Custom Search

Thursday, July 19, 2012

Voter ID fight escalates as Ritchie bows out

33 Comments:

Anonymous Bob Carrillo said...

To “ID” or not to “ID”, that is the question…
...But, is that really the question before the people of Minnesota today…
...Because if it is, we had all better question the TSA security personnel at the Minneapolis/St. Paul Airport, and object to their “ID” requirements—employing the very same logic and reason—and challenge their rationale as well on the very same basis as is being used to derail the “Voter ID” question, from being placed on the November 2012 ballot.
Furthermore, every passenger going through airport security should then be owed a blanket apology for being inconvenienced, and required to produce a passport, and or a driver’s license, in order to be allowed clearance through their gates and board an aircraft. In fact, the very same apology should be required for anyone cashing a check at any bank, or for using a credit card, or even buying any number of items—including for example, a liquor store purchase, where identification is always required.
In short, if we buy in to the public musings of the Minnesota Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie, and the cadre of usual suspects, including our governor—and that we would all be somehow “disenfranchised”, and inconvenienced by the requirement of proper identification, I may be able to sell you all on the argument that the “tooth fairy” is real. If we are even to begin to buy into the childish arguments relentlessly presented by Mark Ritchie—Governor Dayton—our Office of the Attorney General—the Minnesota ACLU—and the per usual gang of political obstructionists relating to this issue, one would have to suspend disbelief, and abandon all logic a reason in order to accept their conclusions.
This long-standing debate has now degenerated into a very precarious game of “High Stakes Liars Poker”, rather than a common sense based, adult discussion, as to whether or not to even allow the legal voters of Minnesota to actually express a long overdue opinion, per this question being placed on the November 2012 ballot. The question is simple. …Whether—or not—the voting age population of Minnesota should be obliged to prove that they are who they say they are—prior to exercising their right as legal citizens of this state, and country—in order to cast one “legal” vote—per one legitimate person—relating to future elections in Minnesota.
As an alternative, we Minnesotans continue to be fed a steady dose of the “sometimes useful farm byproduct of a bull” relating to the core issue of the matter before us, which is, the intentionally manufactured fertile ground and anti-public policy leading to the increased incidence of “voter fraud” in Minnesota over time—and leading to post election outcomes, which cannot be trusted.

4:33 PM  
Anonymous continued said...

All of this aside, and to steal a line for a pretty good film…”please explain it [the following] to me like I am a four-year old…” With respect to the present legal action afoot, attempting to exclude the “Voter ID” question from being [placed on the November 2012 ballot—a “legal action” identified in Mr. Ragsdale’s article, as published on June 15th—and one, which our Minnesota Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie, has now refused to defend, as is his obligation—(clearly unmasking his long standing personal conflict of interest and agenda with regard to these matters)—why is the Minnesota Supreme Court taking this action seriously at all?
Just how is our Minnesota Supreme Court, expected to pass judgment on a constitutional question, which has not yet been asked and answered by the people of Minnesota, and then made into law? And when “the people” of Minnesota have not yet been allowed to even express, as an opinion, relating to that question as yet, perhaps it is a rhetorical question to inquire as to what the true underlying problem might actually be here.

4:35 PM  
Anonymous continued said...

This is a question, on which almost 80% of polled Minnesotans agree, is an essential safeguard, and needed measure for maintaining the integrity of our Minnesota election process—and a long overdue question in desperate need of an adult answer…
“Voter ID fight escalates as Ritchie bows out”? Apparently, the Minneapolis Star Tribune author, Mr. Ragsdale, is not aware of the sad reality—for all Minnesotans—that Mark Ritchie has never actually been “in the game”—at least not on the “public’s” side of the field in any case—or in terms of his performing his “ministerial duties”, and or any duty as a constitutional officer, representing all of the “citizens” of Minnesota, and as the top election(s) official—as he is duty bound to do so. In my opinion, Mark Ritchie has, since the very second he took office, brought disgrace and disrepute to that office—and on to the national stage—as he has represented our Office of the Secretary of State in Minnesota relating to these and related matters.
The one individual who I am certain is particularly pleased with this pattern of performance on the part of Mr. Ritchie, is undoubtedly the billionaire international political meddler— Mr. George Soros, per his pet project bankrolling of his “Secretary of State Project”—very active throughout the United States—and always in search of more Mark Ritchie’s out there to groom and to corrupt.
To repeat for proper emphasis, there is 70% to 80% support and amongst all Minnesotans for the voter identification requirement as a prerequisite to vote in Minnesota, and for very good and honorable reasons. This does not even begin to address the public’s awareness of the massive tax-payer cost for the recurrent, per usual, post-election ballot counts—and recounts—and the never-ending and embarrassing post-election court battles, which have now become our new normal in Minnesota over the course of the past few election cycles in particular.
In my opinion, MN Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie—a George Soros / “SOS Project” protégé—and Soros poster child success story in that regard, has been, and continues to be, the consummate “Trojan Horse” plant, and Minnesota election system integrity wrecking ball—simply occupying space in the Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State for some time now.
This is not a Republican problem—nor a Democrat, or an Independent problem. It is a Minnesota citizen problem unfortunately—and a serious election system integrity challenge we have not faced properly—and one, which has had tremendous impact on all of the citizens of the State of Minnesota—and for far too long.
Thus, it serves no meaningful purpose whatsoever to even mention that, at the moment, there is a

4:37 PM  
Anonymous continued said...

Republican-controlled Legislature in place, and that this legislature has been responsible enough to offer all Minnesotans—regardless of political stripe—the bipartisan opportunity to express an opinion as to whether we—as citizens—should be allowed to take a meaningful step toward insuring that each and every one of our votes do actually count for something going forward—and are not cancelled out by the casting of “illegal votes” of any nature, per the occurances of widespread “voter fraud”, (often detected after-the-fact), regardless of who is doing it.
Our ability to vote is both a “right” and a “privilege” in this country, and reserved only for legal citizens— allowed to cast a single vote. ..Not allowed for ineligible felons—not for illegal aliens, (an estimated 130,000 strong in Minnesota today—already costing Minnesotans 1 billion tax-payer dollars in 2012 alone)—and certainly not for deceased persons—or fictitious persons either.
Unfortunately, in Minnesota—presently—there is no way to determine the legitimacy of any voter—or vote cast—before the fact, and Mr. Ritchie and company would clearly prefer to keep it that way. The rhetorical question is of course, why?
…Liberal/Progressive—Conservative—Libertarian—or you just don’t care most of the time; we are all in this together folks, and the stakes are enormous…and “liars poker” should not be the name of the game in this critical area relating to our civic responsibility.
At some point we had all better start being a bit more honest with one another, and ask ourselves…just what kind of country—and State—are we actually willing to embrace, and fight for here. We are, after all, not Venezuela, and not yet a banana republic, and should not allow anyone—or any politically driven faction to lower Minnesota, and Minnesotans, to that level.
Plainly speaking, over the course of Mr. Ritchie’s tenure, he has consistently supported—and with precision and absolute intent— an oppositional view, reflected by his out-and-out refusal to promote and support even the most basic voter integrity system(s), and necessary precautions (ordinary care) clearly required to prevent the ever increasing incidence of voter fraud in Minnesota elections. As a result, we have become a national embarrassment and joke, and I for one have had enough of it.
An honest observation of the past two post-election(s) circus, relating to the very costly (to the taxpayers), count-and-recount the votes nonsense in this State, should be an embarrassment for all Minnesotans, regardless of political party; and sadly, all acted out upon the backdrop of the national stage as well. This is a disgraceful record, and one which needs to be corrected.
This experience has obviously proved to most Minnesotans, that “We the people” of Minnesota have a problem, and that Minnesota Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie, has demonstrated absolutely no interest whatsoever in addressing, nor solving that problem at all. In fact, in my view, he is the personification of the problem itself.

4:38 PM  
Anonymous continued said...

The post-Minnesota election cycles for 2008 & 2010 have proved that point in a graphic way—and without any doubt at this point—for the adults among us—who have been paying attention. Thus, we now have overwhelming public support for voter verification for Minnesota elections going forward. The anticipated aftermath of the upcoming 2012 election cycle in Minnesota will no doubt illustrate my point nicely I suspect, by mirroring what has occurred post-election night in 2008, and again in 2010.
Per my taped interview with Secretary Ritchie (I still have the tape), in June of 2009, and directly relating to the chaos relating to the post 2008 Minnesota election outcome, Ritchie then claimed—in a taped interview, and referencing the ineligible felons voting component of this patchwork quilt of the “Twilight Zone” version of elections processes’ in Minnesota, that… … “Well, there was this one guy in Baudette, Minnesota, who was caught voting as an illegible felon”… One guy Mr. Ritchie?… Really?
Well, for those of us scoring at home, and…per the post investigation results, produced—and with the encouragement and assistance of FOX News staff from NYC—and various county attorney offices in Minnesota, and others—many more ineligible “felons” did actually vote—other than “that one guy from Baudette”, Mr. Ritchie—and were clearly discovered as having “voted” illegally in the 2008 election.
Many of those have since been prosecuted and have been convicted as well for this violation of the law. You remember the “law”, do you not Mr. Ritchie?

4:39 PM  
Anonymous continued said...

Unfortunately, many more individuals’ directly responsible for laying the chaotic foundation for this practice, and other forms of widespread voter fraud in Minnesota, have not been charged and prosecuted accordingly for the role they have played in this ongoing , elaborate, and pathetic drama. This due to the asd reality that the evidence has either been buried—distorted—or, due to the lack of controls (not built in to the voter verification systems in Minnesota)—remain as undetectable.
…And, the 2008 Minnesota US Senatorial election results were separated by 225 votes… Please Google: “What Happened To My Vote?” for more detail.
The epilogue to that spectacle, per example, was that there were literally thousands of “same day registration cards”, connected to ballots already cast, and per the subsequent follow-up address verification cards sent out to those addresses by Mr. Richie’s office; thousands were returned, as “undeliverable”. …I know that I was certainly [not] shocked and [not] amazed at that outcome—How about yourself?

4:41 PM  
Anonymous continued said...

In fact, Secretary Ritchie, in open view of many, who have understood the tactics well enough, has actually gone out of his way to willingly deceive the public at large, before and after the fact— and a public, which he is legally obligated to serve, regardless of political persuasion. He has in fact, and in deed, betrayed the public trust as well as his oath of office to serve all Minnesotans.
Relentlessly selling the notion that the very same “ID requirements”, applicable to anyone purchasing a fishing license—boarding a plane at the Minneapolis/St. Paul airport, or even using a credit card or debit card—etc.—is somehow “disenfranchising” anyone, is patently absurd on its face. While waving the banner for those who claim permanent victim status at every turn in our community—as the chronically marginalized—and claiming that they would be inconvenienced somehow by producing proper ID before casting a vote, Ritchie has managed to patronize, and insult the intelligence of all Minnesotans, who believe as do I, that all of us should be expected to act a responsible “citizens”. However, and relating to “Voter ID” specifically, I believe in the words of President Ronald Reagan, “trust but verify”, as a common sense practice and approach to these matters.

