March 25-27, 2012
Mar 27 03:02 I'd pay to see this Mar 25 08:34 Should voting laws be easy or straightforward? Mar 25 15:14 President Obama's coal problem Mar 26 02:00 Sen. Franken, Sen. Klobuchar reject energy solutions Mar 26 08:31 Daschle's wrong-headed thinking exposed Mar 26 14:24 Obama-appointed judge takes Obama's EPA to the woodshed
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
I'd pay to see this
The DFL's phalanx of special interest allies have announced that they'll be filing a lawsuit to keep a Photo ID constitutional amendment question off this fall's ballot. When it comes to those lawsuits attempting to keep Photo ID off this fall's ballot, I'd pay money to watch Common Cause MN attempt to prove voter disenfranchisement :
Dean said his group may also consider a complaint of voter disenfranchisement.
Good luck with that, Mr. Dean. There's no arguing that requiring a state-issued Photo ID will take extra effort on voters' behalf. That said, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a) getting Photo ID isn't unduly burdensome and b) the states have a legitimate interest in preventing voter fraud.
That's a polite way of saying a) voter fraud is real and b) states have a substantive, legitimate right to take reasonable steps to prevent voter fraud.
The best thing Common Cause MN could decide is to not pursue this. When Common Cause MN and the LWV-MN lose this lawsuit, which they will, they'll be exposed as political hacks for the DFL. Their reputation, what little is left of it, won't be worth much.
First, Common Cause MN and the LWV-MN can't prove that it's impossible to obtain Photo ID. That's the first benchmark Common Cause MN and the LWV-MN must meet. If it's proven that the 715,000 people they're constantly citing, they will have lost the battle and the war.
The minute that obtaining a state-issued photo ID is deemed possible, it becomes a finding of fact. The minute that finding of fact happens, Common Cause MN's and the LWV-MN's reputations will be ruined.
If Photo ID becomes part of Minnesota's Constitution, voters will have sent the message that the DFL isn't listening to the will of the people. The DFL will have sent the message that they'll ignore the will of the people despite verifiable proof that there is a voter fraud problem. Also, the DFL special interests will have said that they don't take voter fraud seriously.
That's a terrible message to send in a world riddled with ACORN-caused voter registration fraud. Simply put, it's a message that says the DFL won't listen to the will of the people on one of the biggest issues of our time.
I'd wish the DFL good luck defending that on the campaign trail this fall. I'd wish that if I didn't want them to lose, that is.
Tags: Photo ID , Common Cause MN , League of Women Voters-MN , Voter Fraud , Lawsuits , DFL , Elections
Posted Tuesday, March 27, 2012 3:02 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 27-Mar-12 09:48 AM
Yes, but would you pay fifty bucks for your photo, with Newt Gingrich?
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 27-Mar-12 02:01 PM
OK, let's make THAT a requirement to vote~! :-)
Comment 3 by Patrick at 27-Mar-12 04:18 PM
Just heard about this on the news: http://chronicle.com/blogs/headcount/act-college-board-tighten-test-security/29811?sid=pm&utm_source=pm&utm_medium=en Won't this disenfranchise some of the test takers? Can't wait for the left to scream the same battle cry as they do do in the voter photo ID issue.
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 27-Mar-12 05:11 PM
That might be a long trial when they have the 715,000 witnesses testify. Wait a minute I heard in Indiana when they made this claim the side pressing the lawsuit couldn't find a single voter who couldn't vote because of their law.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 5 by Kristin at 27-Mar-12 09:13 PM
I love the irony of the name of this blog. yeah. Let's let freedom ring and make sure that every citizen who has the right to vote is allowed to vote instead of putting up costly blocks. Let freedom ring for sure.
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Mar-12 10:13 PM
Kristin, Let's prevent illegal voters from voting. Letting illegal votes cancel out legally cast votes isn't suppression but it is disenfranchisement.
Taking the rule of law seriously is important. Without the rule of law, it's anarchy.
Comment 6 by Jethro at 27-Mar-12 11:27 PM
Well stated, Gary!
Comment 7 by Gary Gross at 28-Mar-12 02:04 AM
Thanks Jethro. I've been told that I've got a wayward way with words once in awhile.
Comment 8 by Bob J. at 28-Mar-12 09:05 AM
"Let's let freedom ring and make sure that every citizen who has the right to vote is allowed to vote instead of putting up costly blocks."
Which is exactly what photo ID does, Kristin. It makes sure that every citizen who has the legal right to vote is able to do so without fear of that vote being cancelled by fraud. And as for costly blocks, what's costlier -- the endless Coleman/Stuart Smalley recount or getting the count right the first time?
