The ACLU of Minnesota, the League of Women Voters-Minnesota, Common Cause MN and Jewish Community Action filed suit yesterday to keep the Photo ID constitutional amendment off of November’s ballot:

The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, the League of Women Voters Minnesota, Jewish Community Action and Common Cause Minnesota are petitioning the state Supreme Court to strike down the voter ID ballot question, because they claim it would create one of the most restrictive election laws in the country.

Chuck Samuelson, executive director of the ACLU Minnesota, said during a news conference at a downtown Minneapolis law office that the proposed constitutional amendment would do far more than what the question describes. Samuelson said there’s no mention of a new provisional ballot system or the potential end of same-day registration.

“We believe that the voters of Minnesota have a right to know what they’re voting on,” Samuelson said. “This petition is about ensuring that all Minnesota voters know the full extent of what this amendment could do and the impact it could have on hundreds of thousands of Minnesota voters.”

This isn’t unexpected. In fact, DFL legislators started laying the groundwork for it during floor debates this session.

Rep. Ryan Winkler and other DFL legislators insisted that the real intent of the constitutional amendment was to eliminate same day registration. That’s nothing more than the DFL’s typical fearmongering.

Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer frequently informed DFL legislators that eliminating same day registration wasn’t part of the constitutional amendment.

Eliminating same day registration isn’t planned. If it were, why would there be a need for provisional ballots? Secretary of State Mark Ritchie admitted as much during a visit to St. Cloud recently.

Pentelovitch also believes that the proposed voter ID requirement would essentially end Minnesota’s tradition of same-day registration. He said that’s because election officials will face too many complications at polling places trying to verify the identification of voters. But voter ID supporters firmly disagree.

“That is not true. That is absolutely not true,” said Sen. Scott Newman, R-Hutchinson, a chief sponsor of the voter ID constitutional amendment bill.

Newman said the practice of vouching for the identity of other voters will end. But he insists eligible Minnesotans will still be able to show up at their polling place on Election Day and register to vote, even without an identification.

“If they show up on Election Day without the requisite identification, they will be allowed register,” he said. “They will be allowed to vote. But their vote will be provisional, and it will not count unless and until they come back with the necessary identification.”

It’s time to get rid of the voter fraud in Minnesota. Yes, there’s voter fraud here. It’s just that people like Mark Ritchie and Joe Mansky haven’t been looking for it.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

13 Responses to “ACLU opposes election integrity, Photo ID”

  • eric z says:

    You know Gary, I never had to produce any photo ID to register for the draft. Something your Kiffmeyer never was compelled to do. It seems, life and limb at risk, no photo ID required …

  • eric z says:

    You know Gary, I never had to produce any photo ID to register for the draft. Something your Kiffmeyer never was compelled to do. It seems, life and limb at risk, no photo ID required …

    Aside from that, if a birth certificate is required to get a Minnesota photo ID, per the presently void for vagueness proposal [what does it demand???], your folks can bellow all you want about it being a no-fee ID, the folks back in St.Louis County MO will only certify and mail a copy from their records if I pay a fee.

    However you feel about the bona fides of the GOP motives regarding that Amendment proposal, having to pay that birth certificate fee or not being able to vote, being denied a vote without that fee, it’s a poll tax.

    Curiously, you folks are not suggesting requiring a proof of citizenship card to file for office, and I believe Michele Bachmann was born a space alien and is presently being policed by the Men in Black. I’m a birther that way I suppose.

  • eric z says:

    I don’t know what misfired midway through my writing the the earlier full comment. Sorry about that. I just want to add, it is good to see public spirited nonpartisan organizations like the ACLU and LWV suing; while it is entirely shameful that a decidedly partisan out-of-state snake-den operation, ALEC, is behind all this disenfranchisement grief.

    Three cheers for the good guys.

  • walter hanson says:

    Eric:

    Um the ACLU and LWV are partisian organizations pretending to be nonpartisian.

