May 1, 2011
May 01 10:25 Photo ID Opposition Op-ed Makes Flimsy Arguments May 01 17:20 Extreme Government Overreach May 01 22:21 BREAKING NEWS: Bin Laden DEAD!!!
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Photo ID Opposition Op-ed Makes Flimsy Arguments
This Strib op-ed in opposition to a Photo ID constitutional amendment is filled with the DFL's usual fear tactics and faulty statistics. Here's a sample:
Those are faulty assumptions. Republican sponsors of "voter ID" bills cite one state agency's estimate that 140,000 Minnesotans lack a valid driver's license or state-issued ID card.
That number has been challenged as too low by the bills' opponents, who point to a recent national survey that found that 11 percent of U.S. citizens do not have up-to-date government-issued photo identification. In Minnesota, 11 percent of the voting-age population is 440,000 people.
I'd question the op-ed writer's statistics. If 11% of the voting-age population is 440,000 people, that means that 4,000,000 people in Minnesota are of voting age. That seems highly unlikely in a state whose population is 5,303,928. For that to be right, 76% of all Minnesotans would have to be adults.
This is one of the tactics that the left uses when trying to stop Photo ID bills. In testimony for the Crawford v. Marion County Election Board lawsuit, the Indiana Democratic Party argued that "as many as 989,000" Indiana adults lacked a government-issued identification card or drivers license.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote this in his majority opinion:
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. 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.
According to 2010 Census Data, Indiana has a population of 6,483,802, almost 1,200,000 more people than Minnesota. It's impossible to believe that Minnesota has 11 times as many adults who don't have a drivers license or state-issued identification card as Indiana has.
Simply put, the statistics in this "recent national survey" aren't trustworthy.
Why should anyone think that a state with an engaged citizenry like Minnesota would have dramatically more people who don't have drivers licenses or state-issued identification cards than a substantially bigger state like Indiana?
Those who believe that a photo ID requirement would prevent voter fraud are also mistaken. It would have no impact on the only kind of illegal voting seen with any frequency in Minnesota, voting by felons on probation whose civil rights have yet to be restored. Nothing revealed on their driver's licenses would deny them a ballot.
Actually, this isn't accurate, either. Prior to the 2008 election, KMSP-TV's Tom Lyden found out some interesting, troubling things :
On November 3rd of 2008, the day before the General Election, KMSP TV aired a story about convicted felons on the voter registration rolls. Tom Lyden reported that he had found about 100 felons newly registered to vote. One of them was inexplicably registered while still in prison. Lyden brought his findings to Secretary Ritchie, who said he was aware of 26 ineligible felons who had registered to vote and he offered his assurances that the felons problem would be addressed.
It's troubling that a felon still in prison would be allowed to register to vote. That isn't accidental. I'd argue that it's proof of the voter fraud machine's arrogance.
I won't argue that Photo ID is the silver bullet cure for eliminating voter fraud. I'd argue, though, that it'd stop vouching voting fraud immediately.
Let's return to that 140,000 figure for a moment. While I'm skeptical of that figure, let's use it for this argument. Of those who don't have a drivers license or state-issued identification card, how many couldn't get the proper identification? Would 10% of that phony figure say that they won't get the proper photo identification? That means that fewer than 15,000 voting age-eligible people wouldn't get photo ID. Not can't. Wouldn't.
It's noteworthy that the DFL's allies aren't arguing this constitutional amendment makes it impossible for the young, the old and the poor to comply with the new law. They're arguing that it'd make compliance more difficult, not impossible.
The next question worth asking is what substantive arguments these organizations would make:
Instead, a number of election administrators past and present vigorously oppose voter ID bills. So do the League of Women Voters, the American Civil Liberties Union, Common Cause, and several dozen advocacy groups for the poor and elderly.
When voices with their credibility about elections say a unanimous "no," Minnesotans ought to be on notice: This idea is worse than it seems.
These organizations argue that this constitutional amendment would make it more difficult. Doesn't it make sense to make it easier for Minnesotans who have functioned without a photo ID or drivers license obtain a photo ID?
I'd argue, too, that Minnesotans should worry about the credibility of the League of Women Voters, the American Civil Liberties Union and Common Cause on this issue. They've made the allegation that "this idea is worse than it seems" without offering concrete proof verifying their statement.
