April 19-20, 2011
Apr 19 10:36 AFSCME President Bringing the Hate Apr 19 08:49 Strawman Alert Apr 19 18:08 Obama Thinks He's Above the Law Apr 20 02:43 DFL Fighting Settled Law On Photo ID With Flimsy Arguments Apr 20 03:30 More Compelling Arguments for Photo ID Apr 20 09:23 Dayton Encourages Illegal Immigration Apr 20 13:46 Voter Fraud??? I Thought It Didn't Exist In Minnesota
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
AFSCME President Bringing the Hate
This video of AFSCME President Herb Sanders won't give people the warm fuzzies. It'll just remind people of the PEU's thuggish behavior:
This quote should chill people:
If necessary, we will use the valuable public service jobs that we perform as a weapon and shut this state down.
First, alot of the bureaucrats' jobs are based on cronyism rather than on merit or importance.
Second, and infinitely more important, the thought that so-called civil servants will get that militant is disturbing to the Nth degree. Will nurses in the Minnesota Nurses Association put a higher priority on serving their patients than on following their union bosses' instructions.
Everyone's read the articles about Wisconsin AFSCME thugs threatening small businesses that didn't enthusiastically support AFSCME's thuggish behavior:
Last month, Dawn Bobo, owner of Village Dollar Store in Union Grove, Wis., was asked to display a pro-union sign in her window. Ms. Bobo, a self- described conservative Republican, refused and received a letter from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees asking her to reconsider.
" Failure to do so will leave us no choice but do [sic] a public boycott of your business," the letter said .
It's instructive that it's AFSCME thugs threatening people in Wisconsin and Michigan. In Michigan, AFSCME threatened to shut the state down if their demands weren't met. In Wisconsin, AFSCME threatened to bankrupt small businesses that didn't support their union's mission.
In Wisconsin, this how they tried downplaying the threat:
Marty Beil, executive director of the Wisconsin State Employees Union, attributed the boycott letter to "some overzealousness in the field." Eddie Vale, a spokesman for the national AFL-CIO, said there were no official union-organized boycotts in either Wisconsin or Ohio.
I'd love hearing how Beil would downplay the fact that the president of the Michigan AFSCME is saying that he'll shut the state down if AFSCME's demands aren't met.
I could sugarcoat what's happening but I won't. I'll call AFSCME what it really is: the personification of evil.
It might work to explain that threatening to bankrupt small businesses was just a little "overzealousness in the field." It isn't likely but it MIGHT. That explanation won't work in spinning the state president of AFSCME threatening to shut Michigan down.
The unions' threats are ratcheting up. They've made it clear that they won't hesitate in shutting an entire state down or putting small businesses out of business. Firefighters and police officers threatened to protest the Tax Day TEA Party in Madison last Friday:
Come one, come all, hear the call to . . .DUMP TEA! DUMP PALIN!
Please share widely. The puppets are coming, the puppets are coming! Corporate puppets Sarah Palin and 'Americans' for 'Prosperity' are rallying at our Wisconsin State Capitol on 4/16.
BRING PUPPETS - sock puppets, hand puppets, marionettes, shadow puppets, finger puppets and muppets!
BRING LIBERTY BELLS - that means cowbells, dinner bells, doorbells, jingle bells, you name it, and let's ring in Wisconsin's independence from corporate rule!
Let's show 'em how we really feel about big corporations passing the tax burden on to the rest of us!
What idiots. The firefighters and police officers must know better than think that TEA Party activists support "big corporations passing the tax burden on to the rest of us!" Corporate or union lobbyists asking for special treatment is repulsive to the average TEA Party activist.
It's time that the PEU's stopped threatening people. First, it's beyond reasonable behavior. More importantly, it's borderline psychotic. Most importantly, it's borderline violent.
Posted Tuesday, April 19, 2011 10:36 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 19-Apr-11 04:00 PM
gary:
first of all can clarify what union the man is president of? He might be the president of a local or council. Gerald M is the president of the International.
Second, doesn't this man know about so called essential workers. Some employees and in Minnesota that I believe includes hospitals are essential workers who can't strike. They can only ask for arbritration.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 19-Apr-11 04:50 PM
First, he's the president of the state AFSCME in Michigan. Next, he doesn't dare go there. If he did, he'd be run out of Michigan...AND AFSCME.