Are you sure you didn't write your post in crayon?
Should voting laws be easy or straightforward?
One of the DFL's chanting points on Photo ID is that Minnesota has a great election system because voter participation is traditionally among the highest in the nation. They then, incorrectly, attribute that to Minnesota's voting laws.
I'd argue Minnesota's voter participation rates are high because Minnesotans are that interested in politics, not because of the laws.
That's a fight that won't get settled today. There is something that should be settled ASAP. Should election laws make it easy as defined by the DFL's rules?
I'd argue that they shouldn't be. For example, the DFL insists on same day registration and vouching be part of Minnesota's election laws. There's proof that both practices make it easy for people to commit voter fraud.
I've written repeatedly about the voter fraud plan that ACT put together for the 2004 presidential election. I've written about the 10 to 13 mysterious laundromat-dwellers in Smalltown, MN who voted in 2008.
These incidents are proof that voter fraud exists as a direct result of laws that the DFL insist must be part of Minnesota's election laws. I'd argue that Minnesota's election laws be straightforward but that they should prevent the voter fraud that's currently happening.
Minnesota's election laws should make it relatively easy for legal voters to vote but that prevent voter fraud from cancelling out legally cast votes. Minnesota's election laws don't prevent voter fraud. Minnesota's election laws make it easy to commit voter fraud.
When election judge Rick Smithson testified in front of the House Local Government and Elections Committee, he said that "between 10 and 13 people" a) insisted on using same day registration and b) insisted that they lived at the local laundromat.
That's what voter fraud looks like. You don't need a Photo ID to know that these people are committing voter fraud. Unfortunately, Minnesota's laws don't allow competent election judges from preventing voter fraud. That's because Minnesota is an after-the-fact state.
Photo ID, however, would prevent those laundromat-dwellers from casting a regular ballot, then being prosecuted later after their illegal votes decided a close local election.
The election laws that the DFL insists on are safeguard-free. They're all about making voting as easy as possible. The DFL insists that voter fraud isn't happening even though there's tons of evidence that it's happening. (If you don't believe it's happening, ask Janet Beihoffer about "vapor voters" sometime. After listening to Janet's lengthy list of facts, honest people will agree voter fraud is happening in Minnesota.)
It's my opinion that there needs to be a balance between straightforward voting laws and safeguarding against voting fraud. The DFL's laws tilt only towards making it easy to vote, even if it means making voter fraud easy to commit.
That's bad policy, which is why Photo ID will pass overwhelmingly when it's put to the voters.
Tags: Same Day Registration , Vouching , Voter Fraud , DFL , Election Integrity , Photo ID , MNGOP
Posted Sunday, March 25, 2012 8:34 AM
Comment 1 by Nick at 25-Mar-12 11:52 AM
I support the general notion of photo id, but will the amendment allow people that don't have a photo id to be able to register and get their id for FREE on the day they vote?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 25-Mar-12 01:38 PM
According to the testimony given in committee & the promise Rep. Kiffmeyer made during the House floor debate, the answer to your question is definitely.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 25-Mar-12 04:14 PM
The only difference is they will receive a provisional ballot, sort of like an absentee ballot, that gets counted after we find the ID is legitimate.
Personally, I think we ought to just get rid of same-day registration altogether. You must register (with a photo ID) 30 days ahead of the election so that your ID can be verified. THEN you present a valid ID at the polling place. Solves a ton of fraud problems.
Comment 4 by Nick at 25-Mar-12 05:07 PM
J Ewing,
Getting rid of same-day registration will hurt college students, the elderly, the poor, and minorities, and will NOT solve fraud problems. Besides, who would even want to wait thirty days to get an ID just to vote? The one that the GOP is planning to put on the ballot is good in its current form since it gives people who don't have ID's free ID's when they register to vote at their polling station. Let's not be Louisiana where if you don't have an ID to vote, you have to PAY to get one, no matter your income leve.
Gary,
Thanks for answering my question.
Comment 5 by Chad Q at 25-Mar-12 09:21 PM
How does eliminating same day registration hurt anyone let alone college students? They do not permanently live at college and are not eligible to vote at college. They either need to go home and vote or get an absentee ballot. The elderly need photo ID to receive medicare benefits so that shouldn't be a problem for them either. So that leaves the poor and minorities who no matter their income level or skin color should be able to register to vote before election day.
If you can't find the time to get yourself registered then I guess voting isn't that much of a priority for you.
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 25-Mar-12 10:08 PM
Nick, there's a few things in your comment that need clarifying.
First, it doesn't take thirty days to get photo identification. According to the DMV, it takes approximately 10 business days.
