November 8-10, 2010
Nov 08 07:51 Politicians Beware Nov 08 09:50 Larry Jacobs Defending the Indefensible Nov 08 11:07 Stopping Obamacare Before It's Implemented Nov 08 18:38 GOP Gains Run Deep Nov 08 22:32 Interviewing the Winners: Chip Cravaack Nov 09 18:56 Constitutionalism: Making a BIG Comeback Nov 09 23:29 DFL/Union Storyline Emerging Nov 10 09:12 Ritchie's Conflict of Interest, SOSP's Radicalism Exposed
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Politicians Beware
If there's anything that politicians should understand following this election, it's that not listening to the people has a steep price attached to it. That's the central theme in Frank Luntz's Washington Post op-ed . This 5-point agenda should get every politician's undivided attention:
(1) Balance the budget as quickly as possible through meaningful spending reductions, a hard spending cap and a constitutional amendment so that it never gets unbalanced again.
(2) Eliminate all earmarks until the budget is balanced, then require a two-thirds vote by Congress for future earmark legislation.
3) Keep taxes down by requiring supermajorities for increases, and eventually enact tax reform with a simple, low, fair rate that drastically reduces the length of the IRS code.
(4) Create a blue-ribbon task force that engages in a complete, line-by-line forensic audit of federal agencies and programs to end waste and reduce red tape and bureaucracy.
(5) And require Congress to provide specific constitutional authorization for every bill it passes so that the government stays within the boundaries imagined by the founders.
In short, the American people want fiscal accountability, fiscal sanity, limited government and certification that government isn't spending the taxpayers' money foolishly.
Legislatively, that's what we demand of our politicians. Here's something equally important to keeping people pleased:
Voters want their representatives home in their districts and holding monthly town halls. The worst strategic mistake House Democrats made this year was canceling scores of public meetings, denying their constituents the chance to be heard. Hell hath no fury like a voter silenced, so the voters spoke in unison on Election Day.
This isn't rocket science. People got upset with Washington for not listening. If I had a dollar for every time people said that "Washington thinks they know better than I do" or some variation thereof, I'd be rich. This isn't going away, either. It's getting stronger.
When politicians ignore the people who will vote on lengthening or ending their political career, they're acting foolishly. We The People demand better than that. We demand accountability. The only way a politician can be accountable is by supplying intellectually coherent answers.
What's interesting about that 5-point plan is its origin:
These points come directly from the tea-party-backed "Contract From America," a document compiled from and voted on by the various tea party organizations and promoted by FreedomWorks, a conservative advocacy group. This governing agenda is supported not only by conservatives, but also by largely nonideological, anti-political voters in the middle.
It's time to step beyond what I'm calling 'the politics of sniping'. Soundbite answers aren't answers; they're just sniping. The TEA Party movement has more well-informed, energetic people in it than previous political movements because it's a serious movement brought together by foundational principles that transcend political affiliations.
Michael Barone's column offers a picture well worth considering:
When the tea party movement first made itself heard, Speaker Nancy Pelosi dismissed it as "Astroturf," a phony organization financed by a few millionaires. She may have been projecting, those union demonstrators you see at Democratic events or heckling Republicans are often paid by the hour.
In any case, the depth and the breadth of Republican victories in state legislative races, even more than their gain of 60-plus seats in the U.S. House and six seats in the Senate, shows that the tea party movement was a genuine popular upheaval of vast dimensions. Particularly in traditional blue-collar areas, voters rejected longtime Democrats or abandoned lifelong partisan allegiances and elected Republicans.
It's revealing that Speaker Pelosi's spin has been exposed. It's important that the union leadership's tactics have been exposed too. By comparison, the TEA Party movement stands as the gold standard in terms of motivation for the policies and principles they advocate.
That's why TEA Party principles are being adopted by more politicians by the day. Like Dr. Luntz said, TEA Party principles are genuinely mainstreet principles. I'd further add that they're the most appealing principles in the political world.
Posted Monday, November 8, 2010 7:51 AM
No comments.