Strawman Alert
MN2020's construction of strawman arguments is getting tiresome. It's bad enough that President Obama is playing this BS card. Shame on MN2020. They can't win arguments on the merits so they're left with constructing nonexistent choices:
We've heard conservatives argue that any environmental regulation stifles economic growth and kills jobs. However, important legislation like the Clean Water Act and vehicle fuel standards have helped protect Minnesota's natural resources without hurting long-term economic growth. In many cases, these policies helped the economic stability of other industries, like fishing.
As we move through a legislative session that seeks to roll back many of Minnesota's environmental protections, what policies balance investing in clean technologies with long-term economic growth?
First, MN2020 is lying in saying that conservatives are arguing that "any environmental regulation stifles economic growth." ANY??? Seriously??? They're left with that lie to win an argument??? That's insanely feeble. Shouldn't think tanks actually think rather than construct strawman arguments based on paranoia?
Second, the GOP majorities aren't rolling back "Minnesota's environmental protections." They've passed Dan Fabian's HF1 permitting reform bill, which Gov. Dayton signed. Rep. Fabian's permitting reform bill doesn't strip out "Minnesota's environmental protections", though.
It just says that the 5 agencies that regulate water quality, the MPCA, the DNR, the Department of Soil and Water, the Health Department and the Department of Agriculture, should work together to streamline the process, not strip out the regulations.
I wrote here that Sen. John Pederson's legislation asks the Department of Administration "to sit down with the five agencies to eliminate the overlap in responsibilities, inspections and to reivew the permitting fees."
Again, that doesn't have anything to do with stripping Minnesota's environmental protections off the books. I'm being polite in saying that MN2020's argument is fictional.
The goal of streamlining the permitting process is to limit opportunities for militant environmentalists to tie projects up in litigation. Making it a one-step permitting process simply means that organizations like MCEA only get one bite at the litigation apple rather than 5 bites.
Back in December and January , I called MCEA's litigation tactics attrition litigation. I said that their lawsuits were killing hundreds, possibly thousands of jobs.
The man that wrote this post for MN2020 is Joe Sheeran. According to the title, Sheeran is MN2020's communications director. It's difficult arguing that this is the opinion of a fringe member of MN2020 when it's the communications director.
Simply put, Sheeran's post exposes the lack of intellectual heft at a so-called progressive think tank.
Posted Tuesday, April 19, 2011 8:49 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 19-Apr-11 10:02 AM
Are you using MN2020 as your strawman?
It's gotta be good for something ...
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 19-Apr-11 10:45 AM
I'm merely highlighting the fact that Sheearan is accusing Republicans of doing something that they aren't doing. That's often called lying. That's what I called him on.
Obama Thinks He's Above the Law
After reading that President Obama is considering ignoring the SCOTUS ruling in the Citizens United v. FEC case, it isn't difficult to think that President Obama thinks that he's above the law. Here's what Hans Spakovsky is reporting :
The draft Executive Order says it is intended to 'increase transparency and accountability,' an interesting claim given the fact that federal contractors are already completely barred by 2 U.S.C. § 441c from making:
Any contribution of money or other things of value, or to promise expressly or impliedly to make any such contribution to any political party, committee, or candidate for public office or to any person for any political purpose or use.
Yet this proposed Executive Order would require government contractors to disclose:
(a) All contributions or expenditures to or on behalf of federal candidates, parties or party committees made by the bidding entity, its directors or officers, or any affiliates or subsidiaries within its control.
(b) Any contributions made to third party entities with the intention or reasonable expectation that parties would use those contributions to make independent expenditures or electioneering communications.
As Spakovsky says in the article, 'reasonable expectation' can essentially mean whatever a prosecutor wants it to mean. That isn't reform. That's a thinly veiled disguise for implementing the DISCLOSE Act.
Here's another disturbing part of the draft EO:
And note that these disclosure requirements will only apply to companies that make bids on government contracts. Federal employee unions that negotiate contracts for their members worth many times the value of some government contracts are not affected by this order. Neither are the recipients of hundreds of millions of dollars of federal grants.
Clearly, this administration is not interested in increasing 'transparency and accountability' when it comes to forcing union leaders or the heads of liberal advocacy organizations such as Planned Parenthood from disclosing the personal political contributions they make to candidates running for federal office.