Second, I wrote here of why eliminating same day registration would prevent some types of voter fraud.
We have eyewitness testimony from a veteran election judge that shows how Photo ID, combined with eliminating vouching and other forms of same day registration, will eliminate voter fraud.
With no disrespect intended, if I'm given the choice between an election judge's eyewitness testimony & your allegations, I'll pick the election judge's eyewitness testimony every time.
Comment 7 by jpreite at 26-Mar-12 10:06 AM
By all means kill same day voter registration. The people who are staffing those polls only do that job once every two years and they have enough things to remember without having to do same day registrations. Anyone who can't be bothered to register in advance has no business voting.
Comment 8 by J. Ewing at 26-Mar-12 03:17 PM
By current law you must be a resident of your precinct 30 days prior to the election. You can register when you move; you don't need to wait until election day. So now there are two challenges: 1) produce a half-dozen legitimate voters who could NOT vote under the new law, and 2) PROVE that voter fraud did NOT take place in the 2008 election. Hint: start with the 23,000 same day registrants who were flagged as ineligible after the fact,but had their votes counted anyway. Source: Star Tribune.
Comment 9 by walter hanson at 27-Mar-12 05:07 PM
Gary:
I want to disagree with the first two paragraphs in your post here.
Voter Participation rate = votes cast/number of people able to vote.
Thus the participation rate goes up with every single illegal vote that is cast. So if you can vote in two places like you have posted in the past that illegal vote drives up the participation rate.
So if you have somebody drag a voter to the polls and cast their vote for them as you have posted in the past that illegal vote drives up the participation rate.
I can go on with a couple more examples of stuff you have posted, but the point is the voter participation rate has been driven up in part because of how lax the rules are to create votes which shouldn't be cast. What's even worse Al Franken I believe is a senator today just because of illegal votes that got cast in 2008.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 9.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Mar-12 07:28 PM
Walter, It drives up the voter fraud rate. It doesn't drive up the voter participation rate. It's important that we differentiate between the two.
Comment 10 by walter hanson at 28-Mar-12 04:57 PM
Gary:
Please remember the definition is voter participation rate = VOTES CAST(Legal and illegal)/number of people able to vote.
Every fraudent vote counts as a vote cast also which drives up that participation rate even if it's .00035714% per vote cast if you assume there are 2.8 million people able to vote. Just 1000 fradulent votes (and I do believe that number is higher) increase the percentage by .35714% for a general election.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
President Obama's coal problem
When it comes to energy policy, President Obama can't talk about coal-fired power plants. According to Salena Zito's latest article , that's leading to re-election difficulties, especially in Ohio and Pennsylvania:
Today, coal still generates more than half of Pennsylvania's electrical power, according to Edward Yankovich, United Mine Workers District II vice president. "In Ohio, 80 percent," he added.
Yet it is the one energy resource about which President Obama dares not speak. In fact, Obama has not mentioned it since last year -- and then, only in passing at a news conference.
Last Thursday, in what the White House touted as his "big American-made energy" speech, the president never mentioned coal.
"That's -- that is just disappointing," said T.J. Rooney, former chairman of Pennsylvania Democrats, who oversaw several very successful election cycles for his party.
Yankovich refused to criticize Obama but suggested driving to one of Somerset County's electricity-generating windmills to see how many cars are in its parking lot. "None. None," he said. "But drive over to Homer City in Indiana County, and you will see 200 to 300 at any time of the day."
The coal-fired Homer City power plant is pretty imposing, home to the nation's second-tallest smokestack. Its owner is in the midst of proposing a $725 million pollution-abatement project, to avoid it being one of more than 100 coal-fired plants that power generators recently decided to shut down, including six in Pennsylvania, ahead of new federal clean-air rules that take effect in 2015.
U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., said we need to find a balance of wind, sun and clean coal.
"It's not just jobs, it is costs, too," he said, referring to monthly electric bills. "That last thing we need in this slow-moving economy is rising energy bills, not just at the pump but in the home as well."
In 2008, President Obama claimed an impressive victory in Pennsylvania while winning Ohio. This year, alot of polls show President Obama trailing in both states. If President Obama loses both states, he'll lose by 50-75 electoral votes. Minimum.
If I were the GOP nominee's consultant, I'd tell him to relentlessly run ads featuring President Obama's San Francisco speech in which he said his cap and trade bill would cause electricity prices to "necessarily skyrocket" the last 2 weeks of the campaign in Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Sen. Casey is in trouble because of coal, too. He's been a wimp on standing up to President Obama on coal. By comparison, Joe Manchin, D-WVA, stood up to President Obama on Cap and Trade and coal mining.