Larry Jacobs Defending the Indefensible
Sunday morning, Larry Jacobs of the Humphrey Institute attempted to defend his polling showing Sen. Dayton with a double-digit lead. The final MPR/Humphrey Institute poll showed Sen. Dayton with a 41-29 percent lead over Tom Emmer. A previous MPR-Humphrey Institute poll showed Dayton with a 38 percent to 27 percent lead. Here's how Jacobs defended the MPR/Humphrey Institute poll:
JACOBS: Well, you know, a poll is nothing more than a snapshot in time. We've begun the interviewing nearly 2 weeks before election day. Barack Obama visited and we talked openly about the fact that this would likely change. There are, of course, all kinds of other factors that happened at the end, including the fact the almost 1 out of 5 undecided voters in our poll started to make up their mind.
The other thing to remember is that there were alot of other polls being conducted that showed the race closing at the time, something we were watching at the time, also.
Frankly, Jacobs had it wrong almost from the outset. The MPR/Humphrey Institute polling during the DFL primary campaign was similarly pathetic :
A new Minnesota Public Radio News/Humphrey Institute poll shows former Sen. Mark Dayton with a comfortable lead over the other two candidates competing in the DFL gubernatorial primary.
The poll also found that if the general election were held right now, Dayton might have a slight edge, but it would be a toss-up regardless of which Democrat ends up taking on Republican candidate Rep. Tom Emmer.
The poll of 701 Minnesota adults, which was taken May 13-May 16, shows Dayton is the favorite among likely DFL primary voters by a 10-point margin: 38 percent to 28 percent over House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher.
When the dust settled at the end of the primary, Dayton emerged with a slim 6,971 vote win over Speaker Kelliher .
It isn't that I think Professor Jacobs is corrupt. I think he's simply incompetent. By comparison, the KSTP-SurveyUSA polling was right on the money all year.
If it's true that polls are nothing more than a snapshot in time of the political leanings of the people, I'd suggest that Professor Jacobs cleans off the lens to his 'camera' ASAP because the pictures his polls took look horrific.
As a taxpayer, if my money is being used for polling, which it is both through MPR and the Humphrey Institute, then I have the right to demand that the money be spent wisely. Paying for polling that's wildly inaccurate isn't spending money wisely.
Posted Monday, November 8, 2010 9:50 AM
No comments.
Stopping Obamacare Before It's Implemented
The New England Journal of Medicine, aka the NEJM, just published a guide to killing Obamacare before it's implemented :
A more serious possibility is that ACA opponents could deliver on another pledge: to cut off funding for implementation. Here is how such a process could work.
Customarily, substantive legislation "authorizes" spending, but the funds to be spent must be separately "appropriated." The ACA contains 64 specific authorizations to spend up to $105.6 billion and 51 general authorizations to spend "such sums as are necessary" over the period between 2010 and 2019. None of these funds will flow, however, unless Congress enacts specific appropriation bills. In addition, section 1005 of the ACA appropriated $1 billion to support the cost of implementation in the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). This sum is a small fraction of the $5 billion to $10 billion that the Congressional Budget Office estimates the federal government will require between 2010 and 2019 to implement the ACA.
This is a fight Republicans should relish fighting. By funding things with bipartisan support, Republicans can keep public opinion on their side.
The ACA appropriated nothing for the Internal Revenue Service, which must collect the information needed to compute subsidies and pay them. The ACA also provides unlimited funding for grants to states to support the creation of health insurance exchanges (section 1311). But states will also incur substantially increased administrative costs to enroll millions of newly eligible Medicaid beneficiaries.
Without large additional appropriations, plementation will be crippled.
That's music to my ears. This is, too:
If ACA opponents gain a majority in either house of Congress, they could not only withhold needed appropriations but also bar the use of whatever funds are appropriated for ACA implementation, including the implementation of the provisions requiring individual people to buy insurance or businesses to offer it. They could bar the use of staff time for designing rules for implementation or for paying subsidies to support the purchase of insurance. They could even bar the DHHS from writing or issuing regulations or engaging in any other federal activity related to the creation of health insurance exchanges, even though the ACA provides funds for the DHHS to make grants to the states to set up those exchanges.
