Mark Ritchie must go. He was considered the thought leader for the bloody WTO protests in Seattle in 1999. In recent court filings, he’s said that he doesn’t have the affirmative responsibility of preventing felony voter fraud. Prior to that, it’s been proven that he hasn’t faithfully updated Minnesota’s SVRS, which he’s required to do according to HAVA.
We know this because felons have been convicted of voting illegally. Had the voter rolls been updated in a timely fashion, they couldn’t have gotten a ballot.
Now, the Pioneer Press Editorial Board is accusing Mark Ritchie of attempting to suppress the vote:
Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has changed the Legislature’s voter ID amendment title, “Photo identification required for voting, ” into the following: “Changes to in-person & absentee voting & voter registration; provisional ballots.” Ritchie, who is well read and well spoken, clearly had to go deep into the Orwellian playbook to come up with that one.
But what explains this bizarre formulation that obviously seeks to obscure the initiative and confuse the voter? One of the best explanations we’ve heard is that Ritchie hopes to so confuse the voters that they simply throw up their hands and skip this ballot item altogether. Remember, by law in Minnesota, a nonvote on a constitutional amendment question has the same effect as a “no” vote.
Mark Ritchie’s cumulative actions have sent the unmistakable message that he won’t enforce parts of Minnesota’s election laws that he disagrees with. I wrote here about the lengths Mr. Ritchie will go in refusing to enforce the parts of Minnesota’s election laws he doesn’t agree with. Here’s what Mr. Ritchie said about enforcing Minnesota’s election laws:
There is nothing in the words “any election,” in art. VII, § 1, or elsewhere in Minnesota law that places upon Defendants [Mark Ritchie, Lori Swanson and Joe Mansky] an affirmative obligation to prevent such persons from committing felony voter fraud.
The thought that Mr. Ritchie won’t accept responsibility for preventing voter fraud speaks volumes about his governing philosophy. It says that Ritchie thinks it isn’t his job to prevent honest people from having their votes negated by dishonest people who are gaming the system. It’s as if Ritchie’s say it’s just his job to make sure as many people vote even if there’s substantial voter fraud happening.
Most importantly, it’s his statement that Article VII is meaningless. If he won’t enforce Minnesota’s Constitution, what’s his responsibility? Does Mr. Ritchie think that it’s his job to make sure as many people as possible? Does he think that enforcing the Constitution is unimportant?
At a time when voter fraud is happening, when tens of thousands of PVCs are returned because the address doesn’t exist, Minnesota needs someone who’s interested in protecting legal voters.
Minnesotans love high voter turnout. They also demand that ther election laws be consistently applied. Mr. Ritchie fails that final part badly.
That’s why he’s got to go.