Considering the amount of verifiable information that proves that substantial amounts of voter fraud exists, this shouldn't be a difficult decision. We need photo ID. We also need greater oversight of the SecState's office.
Based on the numbers of felons who weren't scrubbed from the active voter list, shouldn't we scrutinize his operations more closely? Apparently, Mr. Ritchie hasn't put a high priority on keeping the SVRS updated, something that HAVA requires him to do.
Posted Sunday, May 1, 2011 10:25 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 01-May-11 02:52 PM
Gary:
If it's unfair to ask for ID to vote why does the government tell people to produce ID to buy cigarettes? Why are people in the liquor industry forced to ask for ID?
Um so you have a tougher standard for those things than to vote. It seems only fair to ask for the same standard to vote?
And doesn't the bill have a provision where you can get an ID to vote?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 01-May-11 08:07 PM
The question is not how many people lack an ID right now, but how many people would be "unduly burdened" by having to get one, since they are FREE under the bill? In other states, opponents of voter ID have been unable to find anybody with the "standing"-- deprived of the right to vote-- to challenge the law. That's a number pretty close to zero.
Comment 3 by Lee at 01-May-11 11:56 PM
So assume the bill's sponsors are correct that there are 140,000 people who would need voter ID cards. And let's assume that they could be produced for $10 per person. Are we really willing to add $1.4 million to the state's budget problem when there have been no recorded instances of improper voting that would have been prevented by a photo ID law?
Isn't that a lot like adding $1.4 million to the budget for increased government regulation?
I think I want to see some instances of the problem before I decide to spend that kind of money. And I am thinking that IF we find those instances, I would also like to know if the perpetrators are being prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 02-May-11 12:28 AM
First, only an idiot thinks that a photo ID costs $10 per person. Try $2.50 per person at maximum. Second, that's assuming that 140,000 people don't have photo identification, which I don't believe for a split second. I'm thinking that that number is closer to 25,000-35,000. Isn't that alot like a maximum of $100,000?
What you call increased government regulation, I'd call common sense precautions that protect one of the most sacred things in American society, namely, election integrity. And yes, I'm willing to spend $100,000 per biennium on election integrity.
As for wanting to see some instances of the problems it'd solve, I'll highlight this attempted voter fraud that Photo ID would've stopped dead in its tracks.
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 02-May-11 01:54 AM
Lee:
In order not to have ID now a days you have to be:
* A nondrinker (that's good)
* A nonsmoker (that's good)
* Being given cash from people since you never try to deposit a check pay with checks or credit cards.
* Don't drive.
* Living in a tent since you don't have a house or an apartment (you haveto show ID for that)
I think there is way les than 140,000. After all when another state's democrat party tried to object to the law they couldn't find a single person who couldn't vote because of the law even though they said thousands couldn't vote.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 5 by Dan McGrath at 02-May-11 09:41 AM
They keep saying that the voter ID bills won't stop ineligible voters, like felons - this is a flat-out lie. HF210, SF509 and the constitutional amendment ALL ensure that ineligible voters don't get a ballot - this is accomplished by a verification process currently in law, but expanded to include election day registrants in the amendment and a combination of that process and new methods in HF210/SF509.
Strib editors should read the bills they are opining about. Irresponsible of them to publish this demonstrably false information.
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 02-May-11 12:06 PM
Dan, The point I've consistently made, one which Rep. Kiffmeyer agrees with, is that Photo ID eliminates the fraud opportunities within the vouching system.
As for the felons voting fraud issue, that might be solved in part by Photo ID but it's also solved in large part by a SecState that puts a priority on updating the SVRS, which he's required to do under the HAVA of 2003. If the SVRS was properly updated on a timely basis, alot of these felons would be denied a ballot.
Finally, thanks for the pioneering work Minnesota Majority has done in investigating voting fraud allegations. At least we have someone who's the voters' watchdog.
Extreme Government Overreach
There's no arguing that the NLRB has run amok. This Detroit News op-ed highlights their argument:
The NLRB issued the complaint on behalf of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Union. The government agency said Boeing was moving part of its production away from Washington State in retaliation for previous strikes by some Boeing workers. The [NLRB]'s lawyer agued that this limits the union's right to strike, which is illegal.