First, Congress should stop the draft EO from being implemented. If the Senate won't react to the House bill, then I'd urge Tom Coburn, Jim Demint, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and others to stop the Senate in its tracks. PERIOD.
Second, I'd hope that th RNC start an ad campaign against the Obama administration as thinking of themselves as being above the law, even the SCOTUS. If this administration thinks that they shouldn't be obligated to obeying Supreme Court rulings, then it should be exposed as being anarchists willing to ignore the law if that's what's required to meet their goals.
Third, it's important that this administration's indifference towards Supreme Court rulings be tied to the unions' thuggish ends-justifies-the-means mentality. Though I won't classify members of the police and firefighter unions as thugs, I'd consider calling them out for attempting to fight against other people's First Amendment rights :
Come one, come all, hear the call to...DUMP TEA! DUMP PALIN!
Please share widely. The puppets are coming, the puppets are coming! Corporate puppets Sarah Palin and 'Americans' for 'Prosperity' are rallying at our Wisconsin State Capitol on 4/16.
BRING PUPPETS - sock puppets, hand puppets, marionettes, shadow puppets, finger puppets and muppets!
BRING LIBERTY BELLS - that means cowbells, dinner bells, doorbells, jingle bells, you name it, and let's ring in Wisconsin's independence from corporate rule!
They weren't there for a counter-protest. They were there to attempt to drown out Sarah Palin's voice. Predictably, that didn't work.
I'm totally prepared to call AFSCME activists thugs, especially after AFSCME thugs in Wisconsin tried running small businesses out of business and after the president of the Michigan chapter of AFSCME exhorted his troops to shut the state down.
President Obama is as much a creature of the thug machine mentality that permeates Chicago politics as AFSCME thugs are the byproduct of their 'all hell's gonna break loose if they don't support me' environment.
President Obama's floating the rumor that he'll essentially ignore the Citizens United v. FEC is just the latest proof that President Obama really thinks that the law is what he thinks it should be. The earliest proof was President Obama threatening secured bondholders at GM into letting unsecured bondholders get first dibbs from the bailout.
Federal law says that secured bondholders have first take because they agree to get paid less interest on the note in exchange for getting first dibbs in a bankruptcy.
Whether it's President Obama acting like he's above the law or the union thug activists that support him, it's the same thing. The ends justify any means and laws can be ignored if it's for the 'greater good.'
That isn't justice. That's what crackpot dictators do. That's why America won't give him a second term.
Posted Tuesday, April 19, 2011 6:08 PM
No comments.
DFL Fighting Settled Law On Photo ID With Flimsy Arguments
This session, Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer brought forward legislation mandating the voter show a photo ID before voting. One of Common Cause MN's arguments is that it will make voting unbearably difficult for thousands of voters. That's essentially the argument the Indiana Democratic Party made in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board . Here's part of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling:
Even though it is exceedingly difficult to maneuver in today's America without a photo ID (try flying, or even entering a tall building such as the courthouse in which we sit, without one ; see United States v. Smith, 426 F.3d 567 (2d Cir. 2005)), and as a consequence the vast majority of adults have such identification, the Indiana law will deter some people from voting. A great many people who are eligible to vote don't bother to do so. Many do not register, and many who do register still don't vote, or vote infrequently. The benefits of voting to the individual voter are elusive (a vote in a political election rarely has any instrumental value, since elections for political office at the state or federal level are never decided by just one vote), and even very slight costs in time or bother or out-of-pocket expense deter many people from voting, or at least from voting in elections they're not much interested in. So some people who have not bothered to obtain a photo ID will not bother to do so just to be allowed to vote, and a few who have a photo ID but forget to bring it to the polling place will say what the hell and not vote, rather than go home and get the ID and return to the polling place.
In other words, the need for photo ID's to operate in society is so great that this isn't a substantial burden. As thoughtful as that part of the ruling is, this is the one that'll pop your eyes open:
But there is something remarkable about the plaintiffs considered as a whole, which will provide the transition to our consideration of the merits. There is not a single plaintiff who intends not to vote because of the new law , that is, who would vote were it not for the law. There are plaintiffs who have photo IDs and so are not affected by the law at all and plaintiffs who have no photo IDs but have not said they would vote if they did and so who also are, as far as we can tell, unaffected by the law. There thus are no plaintiffs whom the law will deter from voting. No doubt there are at least a few such people in Indiana, but the inability of the sponsors of this litigation to find any such person to join as a plaintiff suggests that the motivation for the suit is simply that the law may require the Democratic Party and the other organizational plaintiffs to work harder to get every last one of their supporters to the polls.