Wimps like Bob Casey shouldn't get rewarded for standing up for the people that he's supposed to represent. If you aren't a forceful leader, then you aren't representing your state.
Tags: President Obama , Cap and Trade , Coal , Pennsylvania , Ohio , Bob Casey , Joe Manchin , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, March 25, 2012 3:14 PM
No comments.
Sen. Franken, Sen. Klobuchar reject energy solutions
Sen. Klobuchar and Sen. Franken are doing their best to hide their disdain for fossil fuels. Meanwhile, the Strib's Kevin Diaz is doing his best to hide their disdain for fossil fuels :
The price of oil is spiking, and Minnesota motorists are buying gas now at nearly $4 a gallon.
With the summer driving season close at hand, and a presidential election right behind, lawmakers in Washington are scrambling for answers. Republicans in Congress have renewed their calls for more domestic oil drilling and the speedy approval of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry oil from Canada to refineries across the United States.
But Minnesota Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken, both Democrats, say they have an additional solution: Clamp down on oil speculators .
I don't doubt that speculators have something to do with driving up oil prices. I'm certain that President Obama's trillion dollar deficits are driving oil prices higher by driving gold prices higher.
Ultimately, though, President Obama's failed energy policies are what's driving gas prices soaring. President Obama's insistence on funding failures like Solyndra, coupled with his hostility towards fossil fuels, are driving prices higher.
Klobuchar and Franken have just introduced a long-shot bill to limit "excessive speculation." The term, which has so far eluded a precise definition, re-opens a volatile election-year debate about the true causes of rising gas prices.
This is the type of non-solution BS that Minnesota voters should expect from Sen. Klobuchar and Sen. Franken. Not only does their legislation not fix the underlying problem. It's wording is so vague that it defies definition.
If Sen. Klobuchar and Sen. Franken aren't willing to think this through long enough to even give "excessive speculation" a definition, then it isn't legislation that should be taken seriously. It should be viewed as a PR stunt, something that Sen. Klobuchar is an expert at.
Neither Sen. Klobuchar or Sen. Franken will admit this but increasing oil production will lower gas prices :
NEWT GINGRICH: It's a funny thing. They've asked the Saudi Arabians to pump alot more oil. Dr. Chu, the Secretary of Energy, said that he was grateful that they were going to do it. He said he hoped it would drive down prices. So apparently, drilling in Saudi Arabia is fine. Paying the Saudis billions of dollars is fine. Having the royalties go to the Saudis is fine. It's the Americans that Obama doesn't want to help.
If Sen. Klobuchar and Sen. Franken won't be honest with Minnesotans about gas prices, why should Minnesotans trust them about anything?
Sen. Klobuchar hasn't done a thing to show she's for fossil fuels. Neither has Sen. Franken. Until they do, Minnesotans should expect them to do nothing substantive to lower gas prices.
Tags: Gas , High Prices , Amy Klobuchar , Al Franken , Steven Chu , Democrats , Newt Gingrich , Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less , GOP
Posted Monday, March 26, 2012 2:00 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 27-Mar-12 05:14 PM
Gary:
Before we laugh at their solution keep in mind Bill O'Reilly who is known for being a conservative pundit has made that point more then once that it's a problem!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Daschle's wrong-headed thinking exposed
Tom Daschle's op-ed on the fate of O'Care is carefully crafted spin. Not that that's surprising from a man with tax avoidance issues. In a sense, that should be expected. Here's how Sen. Daschle frames the O'Care-SCOTUS debate:
With hearings starting Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to deliver a pivotal decision that will profoundly affect the future of our country. At stake is whether millions of Americans can have greater access to affordable health care coverage or whether the nation's health care system will be plagued by uncertainty, imbalance and spiraling costs.
The justices are to rule on a critical element of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the now two-year old, groundbreaking health care reform law. They will determine whether Congress has the authority, under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, to mandate that every U.S. citizen must buy health insurance.
This is what happens when politicians stay in DC way too long. They start thinking that the American people can't think for themselve, that they're incapable of telling markets what they want.
The real debate isn't over whether O'Care is the solution to our imagined health insurance crisis. It's whether the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government the authority to dictate its priorities onto the people it purports to serve.
Let's cut to the chase. The U.S. Constitution doesn't give the federal government that authority. Whatever the Supreme Court's ruling, that's the reality.
If the Supreme Court rules that O'Care is constitutional, it will have ruled that there's nothing the federal government can't force people to do. In the end, I suspect that's why they'll rule the individual and employer mandates unconstitutional.
Sen. Daschle couldn't resist making this phony argument:
The only real question, in fact, is whether we have an individual mandate, one that requires individual responsibility, which I always thought was claimed as a conservative value, or we have a community mandate.
