Minnesota’s Supreme Court “threw out ballot titles” written by Minnesota’s Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, on Aug. 27.
The state’s high court also tossed out a legal challenge to “a proposed constitutional amendment that would require voters to show photo ID at the polls.”
In the first order of business, the Supreme Court chose to stick with the language written by the Legislature when it wrote the measure that sent the marriage amendment and the proposed voter ID to the people to decide whether either would become part of the Minnesota Constitution.
Ritchie, a Democrat, changed the verbiage of the proposed ban on gay marriage from “Recognition of marriage solely between one man and one woman” to read “Limiting the status of marriage to opposite sex couples.”
He also took a stab at confusing voters by rewriting the title of the voter ID ballot measure by changing it from “Photo identification required for voting” to “Changes to in-person and absentee voting and voter registration; provisional ballots.”
“Both decisions were victories for conservatives,” said The Associated Press following the court rulings. “The Republican-controlled Legislature pushed both proposed amendments through over opposition from Democrats including Gov. Mark Dayton. Dayton last year vetoed a bill to require photo ID, but has no power to block constitutional amendments that are sent directly to voters.
“The court majority wrote that the photo ID ballot question ‘is not so unreasonable and misleading’ that it should be taken off the ballot.” The justices said striking the question from the ballot would have been “unprecedented relief” and that the voters will be “the sole judge of the wisdom of such matters.”
That is a wise decision. Why allow men and women appointed to the high court to decide an issue that the Legislature had placed on the fall ballot for all Minnesotans to decide? Let the people speak. The court agrees.
Now it’s up to the people of this state to decide whether they wish to have the Constitution amended to define marriage as a legal union of one man and one woman; and whether voter identification is required to vote.
Both sides of each issue will ramp up their efforts heading into the Nov. 6 election.
Keith Hansen
Comments (9)
Add commentYES--
the supreme court got it right!!
Just Vote NO , on Both Amendments
Dont promote voter intimidation and suppression tactics put forward by right wing ideologues that consistently make false claims and promote divisive behavior. Bigotry , hatred, and anger do not move us forward.
Do believe the MN Supreme Court folks involved( appointed by Tim Pawlenty) will not be around forever.
voter intimidation?
you mean like the black panthers threatening to beat me up because i vote right?
Or the fact that a voter id will not allow those poor dead people the right to vote because its hard to come out of the ground and get a voter id?
Everyone should have an id anyway, even the poor people. We need to start id-ing ebt cards so people do not abuse them.
Food stamps should go on a card as well, therefore we can id them so the wrong people do not use them.
Then everyone needs an ID and the voter id thing is moot.
Or am I racist for thinking we need to start id-ing people that collect welfare and food stamps to stop that fraudulent behavior as well?
Thanks Dutchman !
Oh I get it now !
Just Say No = Do Nothing/No change, then we can actually assure all those legitimate voters who let their DLs expire and have voted the same way for many years -US Mail etc wont need to jump through hoops to cast a ballot.
I just dont understand how our Cities , Counties ,Townships , State of MN , and the League of women voters allowed all that fraud some yahoos keep going on and on about ?
This whole election year that seems to be filled with false claims ,reminds of a game a saw at the State Fair once , think it was called whack a mule , where little heads keep popping up from a little hole.... entertaining but frustrating.
Cap says "Bigotry , hatred, and anger do not move us forward"
Which means of course only if you agree with liberals, otherwise you will see their hatred, intolerance, prejudice, and self inflicted anger!
Oh, for a minute I thought you were
describing Chris Christie, pdnet.
Newt Gingrich called it Right Wing Social Eng. PDNUT
Whats your vastly superior politically correct description to restrict individuals freedoms ?
Heat is on
What I'm reading in the comment section today is
anger, hatred, and bigotry. What will tomorrow bring
after Paul Ryan's speech tonight?
I wonder if any of the commenters were bullies in school.
Why is there so much anger and frustration out there
when we have President Obama and a Democrat Senate
looking out for us?
That is correct Captron - Leaving Blank on the Ballot...
For the Amendments counts as a No Vote...