Think about that. The Democratic Party of Indiana couldn't find a person who wouldn't vote and who couldn't vote as a result of their law. They certainly were motivated to find such people.
Thus far, Common Cause MN and Citizens for Election Integrity MN have argued that Photo ID is a solution in search of a problem. I'd argue that Common Cause MN's and Citizens for Election Integrity MN's arguments are arguments in search of someone who wouldn't be able to vote if Photo ID became law.
Here's an interesting, important part of the Supreme Court's majority opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens :
After discovery, District Judge Barker prepared a comprehensive 70-page opinion explaining her decision to grant defendants' motion for summary judgment. 458 F. Supp. 2d 775 (SD Ind. 2006). She found that petitioners had 'not introduced evidence of a single, individual Indiana resident who will be unable to vote as a result of SEA 483 or who will have his or her right to vote unduly burdened by its requirements.' Id., at 783.
She rejected 'as utterly incredible and unreliable' an expert's report that up to 989,000 registered voters in Indiana did not possess either a driver's license or other acceptable photo identification . Id., at 803. 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.
Judge Barker said that the Democratic Party of Indiana hadn't produced evidence that real people would have their right to vote unduly burdened by the Photo ID law. She then continued, saying that the Democrats' argument that almost 1,000,000 registered voters didn't posess a drivers license or other acceptable photo identification was "utterly incredible and unreliable.'
Judge Barker said that approximately "43,000 Indiana residents lacked a state-issued driver's license or identification card." According the calculator in my head, 43,000 goes into 989,000 approximately 25 times. In other words, fewer than 4% of the people the Democrats claimed didn't have "a state-issued driver's license or identification card" actually didn't have "a state-issued driver's license or identification card."
This is the crushing argument in Justice Stevens' majority opinion:
The State has identified several state interests that arguably justify the burdens that SEA 483 imposes on voters and potential voters. While petitioners argue that the statute was actually motivated by partisan concerns and dispute both the significance of the State's interests and the magnitude of any real threat to those interests, they do not question the legitimacy of the interests the State has identified. Each is unquestionably relevant to the State's interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process .
When Justice Stevens wrote that "They don't question the legitimacy of the interests the state has identified", then added that the state's interests in "protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process" are vital state interests, he swung the death blow to Photo ID opponents.
This statistic is damning, too, though not directly to Photo ID:
In the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), 107 Stat. 77, 42 U. S. C. §1973gg et seq., Congress established procedures that would both increase the number of registered voters and protect the integrity of the electoral process. §1973gg. The statute requires state motor vehicle driver's license applications to serve as voter registration applications. §1973gg-3. While that requirement has increased the number of registered voters, the statute also contains a provision restricting States' ability to remove names from the lists of registered voters. §1973gg-6(a)(3).
These protections have been partly responsible for inflated lists of registered voters. For example, evidence credited by Judge Barker estimated that as of 2004 Indiana's voter rolls were inflated by as much as 41.4% , see 458 F. Supp. 2d, at 793, and data collected by the Election Assistance Committee in 2004 indicated that 19 of 92 Indiana counties had registration totals exceeding 100% of the 2004 voting-age population , Dept. of Justice Complaint in United States v. Indiana, No. 1:06-cv-1000-RLY-TAB (SD Ind., June 27, 2006), p. 4, App. 313.
Over 20% of Indiana's counties had more registered voters than they had people of legal voting age. That's thanks to Motor Voter laws. The fact that a judge made a finding of fact that, in 2004, "Indiana's voter rolls were inflated by as much as 41.4%" is stunning.
What that says is that, for every 1,000 names listed as registered voters, 400 of these names weren't eligible voters. They were names on the voter registration lists that anybody could walk in and vote as.
How dare Mark Ritchie, the DFL, Common Cause MN and Citizens for Election Integrity argue that the possibility of voter fraud is practically nonexistent. Judge Barker's finding of fact argues powerfully and substantively against their arguments.
Rep. Kiffmeyer's Photo ID bill needs to be signed into law by Gov. Dayton. If he chooses to veto it, then this bill should be approved to go on the ballot as a constitutional amendment.