That would set the stage for a high-stakes game of political "chicken." The president could veto an appropriation bill containing such language. Congress could refuse to pass appropriation bills without such language. Failure to appropriate funds would lead to a partial government shutdown.
In 1994, leaders of the Republican Congress who pursued a similar tactic during the Clinton administration lost the ensuing public-relations war. In the current environment, however, one cannot be certain how political blame, or credit, for such a governmental closure would be apportioned or which side would blink first.
If Paul Ryan, Dave Camp, Mike Pence, Tom Price and Michael Burgess are used in explaining the conservative alternative to Obamacare while highlighting points of agreement, Republicans can definitely win this fight.
It's important that Republicans fight Obamacare on twin tracks, first by not funding the items outlined in this NEJM article, then also seeking a SCOTUS ruling that kills the bill entirely.
It's important to remember that more people favor repeal of the bill than oppose repeal. However, Rasmussen polling shows that people don't want the bill repealed in one shot, prefering to take it a step at a time.
Posted Monday, November 8, 2010 11:07 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 08-Nov-10 03:14 PM
The best tack here would be for Republicans to point out that Obamacare actually costs far more than was originally promised, that it raises taxes and cuts Medicare, and that costs are already going UP instead of down, with AARP insurance rates being but the latest and most jaw-dropping example. That way, it isn't just about Obamacare, but a matter of fiscal responsibility. We HAVE to shut this down, it's too expensive for governments, for employers, and for everybody concerned.
GOP Gains Run Deep
This past Saturday, I watched the Journal Editorial Report on FNC. As with most weekly shows, JER focused on analyzing how deep the GOP gains were. According to moderator Paul Gigot, Republicans gained 680 state legislative seats in last Tuesday's elections.
According to their map, Republicans control both houses of their state legislatures in 25 states. Here's the list of states where Republicans control both houses of the legislature:
Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Michigan, Indiana, Alabama, Ohio, Georgia, Florida, Maine, Pennsylvania, North and South Carolina and New Hampshire
I'm relatively certain that Florida, Texas, Georgia and the Carolinas will gain seats in the next six weeks. With Republicans controlling both houses of the legislature and the governorships in those states, that's a huge advantage going forward.
This Politico article offers a preliminary look at which states gain or lose House seats:
A new estimate of House reapportionment gains and losses resulting from this year's Census reveals a larger-than-expected impact on Florida and New York. According to Washington-based Election Data Services, which reviewed new Census data from a private-sector demographic firm, Florida would gain two House seats and New York would lose two seats.
They would join two other states that already were projected to have multiple-seat changes. Based on the tentative Census data, Texas is expected to gain four House seats and Ohio likely will lose two seats.
According to the EDS estimate, six other states each would gain one seat: Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington. Eight states would each lose one seat: Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
In addition to the Florida and New York changes, the other major switch in the projected reapportionment is that Missouri will lose a House seat instead of Minnesota, according to EDS President Kimball Brace. He released the study for a redistricting seminar of the National Conference of State Legislature in Providence, Rhode Island, this weekend.
Based on the 2008 election results, states that Obama carried will lose 15 EV's. That's before factoring in the likely return of Ohio and Florida to the GOP column. In 2012, Ohio and Florida account for 47 EV's. All totalled, President Obama has lost 61 EV's just on these shifts. That's before factoring in the likelihood of him losing Virginia and North Carolina, worth another 28 EV's.
In 2008, President Obama collected 365 EV's. Subtracting 89 EV's from that total still gives him 276 EV's as a base, leaving him with no margin for error for re-election.
The GOP gains made in state legislatures and governorships strengthen Republicans going forward, with the additional bonus of making President Obama's re-election significantly more difficult.
Democrats' spin about what Tuesday's results meant were predictable. Still, the depth of progress in terms of state legislative seats gained, legislatures controlled and governorships in GOP control tells a story Democrats likely don't want to discuss anytime soon.
Originally posted Monday, November 8, 2010, revised 02-Dec 11:49 AM
No comments.
Interviewing the Winners: Chip Cravaack
This afternoon, I interviewed Chip Cravaack, getting his first post-victory interview. What became clear right from the outset is that Chip intends on representing all of the Eighth District by leaving his own imprint on the district.