4:42 PM  
Anonymous continued said...

Then there is Ritchie’s relentless and arrogant need to actually demand that he remain unobstructed and unchallenged, as he has willingly allowed the corruption of our election systems—or simply looked the other way, while so much of this nonsense has gone on repeatedly right under his nose. In doing so, MN Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie, has been very busy abridging the rights of legitimate Minnesota citizen voters at every turn, and thereby destroying the process by which we may be allowed to exercise our legal “rights”—and “privileges” as citizens—and the right to cast one legitimate vote, per our American system of elections.
On its face, and from the perspective, of myself, as the grandson of immigrants—all, who were processed and made citizens—legally—and allowed to enter this great country through Ellis Island, NYC, almost a century ago, this is far more than just bordering on the absurd. It is personally offensive to me, and to all of those who have come before me—as it should be to all Minnesotans.
This new-normal, and manufactured reality in which we all find ourselves today, relating to not only rampant voter fraud in America, and in Minnesota, but so many other facets of the assault upon our American way of life, should be unacceptable to every legitimate “citizen”. Per the Minnesota-Ritchie model relating to election systems integrity—or the lack thereof—and based upon what would clearly appear to be the —“whatever it takes” [to win] system(s) of elections prototype fashioned here, this should be an affront to all Minnesotans.
We are Minnesotans all—Democrats—Republicans—Independents—or the uncommitted, and with all of the rights and responsibilities, that go hand in hand with our status as “citizens” of this great State.
We are also “citizens” of this country, and as such, obliged to do what is right and just, in order to protect and to defend the very bedrock and cornerstone of the American experiment—the integrity of our system of elections—and a country, which those who have come before us have given so much to deliver to us this blessing for safe keeping.
If Mark Ritchie is unwilling, and or incapable of doing his job—and in the best interests of all Minnesotans—then he should be asked to resign his position—or Legislatively be pressured to do so..
In the meanwhile, all of us need to do what is required of us in order to preserve the “representative republic”, which the founders of our great nation sacrificed so much to provide for us, and what we now enjoy as Minnesotans, and as Americans.
In the end, we all need the adults—not the adult children—in positions of influence and power, if we are to succeed, and if Minnesota is to get back on course in preparation for a very challenging future.
“Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic” will not address the serious challenges facing Minnesota today—nor this country—and will most certainly cause all Minnesotans to continue down a path leading to a reckoning with a treacherous reef ahead—sooner than later, if we are not prudent and courageous about the steps we need to take as we move forward together…
In Minnesota today…
“No Voter ID” + the “Vouching Law” +”Same Day Registration” = Voter Fraud…and then there is the “absentee ballot scandal”
This is unacceptable to almost 80% of Minnesotans. How about you?
…and the desk of MN Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie, is where the buck stops, and that office does need to be held to account.
The facts and evidence are irrefutable in this regard, and are only disputed by those who have become so preoccupied today with the battle between “right vs. left”, that they have completely lost sight of the need to address these matters from the perspective of right vs. wrong.

Bob Carrillo / legal citizen and voter

4:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is so sad is that guys like this know that they are going to take the vote away from thousands of Minnesotan's and they just don't care.

What percentage of seniors in extended care homes have valid drivers licenses or government ID's with the correct address on it? Maybe 5% 10% if you push it. Few if any seniors when the move into extended care change their address to the senior home. They just don't.

The estimate in Minnesota is that 25% of African American adults don't have ID's that reflect their current addresses.

The current ballot proposal says that you MUST present a valid government issued ID at your current address to vote. It would wipe out all absentee ballot requests by mail... which would be all of our men and women overseas.

And, the sad, sad part is that they found one case in the last twelve years that was of the type that a vallid drivers license or government ID would have stopped the "voter fraud." Almost every case of voter fraud in Minnesota is a probation or parolee that votes while still on paper... and any of them could have had a vallid ID and they would have still not been a legal voter.

This solution doesn't fix the problem.... all it does is stop old, poor and black people from voting.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

11:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is so sad is that guys like Chuck know that they are going to let people vote who shouldn’t vote and take the vote away from thousands of Minnesotan's and he just don't care.

Let’s take vouching. The DFL machine brings in busloads of people from who knows where and has a person “Vouch” for them. Then after they vote with their preprinted voting guide, the DFL provided them with a free dinner or cigarettes.

Next you have a Secretary of Sate, Mark Ritchie who used state government lists for his own personal campaign fundraising. Next Ritchie changed the title of two amendments to our state constitution, when the Minnesota Legislature already gave them titles. The new titles are so out of whack and are purely crafted by the DFL Party to confuse the voter. Talk about voter disfranchisement.

Chuck, try and go to Rainbow or Cub and pay for an item using a check and when they ask you for a Photo ID, tell then they are disfranchising your “right” to be able to purchase something from their store. After they bounce you out of the store on your backside you can file a law suite. Maybe Gloria can help you with the wording of the law suite.

Your arguments are based on no foundation, they are fear laden and based on no foundation.

Typical DFL hack job here people. Just Chuck spewing his socialist BS.

1:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck said, "This solution doesn't fix the problem.... all it does is stop old, poor and black people from voting."

I say, "Chuck, what a crock of bullshit. For years the DFL has played the election game and we are tired of our votes being cancelled by people who aren't supposed to vote (felons and illegals) and the numerous busloads of non residents the DFL brings in from Chicago and then "vouch" for them. The only issue is now someone is calling them on their illegal behavior and they are crying. Chuck your bullshit sure stinks."

12:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1:48 and 12:29 the facts are the facts there are extremely few examples of voter fraud and almost all of the them are people on parole or probation who will still be just as likely as anyone else to show up with a good drivers license as anyone.

Ever know anyone in assisted living? You think they change their ID when they are there?

You just don't care that you are going to stop people from voting. That is the point of the Voter ID measure, stop poor, old or people of color from voting.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

8:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck,

Prove you that it will stop people from voting.

1. They will still be able to vote only their vote will be held until their voting status is verified. Their vote will still count.

2. They need a Photo ID to do the basic things in life. The state will provide a Photo ID for them at no cost.

3. There is voter fraud going on in Minnesota, that is why this issue was brought up in the first place. When there is a bus load of voters who are vouched for by one person, how are you ever going to check or retract these votes if they are found to be invalid? Voting materials were sent to numerous of these "voched" for voters and the material came back as undeliverable. This mass vouching has been going in Minneapolis and St. Paul and it is also part of the record of testimony at the state legislator when this issue was first put in committee.

4. Mark Ritchie failed in his duty to make sure felons didn't vote. The voting lists he sent to the counties were never checked with the Department of Corrections or the Minnesota BCA as has been the practice in past elections. 657 felons voted in the Coleman vs. Franken election along. This has been documented and is a part of the legislative testimony.

5. Chuck the only reason you are against this is because the DFL has for years abused the voting system and cheapened the value of voting by allowing people who are are not eligible to vote to vote.

6. Chuck voting is a privilege, and I don't take lightly to people messing with the voting to create a voting structure where there such a wide avenue to cheat.

7. Chuck your arguments are based on no foundation and you only want a voting system that favors one particular party and opens the process to fraud.

8. Once a felon or "vouched" person votes who aren't eligible to vote, their vote is counted. You can't take it back once they have voted. How fair is that to the people who are doing the correct thing and following the law?

9:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know Chuck, one thing about you Liberals is you put out there false crap just to sell your message. The only reason you are against Photo ID is it will hurt your voting base. I should say your illegal voting base. You come here telling the sky is falling, your group did the same with conceal and carry, but you know what Chuck you were wrong then and you are wrong now.

12:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Prove you that it will stop people from voting.

1. They will still be able to vote only their vote will be held until their voting status is verified. Their vote will still count.

A - No their vote will be held for 2 weeks while they decide if they realy want to go through all of the hassel of getting a vallid ID.


2. They need a Photo ID to do the basic things in life. The state will provide a Photo ID for them at no cost.

My father in-law living in the senior home NEVER needs an ID and hasn't changed his ID. That is the truth. Since he would need to vote absentee if the county folks bring him out a ballot and ask for an ID he would get a provisional ballot. For that vote to count, we would have to take him to get an ID - thousands of people will not go through that hassle. That is also true for any renter that has not changed their ID to their current address.


3. There is voter fraud going on in Minnesota, that is why this issue was brought up in the first place. When there is a bus load of voters who are vouched for by one person, how are you ever going to check or retract these votes if they are found to be invalid? Voting materials were sent to numerous of these "voched" for voters and the material came back as undeliverable. This mass vouching has been going in Minneapolis and St. Paul and it is also part of the record of testimony at the state legislator when this issue was first put in committee.

Another big lie. People who are vouched for get a post card sent to that address where the post office delivers it. If not they can be prosecuted for vote fraud. Your bus loads is 2. One citizen can only vouch for 2 people at the polling place that don't have ID. Two or three years later when you send them stuff, and they are not there doesn't not mean they didn't live there.

4. Mark Ritchie failed in his duty to make sure felons didn't vote. The voting lists he sent to the counties were never checked with the Department of Corrections or the Minnesota BCA as has been the practice in past elections. 657 felons voted in the Coleman vs. Franken election along. This has been documented and is a part of the legislative testimony.

I worked in corrections one of the FIRST things we did with people coming out of prison was get them a vallid ID - dirvers license ALL of your felons would still be voting in your system.


5. Chuck the only reason you are against this is because the DFL has for years abused the voting system and cheapened the value of voting by allowing people who are are not eligible to vote to vote.

No, you know that the DFL base is older, poorer and more colorful and you want them not to be able to vote.


6. Chuck voting is a privilege, and I don't take lightly to people messing with the voting to create a voting structure where there such a wide avenue to cheat.

No voting is not a privilege it is a right and I hat FACISTS that will take that right away from the poor, week or disabled.


7. Chuck your arguments are based on no foundation and you only want a voting system that favors one particular party and opens the process to fraud.

Your side when challanged found one case in Minnesota in 10 years that would have been stopped by ID. You are just a bad lier. There is no vote fraud that ID would fix.



8. Once a felon or "vouched" person votes who aren't eligible to vote, their vote is counted. You can't take it back once they have voted. How fair is that to the people who are doing the correct thing and following the law?

Once a felon with an ID votes there is no way to stop their vote from counting.... same problem.

