote. The ballot question is deceptive and misleading in that respect.”
Even better, Page rips into his fellow judges for not doing their jobs.
"Furthermore, the court's superficial analysis of the ballot question fails to do justice to our jurisprudence or to our role as a court."