    Keep in mind unless you’re just 18 which is selective service not the draft that was in an era when ID wasn’t taken as seriously know.

    ID is important know a days since you can run around for example if you tried with two ID’s one that says your name is Eric Zebra and the other Eric Z. Zebra. A conartist will claim for example that they’re Eric Zebra and if ever challegned claim that they’re Eric Z Zebra and not releated to this Eric Zebra.

    Just wedding out people with multiple identies is a good reason to do voter ID.

    Walter hanson
    Minneapolis, MN

  • J. Ewing says:

    Eric, you are still trying to pretend like voter fraud doesn’t exist, and that’s a flat-up lie unless you can PROVE otherwise. Since we already know that it occurs, have the written evidence and the court convictions, it’s an uphill slog for you and your ACLU running dogs. When voter ID laws have been challenged in other states, the challengers have been asked to produce people who would be denied the right to vote by the new law, and haven’t been able to do it. I would expect the same here, despite Ritchie’s claim there would be 100s of thousands of them. That’s a flat-up lie, too, and posted on the official government website. That’s another voter fraud, right there!

  • Gary Gross says:

    It’s painful to see formerly public-spirited nonprofits like Common Cause MN & the LWV-MN turn into shills for the DFL. There is a genuine problem, one which the DFL, the LWV-MN & Common Cause MN refuse to admit. It isn’t hiding. Scott County workers admit that there’s voter fraud:

    INVESTIGATOR: In theory, I could just, you know, say I have some illness or disability and just be at home and there’s no way that the state would know otherwise.

    WORKER: You are signing a statement, a form, that the information you’re providing is true and correct.

    INVESTIGATOR: So that’s it? It’s just kind of the honor system?

    WORKER: Yes, I guess, it’s, I mean, it’s been that way for many, many years, that, you know, Minnesota’s been an after-the-fact type of state. And, now, we do catch people, that do things, and they’re investigated and charged. But it is, you know, after-the-fact.

    My election judges have a difficult time with that. It’s like “Change the law. Change the law.”

    That person admitted that “Minnesota’s been an after-the-fact type of state” on video, meaning that the illegally cast ballot is counted before the investigation starts.

  • eric z says:

    Bleating sheep.

  • Patrick says:

    I have never heard any thing but cliches and rhetoric from the left as to why they say photo Voter ID is not needed. They need to back up their bloviation with real data. The advocates of Voter ID have documented proof it exists. Until the USA is 100% photo Voter ID required I for one will regard close election results as fraudulent. Also one thing that I think will be more of a problem in the future is electronic voting – too easy to cheat with the software.

  • Gary Gross says:

    Patrick, forgive Eric because it’s an article of faith with the DFL that a) voter fraud doesn’t exist or b) the ends justifies the means or c) conservatives are mean and they deserve to lose election.

    Seriously speaking, Eric hasn’t shown any interest in learning the truth. The more proof I’ve given him, the more resistant he’s become. Screw it.

    No amount of irrefutable proof will change Eric’s mind on this, which is sad.

  • J. Ewing says:

    Gary, the problem with Eric is that he will not accept the responsibility which is clearly his, that is, to PROVE that voter fraud doesn’t exist. Prove to us that every vote cast was cast by a real and eligible voter, in the correct precinct, by that voter. Until he can do that, he is just so much “bleating sheep.” Or is it “bleeping”?

  • eric z. says:

    Bleat. Bleat.

  • walter hanson says:

    Eric:

    Just curious if you don’t think voter ID isn’t needed and that Republicans are discriminating because they do it why were MA democrats demanding ID for people claiming to be delegates at their convention.

    I assume that they weren’t afraid of fraud were they?

    I assume that they weren’t afraid of discrimination since the major item of business was to endorse a woman running for a US Senate seat.

    So instead of Bleat Bleat explain exactly what they were doing.

    Either that or admit that even democrats think voter ID is needed.

    Walter Hanson
    Minneapolis, MN

Leave a Reply