But you want my father-in-law to stop voting because he doesn't want to believe he won't be going back home. - You know that there are thousands and thousand of senior that have voted all of their lives that will never vote again and you don't care.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

7:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

VOUCHING:

CHUCK SAID: “Another big lie. People who are vouched for get a post card sent to that address where the post office delivers it. If not they can be prosecuted for vote fraud. Your bus loads is 2. One citizen can only vouch for 2 people at the polling place that don't have ID. Two or three years later when you send them stuff, and they are not there doesn't not mean they didn't live there.”

I SAID: At the hearing on Photo ID, this issue of “vouched” for individuals with returned post cards was brought up. Why don’t you read what Joe Mansky said or other county officials. They said they didn’t have the time to go after them. You said a person can only vouch for two(2) people. Chuck read state law (below) you can “vouch” for 15 people and if you work in a care facility it is unlimited. I guess you know more than state law Repke, NOT!”

201.061 REGISTRATION ON OR BEFORE ELECTION DAY.
Subdivision 4 . Election day registration.
Subd. 4.
“A voter who is registered to vote in the precinct may sign up to 15 proof-of residence oaths on any election day.”

I SAID; "Mark Ritchie failed in his duty to make sure felons didn't vote. The voting lists he sent to the counties were never checked with the Department of Corrections or the Minnesota BCA as has been the practice in past elections. 657 felons voted in the Coleman vs. Franken election along. This has been documented and is a part of the legislative testimony."

YOU SAID: "I worked in corrections one of the FIRST things we did with people coming out of prison was get them a vallid ID - dirvers license ALL of your felons would still be voting in your system."

I REPLY, "Please answer my statement. Mark Ritchie didn’t do his job. Before the election he needed to clean up the voter rolls and remove felons from the voter list. This is something all Secretaries of State have done, but with Mark Ritchie's involvement in ACORN and their effort to get felons to vote, Ritchie’s actions does not surprise me at all. On July 13, 2010, Megyn Kelly of Fox News interviewed John Fund of the Wall Street Journal regarding Minnesota Majority's research into felon voters. Fund says that it was Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie's "dereliction of duties" that allowed these felons to vote in the 2008 election. Fund also comments on the 2008 election in his most recent column in the Wall Street Journal." How fast we forget don’t we Repke.

YOU SAID: "No voting is not a privilege it is a right and I hat FACISTS that will take that right away from the poor, week or disabled."

I say: "YES it is aright that can be taken away from you, so it is a PRIVILEGE. Chuck I also HATE FACISTS who believe that they have a "RIGHT" to take my hard-earned money I make from my business and give it to some slob who can’t get off the couch and get a job."

I SAY: "Your father in law can get a FREE Photo ID. Mt mother is 91 and she still needed an ID at Rainbow the other day to pay for her food. She needed a Photo ID to do simple banking. This BS of no ID is a very bad lie Repke."


YOU SAID: "No their vote will be held for 2 weeks while they decide if they realy want to go through all of the hassel of getting a vallid ID."

I SAY: "More BS from the BS King Repke. Lawmakers haven’t decided the issue of provisional voting yet. I am not sure where you got the two-week figure, but the amendment hasn’t even been voted on yet. The provisional issue will be decided later. Repke you sure put up a smokescreen to the real FACTS of the issue, but that is the DFL (Socialist) way isn’t it? Where in the hell do you come up with this crap?"

9:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting that someone is able to vouch for 15 people and I didn't know about it... remember me, I am a hard core DFL hack if their is anyone who should be "bringing in busses" its me. My point is that nobody brings in busses or we would hear about it. It happens in your wet dreams.

And, again, you would be taking away the right of those in senior housing to have an employee from the center vouch that they live their. You would require them to find their birth certificate and get an ID for the senior home. Thousands of people aren't going to do it. And you know it.

Also, if your 91 year old mother who lived in a senior home, had a checking account with an address of your house and her ID had your address on it, she could cash the check... but she couldn't vote because that isn't the LEGAL address and your mom could be prosecuted. And dick head many of us care givers manage our parents accounts.

And no you little Hitler voting in this country will always be a right as long as their are still people who believe in the constitution left.

You want it to be a priviledge because you come from priviledge and don't like it that everyone can vote. You would prefer that only the landed gentry could vote or only whites or only whoever else that you like could vote.

Again, nothing Ritchie did or didn't do would stop a felon with a drivers license from voting in your system.

Your solution is just an effort to stop the old, the poor and those of color from voting.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

1:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The GOP is doing this all over the country to stop the old, the poor and people of color from voting. This is the story about the issue in Penn....

Defendants in a case against one of the nation's strictest voter ID laws in Pennsylvania made a major concession to plaintiffs this week, just days ahead of the start of the trial over the measure.

In a stipulation agreement signed earlier this month, state officials conceded that they had no evidence of prior in-person voter fraud, or even any reason to believe that such crimes would occur with more frequency if a voter ID law wasn't in effect.

"There have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states,” the statement reads.

According to the agreement, the state “will not offer any evidence in this action that in-person voter fraud has in fact occurred in Pennsylvania and elsewhere,” nor will it "offer argument or evidence that in-person voter fraud is likely to occur in November 2012 in the absense of the Photo ID law.”

The possibility of voter fraud has frequently served as the ideological underpinning for voter ID measures, whose supporters claim that the integrity of elections can't be preserved without requiring would-be voters to verify their identity at polling places. Reports on actual incidents appear to counter this contention, however, as figures suggest voter fraud is a highly infrequent occurrence.