Almost immediately, Chip brought up how important mining is to the Eighth District and to Minnesota. It's Chip's hope to be put on the Natural Resources Commmittee so he can help streamline the federal side of the permitting process so companies like PolyMet can go from the idea stage to production in a timely manner without sacrificing environmental concerns.
One thing I asked Chip about was when he knew that the Iron Range would be friendly to him. I prefaced it by talking about Chip's competing for a union endorsement the Monday before the State Fair started. Chip said that that endorsement meeting was at the Minorca Mining facility near Aurora.
Chip said that he knew then that he could compete, citing a close 28-25 loss to Rep. Oberstar in the endorsement fight. On September 9, after the State Fair, Chip knew for certain that the "Range was on fire." Chip said that they held a townhall meeting in Virginia that day, attracting over 400 people to the event.
Chip also praised Michele Bachmann for a meeting she held at the GOP State Convention, in which she told the endorsed candidates to "be bold." Chip said that he took that to heart immediately by immediately heading to the Iron Range and the Arrowhead immediately after the Convention. It was that conversation that steered him towards campaigning where few Republicans had campaigned before.
While touring the Minorca mine in Aurora, Chip met Steve Biondich, whom I wrote about in this post :
Steve Biondich, a 29-year-old maintenance mechanic at the ArcelorMittal Minorca Mine near Aurora, said the United Steelworkers local usually endorses Oberstar as a routine matter. It did again this year, but the August vote was closer than expected after Cravaack visited the mine.
"That was shocking in itself," Biondich said.
I confirmed with Chip that that's when the aforementioned 28-25 vote happened. In hindsight, it's apparent that that's when the bonds between Chip and the union rank-and-file started developing strong bonds of support.
Another thing that helped Chip win this election was campaigning on his opposition to the ACCWA bill his opponent sponsored. By highlighting the potential for a federal land grab contained in the bill, Chip was able to stand with the people of the Eighth District.
One thing Chip talked about without me asking about was the fact that the enormity of his and his team's accomplishment was just starting to become real for him. Chip said that alot of responsibility comes with the accomplishment. Chip mentioned that Republicans have been given a second chance, which is, rightfully, a standard meme these days with Republicans.
I told Chip that each time the GOP House Conference did right by the principles it was elected on, the American people likely would move them one step closer to the end of their probation. Chip thought that was a great perspective on the situation Republicans find themselves in vs. the potential for success.
I'm confident that Chip will do a great job representing the entire Eighth District because he's taking the right steps in creating a relationship with his constituents.
In fact, listenig to his constituents was an important part of his election success.
Good luck, Chip. You rock.
Originally posted Monday, November 8, 2010, revised 05-Aug 11:07 AM
No comments.
Constitutionalism: Making a BIG Comeback
It's been apparent to anyone who's paid attention that the foundational concepts of federalism and constitutionalism are staging a ferocious comeback, thanks in large part to the TEA Party movement. Greta's show Monday night focused heavily on the health care lawsuits in Virginia and Florida. Here's a transcript of Griff Jenkins' interview of Attorneys General Ken Cuccinelli, Jon Bruning and plus Attorney General-elect Pam Bondi of Florida:
BONDI: Well, we're so excited based on the election results and now we're seeing that Wisconsin can now hopefully join in, do a motion to intervene or file their own lawsuit. There are so many possibilities out there and Ken and I have been talking constantly because we see a parallel lawsuit going in Virginia so our goal is to have a majority of the states involved in this and to show the federal government that we're going to fight back.
GRIFF: Your new governor, Governor-elect Scott Walker, what has he said to about this lawsuit?
J.B. VAN HOLLEN: He said that on his first day in office, he will walk across the hallway in the Capitol and hand me the letter giving me the authority to bring this suit.
GRIFF: Do you feel that Nebraskans want to repeal this health care? Take me to the people you're hearing from.
JON BRUNING: I don't think there's any doubt that Nebraskans want to repeal the health care law. The Cornhusker Kickback was embarrassing to Nebraskans, the whole way it was passed and the unconscienable expansion of federal power and the costs to Nebraskans. I mean, little Nebraskans, it's gonna cost us $500,000,000 over the next ten years.
GRIFF: Is it your sense that the most likely vehicle to derail this legislation is with the states?
KEN CUCCINELLI: Oh yeah. These cases are absolutely the best shot until January 21, 2013, because the president will veto any attempt to repeal effort, not to say that it shouldn't happen because it should but I think even alot of Democrats regret their votes.
GRIFF: Are you guys complying with the legislation? Are you moving forward to do things like setting up these state exchanges and other things while you...
KEN CUCCINELLI: Virginia is one of the states that isn't setting up an exchange but my governor doesn't have much option except to move forward under the compulsion of the law because it is a law until we get it enjoined.
GRIFF: How much of the health care lawsuits are political and how much are states truly fighting for themselves on a legal matter?
JON BRUNING: Well, I think it's both. It's a legal matter. As everyone has mentioned, from a constitutional standpoint, this is a travesty. I mean, Congress has come to a point where they can force us, if this bill stands, to buy solar panels or to buy a greener car. I'd have to get rid of my Suburban that I carry my family around in if Congress deems it so. That's problematic.
It's political because it's an unprecedented expansion of government. We're now in an era, during President Obama's time in office, where the federal government has gotten so big that it's unsustainable.
GRIFF: Ms. Bondi?
PAM BONDI: Yeah, I just won an election. I've been all over the state of Florida and I can tell you that Democrats and Republicans alike do not like this. They know it and understand it is unconstitutional.
GRIFF: Why not sit down with the President and let's rethink this? Would you guys be up for that?
CUCCINELLI: Obeying the Constitution is not negotiable.
These 3 Attorneys general and one Attorney General-elect are fighting to give states the opportunity to operate in the manner that our Founding Fathers intended states to live by. In short, they're doing their jobs admirably.
Gen. Cuccinelli laid it out perfectly when he said that "obeying the Constitution isn't negotiable." It's also telling that Gen. Cuccinelli said that Gov. McDonnell is following the law while challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare. It's refreshing to see people in political life who obey the law rather than make excuses for why they're ignoring laws.
I'm confident that Obamacare will be declared unconstitutional because the Medicaid expansion imposed by Obamacare orders states to spend money on a specific program.
When states get education dollars, the federal government essentially tells states what the rules will be if they accept the money. That's different than telling Wisconsin, Nebraska, Virginia or Florida that they must spend money to expand Medicaid. Essentially, the federal government is dictating to all fifty states what'll be in their budgets as well as dictating, to a lesser extent, what the states' tax policies will be because they're paying a portion of the Medicaid expansion.
That's before talking about the individual mandate, which Obama's solicitor general is now arguing is a tax. That argument will fail for a variety of reasons, starting with the fact that President Obama told ABC's George Stephanopolous that it wasn't a tax. Obama's cabinet testified before Congress that the individual mandate wasn't a tax.
Most importantly, the individual mandate isn't listed as a tax in the section of the HCR bill that lists the various taxes included in the bill.
It's important that we remember the government is also arguing that they can tax people for doing nothing or for not doing something that they want them to do. That'll require more than a little fancy tapdancing to sell that to the SCOTUS.
I'm confident that the government's lawyers will make a compelling political argument for Obamacare, at least from their perspective. I'm equally confident that they'll fail in making a compelling constitutional argument.
In the end, the TEA Party movement's adherence to the Constitution will impact Obamacare. In general, thanks to the TEA Party movement, constitutionalism and federalism are making a major comeback.
Posted Tuesday, November 9, 2010 6:56 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 10-Nov-10 01:58 PM
Should Michele Bachmann have a GOP leadership position?
If you've posted on that, I missed it, but I will check.
When's the next tea party rally in Minnesota, at the Capitol?
I guess it's postponed while tea party leadership is lobbying the newbies and old guard.
But I will be certain to get onto the Tea Party Patriots email list, so I can keep abreast of news as they, whoever, choose to report it to me.
DFL/Union Storyline Emerging
If there's anything that emerged from Tom Emmer's press conference other than the need to let the process play itself out, including answering questions about the flaws in the system, it's that the DFL and their union allies are advancing a disturbing storyline. This tweet from the Minnesota AFL-CIO encapsulates that emerging storyline:
Yes, there will be a recount. But make no mistake, Mark Dayton is Minnesota's next Governor. MN AFL-CIO
Since last Wednesday, Dayton's lead has shrunk by almost 1,000 votes. It's important that people take statements like the MNAFL-CIO's with many grains of salt. These aren't objective statements coming from disinterested parties.
It's pretty obvious that the DFL, Mark Dayton and the union alphabets want to create the impression of inevitability towards Mark Dayton's being sworn in as governor. This is purely tactical PR on their behalf. It's also a win-win situation for these parties.
If Dayton wins, then the DFL will attack the MNGOP for wasting the taxpayers' money on something that was inevitable. If Dayton loses, they'll claim that the MNGOP stole the election and that Tom Emmer was just being a spoil-sport.
The thing that will change everything is if corruption and ineptitude are exposed to the whole world. Let's remember that Mark Ritchie is telling everyone that everything is fine when he knows everything isn't fine.
I'm not predicting anything. I'm simply saying that it's time to let the process play out. If there are questions after that, then that's the time for getting answers to those questions.
Posted Tuesday, November 9, 2010 11:29 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 10-Nov-10 04:19 PM
Here is my one big question. A recount simply counts the ballots that were cast; it does NOT determine whether that ballot was cast by a real person, a real person who had already voted, a real person ineligible to vote (fraudulent, IOW), or some fiction--dead person, etc-- (also fraudulent.)
Since we know for certain that some vote fraud occurred, what good does a recount do? How much fraud is required to invalidate the whole election, and who gets to make that call?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 10-Nov-10 09:06 PM
Jerry, There's no way to 'unring the bell' once a ballot has been counted.
Ritchie's Conflict of Interest, SOSP's Radicalism Exposed
In 2006, Mark Ritchie was endorsed by the Secretary of State Project, aka SOSP. The SOSP website disappeared for a couple years but they're back now. They disappeared, I believe, because they got a horrific reputation. They're working hard to polish that reputation. First, let's examine their history according to what their website says :
What We Do:
The Secretary of State Project was created by concerned citizens to provide an easy-to-use, low-cost vehicle for online donations to reform-minded Secretary of State candidates and incumbents in key battleground states. Since 2006, our thousands of supporters across the country have helped our endorsed candidates win races in 10 out of 12 states, including Minnesota, California, Montana, Missouri, Oregon, West Virginia, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, and New Mexico.
Here's SOSP's criteria for endorsement:
Criteria for Endorsement:
The Secretary of State Project evaluates candidates based on their positions on election issues. Specifically, affirm that you support the following principles:
1) No election official should play a partisan role in an election he or she will play a role in administering. All election officials must conduct their responsibilities openly and objectively to restore public confidence.
2) Our elections must be verifiable and secure. Every vote cast must be counted by a system that is auditable with a verifiable paper trail and all voting materials, including ballots and voting machines must be secured at all times.
3) Universal, automatic, and portable voter registration should be the goal of every state. Our election officials should endorse state and federal legislation in support of this ultimate goal.
4) Election officials should not place onerous requirements on or attempt to intimidate non-partisan voter registration groups.
5) Voter suppression and election fraud defined as the intent to cast a ballot illegally will not be tolerated. Efforts to suppress the vote through onerous requirements, such as unconstitutional photo ID laws, must be opposed .
6) There should be equal access to the ballot box for all citizens. Every citizen must have equal access to locations, adequate machines and well-trained election judges. Efforts to raise voter participation of citizens who often face special barriers, such as students, military personnel, low-income people and minorities, including Election Day Registration, should be endorsed and actively supported.
A couple things jumped off the page in their criteria, starting with this:
Efforts to suppress the vote through onerous requirements, such as unconstitutional photo ID laws, must be opposed.
This type of indoctrination isn't welcome. First, SCOTUS ruled in 2008 that Photo ID is constitutional. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION. As this NY Times article notes, this wasn't the typical 5-4 ruling:
In a 6-to-3 ruling in one of the most awaited election-law cases in years, the court rejected arguments that Indiana's law imposes unjustified burdens on people who are old, poor or members of minority groups and less likely to have driver's licenses or other acceptable forms of identification. Because Indiana's law is considered the strictest in the country, similar laws in the other 20 or so states that have photo-identification rules would appear to have a good chance of surviving scrutiny.
The ruling, coming just eight days before the Indiana primary and at the height of a presidential election campaign, upheld rulings by a Federal District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which had thrown out challenges to the 2005 law.
Justice John Paul Stevens, who announced the judgment of the court and wrote an opinion in which Chief John G. Roberts Jr. and Anthony M. Kennedy joined, alluded to, and brushed aside, complaints that the law benefits Republicans and works against Democrats, whose ranks are more likely to include poor people or those in minority groups.
In 2010, 2 years after SCOTUS ruled Photo ID constitutional, the SOSP is still arguing that it's unconstitutional. What type of organization argues against the Supreme Court? The answer, I think, lies in this bit of information:
Who We Are:
We have thousands of dedicated members across the country. Join us!
Co-founder Becky Bond works for a socially progressive mobile telephone company based in San Francisco. She serves on the board of the New Organizing Institute* and ActBlue.com*.
Co-founder Megan Hull was a Project Director for Democracy Reform at the Center for Civic Participation*. In 2004, she was a Co-Director of the coalition that investigated polling place problems and vote counting irregularities in Ohio and New Mexico.
Co-founder Michael Kieschnick is a social entrepreneur based in San Francisco. He is also a board member of the League of Conservation Voters , among other progressive organizations.*
The League of Conservation Voters keeps its donors secret. Apparently, transparency isn't a requirement for the SOSP. Thanks to this post by Trevor Loudon , it's apparent that avoiding conflicts of interest aren't a high priority for SOSP-endorsed secretaries of state:
Mark Ritchie, Al Franken and Mark Dayton are listed as members of the Wellstone Action Advisory Committee as are several leftist heavy hitters including;
- Julian Bond A former president of the NAACP, Democratic Party activist and long time member of the Marxist leaning Democratic Socialists of America
- Heather Booth A leading Democratic Party activist and Democratic Socialists of America supporter
- Robert Borosage A trustee of the far-left Institute for Policy Studies
- Peter Edelman A leading Democratic Party activist and Democratic Socialists of America
- Keith Ellison A Democratic Minnesota congressman and member of the Democratic Socialists of America/Institute for Policy Studies founded Congressional Progressive Caucus
- Russ Feingold A recently defeated Wisconsin Democratic Senator
- Frances Fox Piven A Democratic Socialists of America member and Institute for Policy Studies affiliate. Piven was an endorser of Progressives for Obama and an initiator of the famous Cloward-Piven Strategy which aimed to bring about socialism through deliberately overloading and bankrupting state welfare systems
- Tom Harkin A far left Institute for Policy Studies affiliated Democratic Senator from Iowa
- Jim Hightower A "progressive" activist and Progressives for Obama endorser
- Gerald McEntee President of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union and a Democratic Socialists of America supporter
- Walter Mondale A former Democratic presidential candidate from Minnesota
- Antonio Villaraigosa The far left Democratic mayor of Los Angeles and a former member of the Obama Transition Team
Mr. Ritchie hasn't said anything about his close association with Sen. Dayton. He's said plenty, though, about the likelihood that Sen. Dayton would prevail in the recount he's scheduled to supervise:
Former Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer today called on Secretary of State of Mark Ritchie to disavow deeply inappropriate and highly partisan writings which appeared on his official Twitter account concerning the Emmer-Dayton canvass and recount proceedings. In addition, former Secretary of State Kiffmeyer called on Ritchie to add a Republican lawyer to his staff, given the well-known partisan makeup of his office. "As Minnesota's chief elections official, Mark Ritchie has a special obligation to remain non-partisan in the canvass and recount process. Sadly, recent posts from Ritchie on his official Twitter account demonstrate that he's already made up his mind about the gubernatorial recount. It is clear that Ritchie has lost the ability to remain neutral and objective. On his official Twitter account, Ritchie both voices approval for a statement that '9,000 votes is a mighty steep hill to climb and the Emmer folks know it' and heralds a Pioneer Press story entitled, 'Recount poses big challenge for Emmer.' Can you imagine a referee in the NFL publicly stating that the Vikings have no chance in a game he will be officiating in a few days? It is incomprehensible and Ritchie's conduct is way out of bounds. "Instead of taking sides and handicapping the prospects of various candidates, Secretary Ritchie should be working to ensure that all votes lawfully cast are counted. Secretary Ritchie must disavow his deeply inappropriate partisan writings. In addition, Secretary Ritchie would be wise to add a Republican lawyer to his staff to balance his deeply partisan office which includes the well-known Democratic attorney, Bert Black. Minnesotans deserve no less."