The arguments that opponents to HF210 have made have been discredited. Proof has been found that significant numbers of people will be disenfranchised have been discredited, as has the notion that vast numbers of people don't have some form of photo ID.
Might Rep. Kiffmeyer's legislation add some work for the counties to get photo ID's into the voters' hands? Most likely. Will those amounts be large in number? I wouldn't bet on it.
Does the state of Minnesota have a compelling interest in protecting election integrity? There's no doubt about that. That can't be argued.
Posted Wednesday, April 20, 2011 3:54 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 20-Apr-11 09:49 AM
I think you are mistaken. Of COURSE it can be "argued," because the DFL is arguing it. What it cannot be is debated otherwise, because that would require facts and logic. And DFL stands for Devoid of Facts and Logic.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 20-Apr-11 10:06 AM
Jerry, Implied in that sentence is that serious arguing, not squabbling, requires serious thought and viable angles. Children throwing temper tantrums don't count as arguing. Throwing a hissy fit or a temper tantrum isn't arguing.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 20-Apr-11 04:36 PM
Gary:
Lets not forget that Justice Stevens is a liberal judge. Even a liberal judge thinks this is legal is another good argument.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
More Compelling Arguments for Photo ID
I'm embarrassed that I didn't read further into Justice Stevens' majority opinion in the Crawford v. Marion County Election Board ruling. If I'd done that, I would've found this important information:
In the introduction to their discussion of voter identification, they made these pertinent comments:
'A good registration list will ensure that citizens are only registered in one place, but election officials still need to make sure that the person arriving at a polling site is the same one that is named on the registration list. In the old days and in small towns where everyone knows each other, voters did not need to identify themselves. But in the United States, where 40 million people move each year, and in urban areas where some people do not even know the people living in their own apartment building let alone their precinct, some form of identification is needed.
'There is no evidence of extensive fraud in U. S. elections or of multiple voting, but both occur, and it could affect the outcome of a close election. The electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters. Photo identification cards currently are needed to board a plane, enter federal buildings, and cash a check. Voting is equally important.'
Justice Stevens noted that election systems "can't inspire public confidence" if there aren't safeguards to "deter or detect fraud" or "confirm the identity of voters." Justice Stevens obviously thought that this was an important consideration of an efficient election system.
Rep. Kiffmeyer has often argued this point:
election officials still need to make sure that the person arriving at a polling site is the same one that is named on the registration list.
BINGO!!! Without that verification, there can't be confidence that people who've filled out ballots are who they say they are. That's the biggest reason for having a Photo ID requirement.
The fact that photo ID's are required to get into federal buildings, board a plane or cash a check argues that the vast majority of people won't be unduly burdened by Rep. Kiffmeyer's legislation.
The record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history. Moreover, petitioners argue that provisions of the Indiana Criminal Code punishing such conduct as a felony provide adequate protection against the risk that such conduct will occur in the future. It remains true, however, that flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation's history by respected historians and journalists, that occasional examples have surfaced in recent years, and that Indiana's own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago Mayor, though perpetrated using absentee ballots and not in-person fraud - demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.
In Justice Stevens' opinion, the fact that voter fraud hadn't been found to be widespread in Indiana wasn't as strong an argument as the fact that voter fraud exists in other states and that voter fraud tips close elections.
Finally, I'll leave you with this:
There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State's interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters. Moreover, the interest in orderly administration and accurate recordkeeping provides a sufficient justification for carefully identifying all voters participating in the election process. While the most effective method of preventing election fraud may well be debatable, the propriety of doing so is perfectly clear.
That's powerful stuff. Saying that there's no questioning the "legitimacy or importance of the State's interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters" says that Rep. Kiffmeyer is right in pushing this legislation.
Posted Wednesday, April 20, 2011 3:30 AM
No comments.
Dayton Encourages Illegal Immigration
If there was any question whether Gov. Dayton cared about the rule of law, those questions disappeared when he let 2 executive orders expire . One executive order required "employers with state contracts to check new employees using the E-Verify federal immigration database. The other executive order "directed state agencies to pursue cooperation with ICE to carry out deportations and other punitive enforcement wherever possible, including the Criminal Alien Program (CAP) and 287g agreements with the Department of Public Safety."