Opponents of voter ID laws argue that such legislation is an effort to establish obstacles for potential voters, particularly college students, minorities and the elderly, who tend to vote Democratic. A recent report from the Brennan Center for Justice found that a variety of factors could seriously hamper the ability of a half-million Americans in 10 states that have passed voter ID laws to obtain the required documents they would need to cast votes in November.

Pennsylvania GOP House Majority Leader Mike Turzai fueled the concerns of anti-voter ID activists earlier this year when he claimed that the recently enacted measure would "allow Gov. [Mitt] Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania."


Just weeks after those comments, Pennsylvania officials released a study finding that more than 758,000 registered voters in the state -- many of them in its urban center of Philadelphia -- lacked driver's licenses. While the law allows for a variety of other forms of identification to be used at polling places, the figure suggested that a large number of Pennsylvanians still didn't meet the criteria needed to cast ballots in the fall.

A lawsuit filed against the state's voter ID law by the ACLU and NAACP on behalf of lead plantiff Viviette Applewhite, a 93-year-old woman who claims she will be disenfranchised by the legislation because she won't be able to get valid documentation before the election, is set to go to trial on Wednesday. On Monday, the U.S. Department of Justice also announced that it was investigating whether the law discriminates against minorities.

- same issue in MN -
JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

2:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WOW, Chuck called me a dick head and Hitler all in the same post, I feel so lucky.

Mom has her own address on her checks. She has a state ID, I don't see the problem.

Ritchie didn't do his job and he let lots of felons vote because he didn't do his job.

Chuck you say that it is an "effort to stop the old, the poor and those of color from voting." Well you for full of it. Offering free Photo IDs is a bad thing. Ensuring that Mr. Hernandez from Mexico City, Mexico does not vote is a bad thing, ensuring felons don't vote is a bad thing? No you want these folks voting because they vote DFL. My parents both served in WWII. They risked their lives so you can live in the manner you live in. To abuse the system like the DFL does is a slap in the face for everyone who died protecting your rights. They didn't die for Mr. Hernandez from Mexico.

3:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Opponents of Photo ID laws argue that such legislation is an effort to allow for "new" potential voters, particularly college students who don't live in our state, minorities who are here illegally and felons, who all tend to vote Democratic.

3:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reading the comments here I have noticed a pattern, Chuck has resorted to name calling. One has to surmise that Chuck's reliance on immature juvenile behavior when he doesn't get his way is an indication that his argument has little to no substance. This type of behavior is exhibited in the local bar by the individual who pretends to know it all, but in reality he doesn't know squat.

3:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Multiple things... first your mother may have an ID but the point is that as was pointed out in the article in Pennsylvania the estimate was that 758,000 current voters don't have an ID with their current address on it.

You see your narrow view of the world is because you have all of the benefits of life you should be able to restrict access to the polls to only people with that status.

The facts are the facts and as I have said you know that I am right that there has been almost no voter fraud proven anywhere in the country and the goal of the is GOP effort is to wipe out the poor, the old and those of color from voting.

AND 3:28 the insults started in the orriganal post by this little Facist that won't even say who he is insulting everyone that stands up for the poor, the old and those of color. But you don't want to see those things as insults until I call out this little facist for what he is.

Again, they found one case in the last ten years that this action would have stopped and KNOW that thousands of people will lose their vote in the exchange.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

10:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh Chuck, there you go again. The GOP is not out to deny anyone the right to vote. There are both Democrats and Republicans that feel Photo ID is needed to prevent illegals, felons and out of state residents from voting in Minnesota elections. With the close races we have had, every votes counts and when you have the illegals, felons and out of state folks voting it muddies the water doesn't it Chuck. Now if your guy had lost because of these folks voting, you would be the first one crying that we need to do something about the illegal votes that were cast. Even the Liberal newspaper on the other side of the river reported on the felons voting. Lastly, your DFL Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie has done a very poor job ensuring that the voting process is what it should be, well as it turns out it has become the ACORN's voting way. Didn't Mark Ritchie work for ACORN? Why yes he did, what a coincidence, there you have it.

12:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here Chuck,

Virgina Democrats cheating, just posted on the AP.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's campaign is asking Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli to launch an investigation into voter-registration forms that are being sent to Virginia residents and addressed to deceased relatives, children, family pets and others ineligible to vote.

The errant mailings from the Washington-based nonprofit group Voter Participation Center have befuddled many Virginia residents, leading to hundreds of complaints.

The organization has been mass-mailing the forms — pre-populated with key information such as names and addresses — to primarily Democratic-leaning voting blocs such as young adults, unmarried women, African-Americans and Latinos.

In a letter to Cuccinelli's office and the State Board of Elections, Kathryn Bieber, an attorney for the Romney campaign, calls for an investigation into the matter by law-enforcement officials, claiming that the mailings appear to violate "at least one and maybe several Virginia laws aimed at ensuring a fair election."

Bieber refers to the mailings as "tactics that amount to, or at the very least induce, voter registration fraud," and says the issue "presents a very significant risk to the proper administration of the upcoming general election."

Citing a Sunday Richmond Times-Dispatch story that brought the mailings to light, the letter also asks the State Board of Elections to require registrars to reject all pre-populated voter registration applications from the group and review the eligibility of all Virginians who have registered in the past two months.

"This is the only way for voters and other interested parties to regain confidence in the voter registration and electoral process that has been abused by the Voter Participation Center," the letter says.