Based on Mr. Ritchie's statements about the Emmer-Dayton recount, his silence about a conflict of interest with Sen. Dayton and his being endorsed by a radical progressive group who thinks that Photo ID is unconstitutional despite a 6-3 Supreme Court ruling that Photo ID is constitutional, Minnesota voters should be worried that their legally cast votes might be nullified thanks to Mr. Ritchie's friendship with Sen. Dayton. Forgive me if I don't think SOSP-endorsed secretaries of state are above ethical difficulties. Technorati: SOSP , Recount , Mark Ritchie , Mark Dayton , Photo ID , SCOTUS , Ballot Security , Voter Fraud , Conflict of Interest , Corruption , DFL , Election 2010
Posted Wednesday, November 10, 2010 9:12 AM
Comment 1 by Gretchen Leisen at 10-Nov-10 01:18 PM
Thanks, Gary for your insight into the Dayton-Emmer recount process. Yesterday I had the privilege of observing the voting machine validation process in Benton County. It was enlightening and interesting. My impression is that in the majority of MN counties, there will not be a problem with the recount process and all vote tallies matched the original tallies from election night. The election judges verified Maywood Tp and Sauk Rapids Precinct 3 for two contests: MN Governor and US Rep 6A.
We were shown the vault where the ballots have been sealed since Nov. 2nd. I stayed to observe the resealing process before returning the ballots to the vault.
Everyone was respectful of the judges and their task. No pencils or pens were allowed at the judges' tables. There were 6 observers including myself at this process.
The problem with Mark Ritchie's SoS office is that in 2008 they did not enforce equally critical criteria for three known liberal counties where the population results in large vote tallies. I have heard it said that the process for the Coleman-Frank recount was fair; but such a judgement could only be legitimate if the same observer watched all the counties' processing of the recount. No one could have done that, and so we were left with each county setting their criteria. The out-state counties for the most part were undoubtedly accurate in the recount, but the Metro counties had problems in the judging of controversial ballots and their validity, in that they were unobjective and were more forgiving to questionable ballots who favored Franken; and equally less forgiving about Colemen votes.
The Benton County officers explained their new process for absentee ballots, and it sounded fair and secure, as well as efficient. These were the newer rules established following the 2008 election. It sounds like a very good process and mimics the process Iowa has used for many years. The problem remains, however, how sesrious are the Auditors in Hennepin and Ramsey and St. Louis counties in enforcing the newer rules? Anything that allows a personal judgement eventually gets back to honesty, integrity, and the bias of the county officer in charge of the process. I doubt we can expect Mark Ritchie to care whether the above mentioned counties are really honest in their counting process.
Comment 2 by eric z at 10-Nov-10 01:53 PM
Ritchie is the Secretary of State.
Who do you claim is better suited to doing the Secretary of State's job?
Brodkorb?
Sutton?
Get real.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 10-Nov-10 02:01 PM
That's a bit melodramatic, Eric. How about a senior member of the SecState's office who doesn't serve on the advisory board of Wellstone Action & doesn't have ties to Mark Dayton???
Comment 3 by eric z at 11-Nov-10 03:05 PM
Ritchie was elected.
He faced voters again.
He was reelected.
That should not be ignored.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 11-Nov-10 03:15 PM
Eric, the issue isn't whether Ritchie was re-elected is irrelevant. If, at any time, it's determined that he can't be impartial and/or can't reach an impartial, objective-based decision, he should recuse himself. PERIOD.