The Minnesota Immigrant Rights Action Committee (MIRAc) is waging a No More Deportations campaign which aims to stop Minnesota and its counties from collaborating with ICE deportation programs like CAP, 287g and Secure Communities. MIRAc put out a statement encouraging people to call Governor Dayton to demand that he not pursue any further collaboration with ICE on deportation or enforcement programs.
According to Niger Arevalo of MIRAc, 'It's good that Governor Dayton didn't renew Pawlenty's anti-immigrant executive orders. But this is just the beginning, immigrant workers are still being deported and families are being separated at an alarming rate in Minnesota and this has to stop now. The No More Deportations campaign wants to make sure that Governor Dayton does not implement the so-called Secure Communities deportation program. And we're calling on the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners to vote to stop cooperating with ICE through the Criminal Alien Program. We encourage people to join our campaign to stop deportations in Minnesota.'
TRANSLATION: The Minnesota Immigrant Rights Action Committee (MIRAc) is waging a campaign which aims to encourage lawlessness while letting more criminal behavior go unprosecuted.
Let's not sugarcoat this. This ties into a pattern with Democrats. If the Supreme Court says that something is constitutional, President Obama will still attempt to ignore the SCOTUS ruling. If AFSCME thugs decide that they can't achieve one of their goals their president threatens to shut the state down . Now, Gov. Dayton disagrees with immigration laws so he's taking (in)action by not enforcing immigration laws.
This is proof that Democrats care more about political advantages than they care about the rule of law. The sole exception is when enforcing laws gives them more control of our lives.
I fear we're heading for another 1970s counterculture clash for the ages. That was when people just ignored the laws, which, in turn, put other Americans' lives at risk. Riots erupted that killed innocent bystanders. LA, Chicago and Detroit were turned into police states because people had been encouraged to ignore the rule of law.
Greta has done dozens of shows showing how drug cartels prey on Arizonans, often by raiding their homes. People live in fear for their lives.
Thanks to the gutless wonder in Minnesota's governor's mansion, illegal immigrants are taught that breaking the law is the fast path to prosperity.
Simply put, the DFL's priorities aren't Main Street's priorities. Main Street actually prefers that laws be enforced. Main Street prefers that spending be prioritized, not wildly increased. (See President Obama on that. He's the expert on that subject, though Gov. Dayton is reckless with the taxpayers' money, too.)
Posted Wednesday, April 20, 2011 9:23 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 20-Apr-11 01:29 PM
Gary:
I work in an office where I have to ask for id. I have people who transfer cars that show Mexico consular cards or foreign drivers licenses. I have people applying for their childrens passports which show on the birth certificates both parents born in Mexico and they show consular cards for ID.
THIS STATE IS FLOODED WITH ILLEGAL ALIENS!!!! It's nice to know that Dayton and the Democrats don't care. The people who do care have to know they have to vote Republican for everybody despite the millions that Obama and other democrats spend.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by eric z at 22-Apr-11 07:00 AM
Dayton governs. He does not posture divisively the way his predecessor did. He is not the grandstanding sort that his predecessor is. He is light, not darkness.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Apr-11 07:55 AM
C'mon. Dayton disappears if he isn't grandstanding. He's neither light nor darkness. He's cluelessness personified. He's said that his tax-the-rich scheme would generate an additional $4.6 billion in revenue. The Minnesota Department of Revenue said it'd only generate $1.9 billion in additional revenue. OOPS. It wasn't until his third try that his supposedly detailed budget finally balanced.
You're better off dealing with facts, Eric, rather than with emotions.
Voter Fraud??? I Thought It Didn't Exist In Minnesota
Thanks to this article , we now know that a voter fraud investigation is underway in Washington County :
A widespread voter fraud investigation has led to charges against 11 people in Washington County with prosecutors saying more charges were forthcoming.
All of the people charged are convicted felons who had not been cleared to vote, with most infractions occurring during the 2010 election. But prosecutors said some charges went back as far as 2008.
Under Minnesota law, convicted felons can vote, but only after they've completed the terms of their supervised release. Most of the suspects when asked about the allegation pleaded ignorance.
'I didn't know I couldn't' said Asst. Washington Co. Attorney Rick Hodsdon, describing what was commonly heard when the suspects were confronted.
Hodsdon said all allegations of voter fraud have to be investigated under Minnesota law.
'It's an effort to ensure the integrity of the election,' Hodsdon said.