This isn't a real question. It's Sen. Daschle's way of exposing his disdain for the Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers would've cringed at the thought of the federal government getting involved in the most intimate parts of people's lives.
When the federal government imposes its priorities on the people it's supposed to represent, it loses legitimacy. The Tenth Amendment says that those things not outlined in the Ninth Amendment belong to "the states or the people." President Obama and Sen. Daschle apparently don't like that part of the Bill of Rights. Apparently, they're willing to willfully ignore parts of the Constitution and its amendments.
That's known as tyranny, which must be stopped ASAP.
Sen. Dashle implies that O'Care will fix all that ails the U.S. health insurance industry. It does nothing of the sort. It makes things worse by telling insurance companies what types of coverage must be included in insurance policies.
Here's a glimpse at a total fabrication:
Congress was well aware of the experience of these states and knew that the insurance market reforms at the heart of improving coverage under this new act are inextricably linked to a mandate that requires all of us to take responsibility for our health.
If "Congress was well aware" that required a mandate to fix the health insurance industry, why did then-candidate Obama oppose individual and employer mandates?
The truth is that Sen. Daschle is spinning like a top. There isn't a morsel of truth in his op-ed.
Tags: SCOTUS , Obamacare , Mandates , Tyranny , Tom Daschle , Democrats , Founding Fathers , Tenth Amendment , Constitution
Posted Monday, March 26, 2012 8:31 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 26-Mar-12 12:51 PM
Isn't Daschle's lobbying livelihood getting in the way of any objective views one might expect of him, and isn't he by that disqualified from being anybody's pundit for any argument? He took the money. He represented parties with interests at stake.
Dashle's a straw-man, but Gary, good luck in finding anyone without a cash stake in the question.
Comment 2 by eric z at 26-Mar-12 12:53 PM
A quick question. You don't call it Romneycare.
Is that a concession of sorts, to the inevitable?
Just wondering. Even Pawlenty could think to call it O'Romneycare, but then backed down since he's seeking Veep.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 26-Mar-12 02:07 PM
I don't call it Romneycare because that isn't who the lawsuit was filed against. Nothing more, nothing less.
Obama-appointed judge takes Obama's EPA to the woodshed
It's a great day in America, albeit a rare one, when an Obama-appointed judge limits the power of President Obama's EPA, then mocks the EPA for its institutional arrogance. According to Don Surber's post , that's precisely what happened:
First and foremost, EPA's interpretation fails because it is illogical and impractical. EPA claims that it is not revoking a permit, something it does not have the authority to do, because it is only withdrawing a specification. Yet EPA simultaneously insists that its withdrawal of the specification effectively nullifies the permit. To explain how this would be accomplished in the absence of any statutory provision or even any regulation that details the effect that EPA's belated action would have on an existing permit, EPA resorts to magical thinking. It posits a scenario involving the automatic self-destruction of a written permit issued by an entirely separate federal agency after years of study and consideration. Poof! Not only is this nonrevocation revocation logistically complicated, but the possibility that it could happen would leave permittees in the untenable position of being unable to rely upon the sole statutory touchstone for measuring their Clean Water Act compliance: the permit.
It is further unreasonable to sow a lack of certainty into a system that was expressly intended to provide finality. Indeed, this concern prompted a number of amici to take up their pens and submit briefs to the Court. They argued that eliminating finality from the permitting process would have a significant economic impact on the construction industry, the mining industry, and other 'aggregate operators,' because lenders and investors would be less willing to extend credit and capital if every construction project involving waterways could be subject to an open-ended risk of cancellation.
The EPA's ruling is dripping with disdain for parts of the private sector. It's apparent that the EPA hates coal and the companies that mine for it. It's apparent, too, that Lisa Jackson's EPA thinks it's empowered to run roughshod over industries it doesn't like.
This lawsuit is finished. The EPA can appeal the ruling to higher courts but this lawsuit is finished. When a judge rules that there's no authority in any of the statutes that supports the EPA's actions, that isn't likely to get overturned.
What's even better is that this coal-mining company might be eligible for compensation from the Equal Access to Justice Act since they proved their case. If they qualify for EAJA compensation, it means they'd get their legal bills paid by the federal government.
It's a great day for justice in America.
Tags: EPA , Overreach , Permitting , Lisa Jackson , Democrats , Rule of Law , Judiciary
Posted Monday, March 26, 2012 2:24 PM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 27-Mar-12 12:29 PM
"If they qualify for EAJA compensation, it means they'd get their legal bills paid by the federal government."
Which means, by us ... but you're right. This ruling is most welcome.