Page Gardner, president and CEO of the Voter Participation Center, said the organization mailed nearly 200,000 third-party registration forms to Virginia addresses in June, which resulted in 15,026 new voters being registered as of July 18.

On Monday, the Voter Participation Center responded to the Sunday Times-Dispatch story, stating in a letter on its website that "imperfections in the VPC vendors' lists — while regrettable and unfortunate — should not be the reason or the excuse to call an entire process that is working into question."

Justin Riemer, the State Board of Elections' deputy secretary, said forms have been sent by the group to deceased infants, out-of-state family members, and non-U.S. citizens, among others.

In a letter this month, the State Board of Elections asked the group to cease pre-populating their forms and raised questions about how the group was obtaining lists of registered voters, citing the errant forms.

Riemer noted that pre-populating the forms violates rules set forth in the state code and the Virginia Constitution requiring that voters fill out their own forms.

The State Board of Elections had not received the letter from the Romney campaign Tuesday afternoon and declined to comment on the specifics.

No comment was immediately available from Cuccinelli's office.

Asked for comment on the Romney campaign's letter, the Voter Participation Center issued a statement noting that their forms are official applications, not registration cards.

"Furthermore, they were approved before we sent them out by the State Board of Elections and are the same applications that anyone can access at a local government office or on the internet," the statement read. "Our process is legal and working."

whester@timesdispatch.com (804) 649-6976

8:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

12:46 please explain how having a MN ID will stop felons from voting?

You do understand that a felon's driver's license and your driver's license looks exactly the same. A felon's driver's license doesn't say they are a felon. And, former felon's can vote once they are off of paper...so....

But again as I said earlie one of the first things we did with parolees when they come out of prison was to have them get their driver's license or ID. So... if its easier for a felon on paper to get a driver's license than it is a senior in a senior care facility... how exactly does this stop felons from voting?

As to the Virginia silliness there is a group there violating their state ordinance by prefilling out election forms and sending them to every name they can find at an address in an effort to get those people to sign the forms and take them in to register themselves to vote. What is against the law is in Virginia they can not be filled in by somebody else. What is not against the law, and is not a real problem only an imagined one is that somebody filled out the name of a cat and a dead person. Nobody signed it or turned it in to be processed...its meaningless. We have seen clowns fill in regestrations for Mickey Mouse a million times in every state, and he still hasn't voted yet.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

11:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Repke, you are trying and confuse the issue with Photo ID and Mark Ritchie not doing his job.

Yes, Offenders are told they can't vote while they are on paper, and every case manager tells them that they can't vote until they are off paper. What Mark Ritchie did was not clean up the voting rolls by not checking with the Department of Public Safety - State of Minnesota active felon list. All past Secretaries of State did this, but due to Mark Ritchie's ties to ACORN he didn't and thus many felons have voted. Had Mark Ritchie done his job these felons would have to register to vote by filling our a new registration form and the felon issue would have been caught.

The way our current voting law is even if these guys or gals who are felons who are still on paper were to show up to vote and someone "vouched" for them, their vote still would be counted when it shouldn't. That is why the new amendment to our Minnesota Constitution is important, as it would hold these votes until the person is verified and then counted or not counted. Across the State of Minnesota numerous felons were identified and prosecuted for this crime in regards to the Coleman vs. Franklin race. With just 312 votes separating Coleman and Franklin, I would bet you a steak dinner that the large majority of felons who voted didn't vote for Coleman.

Chuck it is a multifaceted approach this new amendment will take towards tightening up on fraud at the voting box, as it isn't just Photo ID as you pretend it is. I have many friends in other countries and they laugh at your arguments. I can't publish what they actually said because this is a family blog, but in short they think your posts are full of it, just Marxist Socialism at it's finest.

6:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, here is an example of voting fraud that occured in 2010 (story was writen in 2011) but again if this guy went to the DMV and claimed he lived at that address he could have a drivers license from that address even though he didn't live there.... of course he has the time an money to do that.

Did Mitt Romney Live In His Son's Unfinished Basement Last Year?

Mitt Romney lived in his son’s unfinished basement in Belmont, Massachusetts in 2010 – or at least that what he claimed to the state to be able to vote last year, says GOP candidate Fred Karger.

If that’s true, Romney showed a true commitment to voting for Republican Senator Scott Brown in last year’s special election, since he owns a $12.5 million home in La Jolla, Calif. and a $10 million home in New Hampshire’s Lake Winnipesaukee – but no home in the state he was once governor.

Not that he was exactly roughing it. Romney’s son Tagg and his wife greatly improved the property in recent years adding an in-ground pool and a jacuzzi to the rebuilt property that spans three old lots, bumping its assessed value up to $3.8 million.

Still, as Belmont, Mass. property assessment records I dug up show, the basement is unfinished – hardly the standard the former investment banker would be used to. Here’s a portion of the property record (Belmont Property View). I have edited the image to highlight the basement description. Here is the full record: Belmont Property View full. As a public record you can find the full report also through the town of Belmont here. The property was last inspected by the town on June 21, 2010, well after the state’s January special election that filled Ted Kennedy’s old seat.

Of course, as Karger argues to the Massachusetts Secretary of State, Romney likely didn’t live in the basement, so it appears like voter fraud, a crime punishable by up to five years in jail and a $10,000 fine.

As Mother Jones, which broke the story yesterday, notes, Karger has put some work into establishing Romney wasn’t microwaving burritos and staring at exposed romax and wood framing down in the cellar in the pleasant Boston suburb.