The charges stem from complaints that came from the Washington County Election Division. More than 50 complaints were forwarded to the county attorney in January, prompting the investigation, Hodsdon said.
But the investigation is not easy. The Washington County Attorney's office does not have a budget for investigators, so the cases were then farmed out to local police departments where the infractions allegedly occurred.
Most of the charges come from Oakdale, Hodsdon said. Stillwater Police confirmed Tuesday they were also involved in the investigation.
Hodsdon said two more people were being charged late Tuesday afternoon. And there were other cases still being investigated. Investigators were also looking into allegations that the same person voted in both Wisconsin and Minnesota in the 2010 election.
What's becoming clear is that voter fraud is happening far more frequently than the DFL was willing to admit. They've abandoned the "there's no voter fraud in Minnesota" storyline and replaced it with "photo ID wouldn't have stopped this voter fraud."
Another thing that's clear is that the DFL made sure that a) voter fraud cases were assigned to already overworked county attorneys and b) budget to conduct thorough investigations didn't exist. It's apparent that voter fraud prosecutions are becoming more frequent in Minnesota. With that happening, the state has a vital interest in guaranteeing that voter fraud culprits are investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
I'd further argue that punishment for voter fraud by harsh (minimum 10 years in prison) and the permanent revocation of voting rights after the felon's release from prison.
It's worth noting that photo ID won't eliminate all types of voter fraud. There simply isn't a single silver bullet remedy. What's needed, among other things, is a) a voter registration list that's updated frequently and b) cross-referencing between the voter registration list and the imprisoned paroled lists.
What's undeniable now is that Republicans, especially Dan Severson, Mary Kiffmeyer and Minnesota Majority were right in trumpeting the fact that Minnesota's election system wasn't the gold standard that Mark Ritchie and Common Cause MN kept telling us it was. We now have proof throughout the state that voter fraud has happened and that it's a serious problem that can't be ignored any longer.
If the DFL insists on fighting photo Id, they'll lose seats in 2012. People are demanding answers. They understand that photo ID is needed to tighten up the system.
People think our current system is under assault because they've read too many articles where ACORN or other like-minded organizations are pleading guilty to voter registration fraud. They've seen NBPP thugs keep white voters from voting in Philadelphia. They're appalled by the Stene family's nightmare with the Clark Lake Group Home .
Simply put, they don't trust our election system. After reading another article about another voter fraud investigation, why shouldn't voters have a jaded attitude towards election integrity? I'd submit that to not have a jaded attitude towards election integrity would be abnormal.
I'd argue that it's getting to the point that voter fraud is reaching crisis levels. The DFL suggesting that Photo ID shouldn't be part of the solution in restoring election integrity simply isn't being realistic.
I'd further submit that SecState Ritchie's performance has been pathetic. He's turned a blind eye to real voter fraud cases. He's argued that he couldn't clean voter rolls because he didn't have the authority half a decade after HAVA, passed in 2002, gave him the authority to clean voter registration lists.
In fact, HAVA gave the chief election officers in each of the 50 states the affirmative responsibility of cleaning the voter rolls.
I'd submit that Susan Gaertner and Mike Freeman haven't investigated and/or prosecuted felons who voted illegally in their counties with the vigor that's obviously needed.
Finally, I'd submit that Joe Mansky's answers in this interview were disconcerting at minimum:
ESME: We just heard from Rep. Kiffmeyer, who said the system needs voter ID. How do you feel about that?
JOE MANSKY: I don't think that's the case. If you just look at the numbers and the business of the people under felony sentences voting that's been in the news. But let's take a look at that a minute. Our compliance rate, the rate at which voters comply with our law, is 99.99 percent. In Ramsey County, we had 28 people charged out of 278,000 people voting. I don't think that there is a problem. There will always be a small number of people who won't comply with the law. But again, 99.99 percent is probably not a bad place to be at.
Mansky's statistics are meaningless because they don't take into account the fact that felons might actually deceitfully manipulate the system.
Felons deceitfully manipulating our election system. That's so out-of-character. NOT.
Posted Wednesday, April 20, 2011 1:46 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 20-Apr-11 04:31 PM
Okay. How about a private group tries to determine the number of cases that are being ignored. I'm sure that can be thousands if not ten of thousands for both hennepin county and ramsey county.
Then that percentage goes way down.