That's a flimsy argument that's refuted in this paragraph:
The NLRB's argument that Boeing's move deprives the union of the right to strike is absurd. Yes, union workers have the right to strike. But they don't have a right to escape the consequences of striking, which is that an employer may be persuaded to open up shop elsewhere, including in right-to-work states such as South Carolina.
The NLRB is overreaching, thanks in part to Craig Becker's being Big Labor's advocate while being a corrupt advocate for Big Labor's agenda. Here's how corrupt and radical Mr. Becker is:
As National Legal and Policy Center has noted more than once, Becker argued in a 1993 labor law journal article that employers ought to have no legally enforceable "cognizable" interest in the outcome of union organizing drives and elections.
Moreover, in the same piece, he stated that unions should have a right to represent workers even without majority support. "Just as U.S. citizens cannot opt out against having a congressman," he wrote, "workers should not be able to choose against having a union as their monopoly-bargaining agent."
That's pretty radical. The thought that Becker thinks that workers shouldn't "be able to choose against having a union" represent them is significantly beyond radical. That's outright corrupt. It doesn't have any connection with centrist policymaking. This explains everything on why the NLRB is arguing that Boeing shouldn't be allowed to decide on building a high-tech production plant in a right-to-work state.
Here's more from the Detroit News op-ed:
If the NLRB complaint is upheld in the courts, it will ultimately damage not only the firms that will then be held hostage to their unions, but all heavily unionized states such as Michigan.
What new firm would invest in Michigan knowing that its union could then block its expansion to a less unionized state such as Tennessee or Alabama? The better course would be to start a new firm in a right-to-work state from the beginning.
This is an exceptionally foolish tactic for the unions to adopt. Questionably, it's a short term gain and a guaranteed mid- and long-term loss for the unions.
The reality is that the unions' thug tactics, whether it's in Wisconsin or Michigan or whether it's using the NLRB, aren't popular. Couple that with the union's death threats and it's pretty understandable why unions aren't popular with independents.
Until the unions stop acting like thugs, they'll remain unpopular. Rulings like the NLRB's crazy power grab attempt won't help their cause.
Posted Sunday, May 1, 2011 5:20 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Quigley at 01-May-11 07:39 PM
If I'm boeing and lose in the courts, I shut shop in the US and move overseas. How would the unions feel when they lose all the jobs? They will cut off their nose to spite their face. What morons.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 01-May-11 08:27 PM
Chad, That's EXACTLY my point!!!
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 01-May-11 09:20 PM
Gary:
Lets not forget that Boeing tried to make a deal to guarantee no strikes. The union refused to make the deal.
So their position is actually if the business asks you not to strike and you say no there is no possible penalty.
Um I don't think there's a winning or 50-50 position for the business. And the Obama administation still doesn't understand why businesses won't hire.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Walter Hanson
BREAKING NEWS: Bin Laden DEAD!!!
CBS news is reporting that Osama bin Laden's dead body is in U.S. hands. Here's what CBS is reporting :
The founder and spiritual figurehead for al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, is dead.
Several officials confirmed the report to CBS News, and say that his body is currently in U.S. hands.
CBS News correspondent David Martin reports that bin Laden was killed by forces in Afghanistan.
The long-lost terrorist mastermind had eluded an aggressive hunt by U.S. authorities for nearly ten years since the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. on Sept. 11, 2001.
Former State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said on Twitter: "#BinLaden's death does not eliminate the threat from #alQaeda, but it is hard to see anyone playing the same organizational role he did."
Congratulations to the CIA for first gathering actionable intelligence, then acting on that intelligence. Congratulations to President Obama for approving the military mission that led to bin Laden's death.
Now is a time to celebrate the death of the world's most cold-hearted terrorist. Congratulations to everyone involved.
UPDATE: Jim at Gatewaypundit has some explosive news on bin Laden's compound:
Osama's compound was across the street from a police station and a Pakistani government graduate college.
Osama bin Laden's compound was 8 times as big as any structure in the area. It stuck out like a sore thumb.
This removes all doubt on whether local Pakistanis were committed to bin Laden or to the Pakistani government.
Originally posted Sunday, May 1, 2011, revised 02-May 4:42 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 02-May-11 01:49 AM
Gary:
I'm glad that Bin Laden is dead, but he was killed in Pakistan not Afghanistan.
Of course the man wasn't hiding in a cave. You think that some person in Pakistan would've figured that out earlier.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
