TakeAction Minnesota is one of the corrupt organizations that’s afraid of Photo ID. As a result, they’re lashing out in increasingly erratic ways:
St. Paul, MN – Following the party-line passage of the controversial photo ID constitutional amendment, H.F. 2738, by Minnesota’s House Republicans, TakeAction Minnesota’s Dan McGrath issued the following statement:
“The people of Minnesota were handed a first punch in the gut by Republican legislators seeking to curb the voting rights of the 99% in order to further the power and wealth of their big corporate financial backers.
“Under the leadership of Representative Mary Kiffmeyer, ALEC’s state chair, the wealthiest 1% are certainly getting their money’s worth as they work to reduce the voting rolls for partisan gain by rewriting the rules of democracy for electoral advantage.
“This is a grave day for Minnesota which has always led the nation in voter turnout and clean elections.
The Republican House members who made the choice tonight to end same-day voter registration and absentee voting as we know it should be ashamed of themselves.
“It’s now up to the Minnesota Senate to protect the constitutional right to vote of over seven-hundred-thousand eligible Minnesota voters who would lose their voting rights if a photo ID restriction is placed in our state constitution.”
That’s one of the most dishonest statements I’ve ever read. First, Photo ID won’t end same day registration. Rep. Kiffmeyer said repeatedly in testimony and during the floor debate that same day registration wouldn’t end.
What’s more is that, if the constitutional amendment is passed, the 2013 legislature will write the actual bill. TakeAction Minnesota can’t know that same day registration will end because the legislation hasn’t been written yet.
Next, Photo ID isn’t controversial. It’s supported by 92% of Republicans, 76% of independents and 59% of Democrats. If overwhelmingly supported is tantamount to being controversial, then Photo ID is controversial.
What’s interesting is that a) an overwhelming majority of Minnesotans of all political strips support this constitutional amendment, b) there’s substantial proof of voter fraud in Minnesota and c) TakeAction Minnesota insists that Photo ID disenfranchises voters.
Third, TakeAction Minnesota can’t prove their statement that Photo ID furthers “the power and wealth of their big corporate financial backers.” That’s unsubstantiated class warfare demagoguery.
Fourth, TakeAction Minnesota’s statement that passing a constitutional amendment approving Photo ID will end “absentee voting as we know it” is totally dishonest.
Fifth, TakeAction Minnesota saying that “over seven-hundred-thousand eligible Minnesota voters” “would lose their voting rights if a photo ID restriction is placed in our state constitution” is a bald-faced lie. In 2008, over 2,900,000 votes were cast for president. TakeAction Minnesota is arguing that 25% of the people who voted that night couldn’t get a state-issued ID or a drivers license.
Remember, TakeAction Minnesota didn’t say that 715,000 voters didn’t have a photo ID. They argued that they wouldn’t be able to get a valid form of photo identification.
Sixth, the “over seven-hundred-thousand” voters figure is inflated. In the Crawford v. Marion County Election Board case, the Democratic Party of Indiana made this claim:
“[U]p to 989,000 registered voters in Indiana did not possess either a driver’s license or other acceptable photo identification. She estimated that as of 2005, when the statute was enacted, around 43,000 Indiana residents lacked a state-issued driver’s license or identification card.
The Democratic Party of Indiana was off by 2300%. It’s impossible to think that this was just a simple mathematical mistake. It’s quite plausible to think that the Democratic Party of Indiana intentionally made this figure up.
Considering the extent of verifiable dishonesty in TakeAction Minnesota’s statement, shouldn’t Minnesotans start with the belief that TakeAction Minnesota isn’t telling the truth?
TakeAction Minnesota’s statement is incredibly dishonest. There isn’t a verifiable sentence in their statement.