And if you assume that 1% of the vote is illegal on 2 million votes that's 20,000 votes. More than enough to determine the governor's race in 2010 and the senate race in 2008.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 20-Apr-11 04:44 PM
Actually, if Voter ID were coupled with the electronic voter rolls and instant verification, all of the known methods of voter fraud would be eliminated and the DFL would have to find new ones. The cost of doing it is negligible.
Comment 3 by Janet at 20-Apr-11 06:14 PM
A base problem is the communications between Sec. of State and the agencies responsible for tracking felons, immigrants, etc. appear lax at best. The law says SOS has to update records but when we asked about it before the 2010 election, we were told by SoS that they knew the law - not that the tracking had an audit trail.
Names are to be cross-referenced with the voter registration lists. But it does not appear that any results are published. I could be wrong here but.....
Janet - Director of Election Operations for MNGOP 2010
Comment 4 by Mary at 20-Apr-11 10:45 PM
A week after the Nov., 2008 election, I informed my state senator, Terri Bonoff that a very close friend and co-worker of mine (a very intelligent and ethical man) told me he had over-heard a conversation before the election at a party in which 6 people that he knew to ALL be non-citizens were coaching another non-citizen how to same day register and vote in the upcoming election. My friend is a legal permanent resident (non-citizen) in the U.S. on a Green Card. As he listened to the conversation, he heard these folks say they had voted in local, state, and federal elections in Mpls. before and that "it is easy to do". They were encouraging the other person to vote for Barack Obama. My friend confronted this group with the comment that this was illegal. He was told, "Nobody ever does anything to you here."
When I gave this info to Sen. Bonoff, her reply via email was, "What you are telling me is very disturbing and very illegal. I will look into this and get back to you." I never heard back from her.
If my friend ran into 6 non-citizens at one party who were voting, how many more are out there doing the same thing?
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Apr-11 02:28 AM
If my friend ran into 6 non-citizens at one party who were voting, how many more are out there doing the same thing?We won't know until we run Ritchie out of office.
Comment 5 by Colin at 21-Apr-11 08:42 AM
Actually, voter ID does NOT tell you whether the person is a felon or not.
Comment 6 by Dan McGrath at 21-Apr-11 11:23 AM
J. Ewing has it right. 21st Century Voter ID, which is a system - a change in voter verification procedures coupled with state-issued photo ID will prevent ineligible voters - like non-citizens and felons. HF 210 and SF509 do more than require photo ID.
I'm tired of hearing the lame argument that photo ID won't prevent felons, because that's a straw man. Photo ID by itself wouldn't, but the bills that are being debated do!
See www.wewantvoterid.com to learn how 21st Century Voter ID works.
Response 6.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Apr-11 12:22 PM
Dan, The point I usually try making is that there isn't a single 'silver bullet' solution that restores election integrity. I just finished writing a post in which I write that it's Mark Ritchie's corruption or incompetence that caused known felons that Minnesota Majority told him about prior to the 2008 election to be still on the eligible voter list.
That isn't a Photo ID issue, though it's certainly an election integrity issue. Vouching, on the other hand, is a Photo ID issue that will stop voter fraud dead in its tracks.
Comment 7 by Mary at 21-Apr-11 01:25 PM
Same day vouching is a huge part of this integrity nightmare. When I volunteered for the Emmer/Dayton recount, it was interesting during down time to over hear some of the conversations of the table judges. One was telling another that she was a polling place judge in a "small So. Mpls. precinct". She mentioned that they had "over 200 same day registrations". She was quite proud of this but did say that "it was quite overwhelming at times, and we had to pass them through quickly so that the long lines kept moving".
So does that mean that every single person had the appropriate ID which was THOROUGHLY checked? And how about the ID of the vouchers and how many people they were actually vouching for?
Somehow I have grave doubts about voting integrity at that So. Mpls. polling place. It sounds to me like a deliberate attempt to overwhelm the system. Guess I am turning into a terrible cynic.
Comment 8 by J. Ewing at 21-Apr-11 03:02 PM
Mary, it's worse than what you cite. Right now there is absolutely nothing which prevents someone from same-day registering in as many places as they can be vouched for, or produce some combination of IDs for. Moreover, EVERY college student, in the law, is PERMITTED to vote twice, no questions asked.
Now, of course, an honest SOS would find these things after the fact, but that doesn't help election integrity one bit. And our SOS doesn't even TRAIN judges to look for fraud.