“The local fishmonger told Karger, “They flew the coop. They moved to California. I haven’t seen Mrs. Romney in over two years, and she used to come in here all the time.” Likewise, churchgoers used to worshiping with the Romneys told Karger that they also hadn’t seen the Romneys in a couple years. Yet the Romneys continued to vote in Massachusetts, including in the January 2010 special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat. Karger says he even received personal confirmation from Ann Romney about the couple’s living arrangements. In April, Karger says he ran into her in Las Vegas at a meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition, where Mitt was speaking. According to Karger, Ann told him they are living in California.

Fred Karger is a California based GOP darkhorse candidate and a long time GOP political consultant.

UPDATE Looks like the Belmont clerk is good with Romney’s registration, as reported by the Patch site for Belmont. Says Town Clerk Ellen Cushman: “Since he meets all the requirements to vote in the country – he’s over 18, an American citizen and a resident of the town – he is and has been registered to vote in Belmont,” she said.

-snip-

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

8:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I like how CHUCK changes the subject (post 6:56 PM) when he is WRONG!

Yawn!!

1:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK 6:56 - 1:30 - how exactly would Ritchie's removal of felons from the registered voters list stop any of them from voting when the show up at the polls?

Let's say you were one of those who are felons in 2010 and you had voted in 2008. (Which means you weren't a felon in 2008 because if you had a felony in 2008 and voted, you would have at least gotten a talking to by somebody).
So, Ritchie goes ahead and purges you from the list like "all other Sec of State" had done and now when you go to vote in 2010 your name isn't on the voter registration list.

And what happens?

Does the election judge know why you aren't on the list? ...nope.

So, what happens?

The election judge says... "well Mr 1:30 I don't know why you aren't on the list, I know you have always voted here, we are next door neighbors, fill out a new registration card... and you do and you vote.

And under your new system what would change is this:
The election judge says well Mr 1:30 I don't know why you aren't on the list I know you have always voted here, we are next door neighbors, do you have your ID? Good, now fill out a new registration form and you vote.

The issue with felons voting is that 99.9% of felons don't have clue that they can't vote because it is told to them once and it goes in one ear and out the other because it is meaningless government garbage to them that they hear once and then forget. And does anyone have the time to read the voter registration card while trying to get out of the line...?

Your cure fixes nothing.

It does stop thousands of poor, old and people of color from voting.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

So, in 2010 you show up to vote and you discover you aren't register

9:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you Chuck for answering your own question and why the Photo ID amendment is so badly needed.

A felon voter such as you described would under this new amendment to the Minnesota Constitution would have his vote held provisionally until his voting status is sorted out.

Chuck thank you for pointing out how our current voting system is not working which you support 100% and how it is just promoting voter fraud.

Chuck you just made my day, as your post just showed the flaws in our current voting system and why you and the DFL Party support such a voting system, a system that promotes voter fraud.

8:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, no he wouldn't if you show up with an ID and vote, your vote counts.

The provisional ballots are if you don't have an ID. So, my example above is a felon with an ID and that vote counts. Just the same as today.

What you have proven is you don't understand the law you are proposing.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

9:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chuck, how thick are you?

Using your example in 9:30 AM, under the "NEW" Photo ID amendment to the Minnesota Constitution, this felon would have had his vote held provisionally until his voting status was sorted out due to the fact his criminal record would have taken him off the voter rolls. Ho or she would have to re register to vote and to re register to vote he or she would have to go through the registration process (Photo ID) and this new process would have also checked his eligibility to vote with the criminal records.

FYI - Back in 2008 Ritchie didn't take felons off the voter list back in 2008 election like he was supposed to do. He was just following ACORN ruled instead of Minnesota law.

I sure like how you gloss over the finer points of the Photo ID amendment and just focus on the Photo ID aspect, there is a lot more to the Photo ID amendment than just Photo ID and you know it and that is why you are so opposed to it. It will close the wide open loophole the DFL community has created to allow voter fraud to fester all of these years. Vouching and allowing a system where felons and illegals vote is totally unacceptable. That is the real argument here Chuck, Photo would take away a large voting block of people who shouldn't vote (felons, illegals and out of town or state voters) that the DFL depends on to win elections.

So for far too long the DFL has played fast and furious with the voting in Minnesota and now is the time to clean up a very flawed voting system.

4:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

4:48 - NO - No it wouldn't...

The state when it cleans the voter roles does nothing but wipe out the person from being on the list when they show up to vote. So, if Ritchie in cleaning up the felons from the voters list took your name off, when you went to vote, all you would find was that your name was not on the list.

There would not be anything telling the election judge you were believed to be a felon. It is insane to think that they would do that... what if they were wrong and you weren't a felon and the state just told this neighbor of yours that you were a felon... can you say law suit??? So, there would be nothing just your name not on the role.

So, now you show up at the poll you say that you have been registered there before, they don't find you on the list and you fill out a new registration and show you ID and you VOTE. The provisional ballot is not supposed to be for same day voting if you have an ID.... If you have an ID you vote.

Are you suggesting that everyone who votes on election day with an ID will cast a provisional ballot?

Is that how you read it? All of those thousands of people that are new registrations will cast provisional ballots.... that it really insane.

So, unless you unless this is even more insane than I believe it is, your felon won't be caught if he has an ID.

And, again there hasn't been any significant voter fraud anywhere in the country. What there is is a group of racist, who want to stop the poor, the old and those of color from voting.

JMONTOMEPPOF

Chuck Repke

11:15 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home