Posted on 08/27/2012 5:27:27 PM PDT by TurboZamboni
Two proposed constitutional amendments will be presented to voters on November's ballot in the way the Legislature intended, the state Supreme Court ruled Monday, Aug. 27.
Both decisions were victories for conservatives.
The Republican-controlled Legislature pushed both proposed amendments through over opposition from Democrats including Gov. Mark Dayton. Dayton last year vetoed a bill to require photo ID, but has no power to block constitutional amendments that are sent directly to voters.
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2918276/posts
those mysterious booms are leftard heads exploding
I’ve lived most of my life in Minnesota. Graduated from Brainerd High School......this is good news.
CAn a Secretary of State in Minnesota be “impeached” or thrown out for “malfeasance of office”?
While I don’t know for sure, I’d have to believe that is true due to the makeup of many state constitutions....balance of power and all.
In Minnesota you need a photo ID to get a fishing license, license your fishing boat, buy beer and even apply for welfare benefits so why is it unreasonable to show a photo ID to vote?
Ritchie was head of ACORN in MN. He was one of the results of Soros’ Secy of State project.
Yeah, right. They want the text of the entire amendment on the ballot. No doubt who's paying the dissenting judges off. (Page and Anderson)
Pubbies version (Marriage):
"Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman"
Ritchies version:
"Limiting the Status of Marriage to Opposite Sex Couples."
Pubbies version (Voter ID):
"Photo Identification Required for Voting"
Ritchies version (this is my favorite):
"Changes to In-Person & Absentee Voting & Voter Registration; Provisional Ballots."
And it was a Dem from MPLS who proposed the original voter ID title.
Opponents often claim that senior citizens won’t be able to vote if they have to show an ID, but the overwhelming majority of senior citizens support the measure (see Star Tribune Poll, May 2011).
Under current Minnesota law, people aged 65 and older never need to renew their non-driving ID. And under the Voter ID Amendment, ID will be provided at no charge.
Another common excuse raised by Voter ID opponents is that some elderly people were never issued a birth certificate or lack a marriage license which would prevent them from obtaining an ID. This is patently false. There’s already a simple one-page variance form for people in those extraordinary circumstances to submit with their application for ID.
Voter ID opponents also make wild claims of mass voter disenfranchisement because of the simple, common, every day requirement to prove your identity with photo ID. But when they have to try to prove their nonsense in a court of law, this excuse has always fallen flat.
When the League of Women Voters challenged Indiana’s voter ID law on disenfranchisement grounds, the Indiana Supreme Court found: “No individual voter has alleged that the Voter ID Law has prevented him or her from voting or inhibited his or her ability to vote in any way.”
They tried again in Georgia, but ultimately, the League was once again rebuffed. On examining the actual evidence, the court upheld the voter ID law and decreed: “Plaintiffs’ failure, despite their efforts, to uncover anyone who can attest to the fact that he/she will be prevented from voting provides significant support for the conclusion that the Photo ID requirement does not unduly burden the right to vote.”
Most recently, in Pennsylvania, a state judge upheld their new Voter ID law, saying it doesn’t present a significant barrier to voting and said, “I am not convinced any qualified elector need be disfranchised by [the voter ID law]”.
Opponents often claim that senior citizens won’t be able to vote if they have to show an ID, but the overwhelming majority of senior citizens support the measure (see Star Tribune Poll, May 2011).
Under current Minnesota law, people aged 65 and older never need to renew their non-driving ID. And under the Voter ID Amendment, ID will be provided at no charge.
Another common excuse raised by Voter ID opponents is that some elderly people were never issued a birth certificate or lack a marriage license which would prevent them from obtaining an ID. This is patently false. There’s already a simple one-page variance form for people in those extraordinary circumstances to submit with their application for ID.
Voter ID opponents also make wild claims of mass voter disenfranchisement because of the simple, common, every day requirement to prove your identity with photo ID. But when they have to try to prove their nonsense in a court of law, this excuse has always fallen flat.
When the League of Women Voters challenged Indiana’s voter ID law on disenfranchisement grounds, the Indiana Supreme Court found: “No individual voter has alleged that the Voter ID Law has prevented him or her from voting or inhibited his or her ability to vote in any way.”
They tried again in Georgia, but ultimately, the League was once again rebuffed. On examining the actual evidence, the court upheld the voter ID law and decreed: “Plaintiffs’ failure, despite their efforts, to uncover anyone who can attest to the fact that he/she will be prevented from voting provides significant support for the conclusion that the Photo ID requirement does not unduly burden the right to vote.”
Most recently, in Pennsylvania, a state judge upheld their new Voter ID law, saying it doesn’t present a significant barrier to voting and said, “I am not convinced any qualified elector need be disfranchised by [the voter ID law]”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.