Mark Ritchie is abusing his office

  • Article by: KATHERINE KERSTEN
  • Updated: July 28, 2012 - 5:50 PM
  • 46
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
elmore1Jul. 28, 12 6:48 PM

ritchie's actions are not only inappropriate but insult the intelligence of minnesotans. we understand the original wording. let us vote on it and do your job objectively.

29
47
crystalbayJul. 28, 12 8:30 PM

Ritchie is protecting the integrity of our laws - both present and future. That the GOP has done an end-run around the legislative process in its efforts to legalize discrimination against gays and suppress votes for Democrats is unconscionable. Re-titling these two unnecessary and onerous amendments to more accurately reflect the content within them is his job. The GOP would rather sneak these by without revealing the long term damage they'll create. Shame on them!! OBAMA/BIDEN 2012

49
26
chuckdancerJul. 28, 12 8:42 PM

Interestingly, the author does not address the title introduced by Ritchie directly. She states that the photo id requirement is the "core" of the proposed ammendment and that may very well be true. However, the point critics of the ammendment make is that it is going to do far more to the voting process in Minnesota than just require voters to present a specific photo id for approval to cast a ballot. Kersten of course is well aware of that fact and seeks to deflect attention from the other changes by making political attacks against Ritchie that are unrelated to the issue at hand. Kersten needs to address the issue and the Ritchie title and explain to us why it is not a complete and accurate description of what is involved in this ammendment. What is Kersten afraid of here that has her slinging the mud instead of making a coherent argument for her opinion?

48
18
hobie2Jul. 28, 12 8:50 PM

If you don't like how he does his job, then vote for the other candidate...oh, you did, and they lost?... that's the way it works... the majority elected a DFLer to watch over elections... hmmm Wonder why?

41
24
pumiceJul. 28, 12 8:59 PM

Text of the proposed amendment: "Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to require all voters to present valid photo identification to vote and to require the state to provide free identification to eligible voters, effective July 1, 2013?" Major facets of Minnesota election law (which historically boasts the highest turn-out and the cleanest elections in the nation) will need to be legislated at a later date if the amendment is approved. For example, the next legislature will have to determine what "photo identification" means, fund free photo id, and design a provisional ballot system.

In addition, the ambiguously worded amendment doesn't inform voters of potentially far-reaching side effects. Voter registration, in-person voting and absentee voting will all be affected if the amendment passes; hence, the need for the proposed title: "Changes to in-person & absentee voting & voter registration; provisional ballots."

44
18
bettyanneJul. 28, 1210:23 PM

If there is one thing that Katherine Kersten is especially good at it is ignoring relevant facts that negate her argument. THe fact is the new ballot title is the full description of what voters are being asked to vote on. It seems to me Ms Kersten is afraid to give voters enough information to make a fully informed decision

41
19
martiankingJul. 28, 1210:39 PM

Apparently Kersten, who loves to side with anything Constitutional, MN or national, fails to recognize that it falls withing Mr Ritchie's right to word the Amendment as he see's fit, per MN Constitution.

42
17
justthetruthJul. 28, 1210:54 PM

There's no question that the wording on the photo ID amendment is vague and thus open to interpretation. But there's also no question that Mr. Ritchie is injecting his personal bias into the process. He would have been better off to leave the wording alone on both amendments and just campaign against them as he already has publicly.

20
44
wise1Jul. 29, 12 7:19 AM

"But there's also no question that Mr. Ritchie is injecting his personal bias into the process. He would have been better off to leave the wording alone on both amendments and just campaign against them as he already has publicly."-----That, of course, would be a dereliction of duty, the constitution mandates his titling. But I would also argue the Ritchie is well within his rights to take a position on the proposal, and that he is in no way obligated to defend the bill. The legislature has merely tossed the issue to the public and avoided any responsibility on the issue, merely hoping the the simplistic language makes the issue benign. Ritchie simply is exercising his right to expose the language as being deceptive. Once the bill was out of the legislature it became fodder for everyone to enter the fray, including the administration. If the legislature had passed it as a statute instead of an amendment an been adopted, Ritchie would then be obligated to defend the law, but the legislature simply lacked the strength or resolve to accomplish that task. The legislators ares the ones that have abused their office.

33
14
chuckdancerJul. 29, 12 7:57 AM

Nobody can deny that the proposed ammendment will in fact require that Minnesota's voting process be altered far beyond requiring voters to present a specified photo id. Even that requirement is not settled. This leaves the voters to vote on a vague concept with consequences unmentioned. The worst part though is that the elitists pushing the ammendment have a full grasp of their agenda but withold it from the public.

32
14

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT