Minnesota: Top Minnesota court joins voter ID fray | TwinCities.com

The voter ID ballot question may be flawed, state Supreme Court justices told lawyers for both sides Tuesday, July 17, but they asked whether it is unconstitutionally misleading. And if so, what should they do about it? The justices peppered the lawyers with questions for an hour in a case that seeks to have the question thrown off the November ballot. They raised the possibility of amending the language or even using the entire proposed amendment as the question to voters rather than blocking it from appearing on the ballot. A decision is expected shortly. State elections officials have said they must know by Aug. 27 in order to have ballots prepared.

Minnesota: Ritchie resumes a familiar place in political hot seat | StarTribune.com

Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie campaigned for office six years ago pledging that he would halt the “playing politics with the office.” And now the state’s highest court will decide whether he is doing just that. With his every move scrutinized, Ritchie, a DFLer, opted to change the titles of two ballot amendments that would ban same-sex marriage and change the state’s voting system to require photo IDs and institute provisional balloting at the polls. Opponents say Ritchie’s wording is a clear injection of the bias he claims he wants to keep out of the office, but Ritchie says he is describing the amendments accurately and is within the law. “Is it uncomfortable to be the object of anger and controversy?” Ritchie said. “Yes. But I’m very thick-skinned.” Ultimately, he said, “following the law is a very comfortable position.”

Minnesota: Opponents pummel Ritchie over amendment titles | Minnesota Public Radio

What’s in a name? Well, it may be the difference between winning and losing, according to supporters and opponents of two referenda heading for the ballot in November. Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has now renamed both of them. First, he renamed the marriage amendment “Limiting The Status Of Marriage To Opposite Sex Couples.” It had been called “Recognition of marriage solely between one man and one woman.” The most recent change came this afternoon, when Ritchie decided to rename the state’s proposed voter ID amendment, designated by its legislative sponsors “Photo Identification Required for Voting.” Ritchie decided to rename the amendment “Changes to In-Person & Absentee Voting & Voter Registration; Provisional Ballots.” Supporters quickly cried foul.

Minnesota: Missouri offers tutorial for Minnesota in photo ID battle | StarTribune.com

The “Show Me State” of Missouri has a lot to show Minnesota about the travails of trying to require voters to show a photo ID before casting ballots. Short version: It won’t be easy. Six years after the law first passed in Missouri, the state’s voter-friendly courts have kept photo ID and related election-law changes off the books and even off the ballot. Minnesota advocates on both sides have taken notice. “It does show a path to success,” said Mike Dean of Common Cause Minnesota, which opposes the election law changes and hopes to duplicate Missouri’s record of blocking them in court. “The Missouri legislature really screwed up,” responds Dan McGrath of Minnesota Majority, which supports the photo ID requirements. “The Minnesota Legislature didn’t make the same mistake.”

Minnesota: GOP lawyers: Photo ID details are not necessary | StarTribune.com

Details of proposed constitutional amendments are rarely included in the ballot question voters see and the photo ID amendment should be no exception to that rule, lawyers for the Legislature have told the Minnesota Supreme Court. In defending a ballot question asking if voters should be required to show a photo ID, lawyers for the House and Senate said in a brief filed this week that the Legislature “adhered to long-standing tradition by generally describing the proposed amendment” rather than listing every detail. “There is no requirement that the Minnesota Legislature provides voters with a ‘Cliffs Notes’ summary of the proposed amendment in the ballot questions,” the lawyers wrote in their brief. “Indeed, of the 213 proposed ballot questions in Minnesota’s history, at least 42 of the questions have contained either no suggestion as to the nature of the amendment, or such limited detail that one would not know what changes the proposed amendment would make by simply viewing the ballot question,” argued the lawyers, Robert Weinstine, Thomas Boyd and Kristopher Lee.

Minnesota: High court ruling throws state campaign law into doubt | StarTribune.com

With the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirming the rights of corporations to donate unlimited amounts of money, Minnesota’s restrictions on corporate donations could hang on a pending appeals court ruling. Two advocacy groups and a business challenging the Minnesota law say the state’s limits reach beyond the Supreme Court’s intent. On Monday, the nation’s highest court struck down Montana’s 100-year-old ban on corporate money in politics, a ruling consistent with the Citizens United decision that paved the way for unlimited corporate spending in federal elections as long as the money is independent of the campaign it is intended to help. In response to that ruling, Minnesota’s campaign finance law was revised by the Legislature in 2010 to allow for unlimited corporate contributions. But the state also requires donors to funnel those contributions through political action committees that must file disclosure reports, a condition that quickly drew a legal challenge.

Minnesota: High court ruling throws state campaign law into doubt | StarTribune.com

With the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirming the rights of corporations to donate unlimited amounts of money, Minnesota’s restrictions on corporate donations could hang on a pending appeals court ruling. Two advocacy groups and a business challenging the Minnesota law say the state’s limits reach beyond the Supreme Court’s intent. On Monday, the nation’s highest court struck down Montana’s 100-year-old ban on corporate money in politics, a ruling consistent with the Citizens United decision that paved the way for unlimited corporate spending in federal elections as long as the money is independent of the campaign it is intended to help. In response to that ruling, Minnesota’s campaign finance law was revised by the Legislature in 2010 to allow for unlimited corporate contributions. But the state also requires donors to funnel those contributions through political action committees that must file disclosure reports, a condition that quickly drew a legal challenge.

Minnesota: Secretary of State asks for Supreme Court decision on voter ID by Aug. 27 | StarTribune.com

The state officials charged with preparing ballots for the Nov. 6 general election need to know whether the proposed photo ID amendment will be on the ballot, and in what form. Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, in response to a query from the state Supreme Court, told Chief Justice Lorie Gildea that the state needs a final decision in the photo ID case by Aug 27. He added that it “would be ideal” to have the ruling by Aug. 21. The Supreme Court is hearing a challenge to the language of the proposed photo ID constitutional amendment, which is scheduled to go to voters for a decision in November. The League of Women Voters argues that the ballot question voters will see is misleading and does not fully describe the changes proposed for the constitution. Amendment supporters say the language is a fair description, and that the Legislature has wide latitude to write such ballot questions.

Minnesota: Federal lawsuit seeks to tighten Minnesota’s Election Day registration procedures | MinnPost

Minnesota’s current Election Day registration system lies in the hands of a federal judge, who on Friday heard arguments from a conservative activist group seeking to strengthen procedures for determining voter eligibility. Erick Kaardal, attorney for the Minnesota Voters Alliance and several political candidates, argued that state election officials are not adequately ensuring that felons and wards of the state who are ineligible to vote are turned away from the polls. This so-called “vote dilution” from counting allegedly ineligible ballots could have had a significant effect on the extremely close elections in Minnesota during the last two cycles, he said. And the alliance is concerned about voter verification procedures for the November election, which includes the presidential race and the fate of constitutional amendments on Voter ID and on marriage. Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and elections officials from Ramsey, Chisago and Crow Wing counties are all named defendants in the suit, which U.S. District Court Judge Donovan Frank heard on Friday.

Minnesota: Same day voter registration suit heard | StarTribune.com

Minnesota’s popular practice of registering voters at the polls on Election Day came under a sharp legal attack in federal court Friday from activists and a state legislator who argued that those ballots are cast and counted before the voters’ eligibility can be fully checked. As a result, said lawyer Erick Kaardal, it is impossible to “claw back” votes if people are determined later to have been disqualified due to felony conviction or a question over residency or citizenship. He asked a federal judge to step in and order major changes to Minnesota’s 38-year-old Election Day registration system, which attracted 542,257 voters in 2008 and is a factor in keeping the state at the top of the nation’s voter-turnout lists. “Just don’t stuff the ballots into the ballot machine before ineligible voters are excluded,” Kaardal told the courtroom.

Minnesota: Same-day voter registration fight heard in U.S. court | TwinCities.com

Minnesota must check the eligibility of voters who register on Election Day before their ballots are counted or set up a process for others to do so, a voters’ rights group is arguing in federal court. Otherwise, “we’re going to lose the integrity of our elections,” said Erick Kaardal, attorney for the Minnesota Voters Alliance and other plaintiffs. But the state has no obligation to verify eligibility before counting votes, nor would doing so be practical, countered Assistant Attorney General Nathan Hartshorn, representing Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and Attorney General Lori Swanson. The two sides argued for two hours Friday, June 22, before U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank in St. Paul. Frank said he would rule within 60 days.

Minnesota: St. Paul files brief in suit challenging Minnesota Voter ID amendment, wants measure kept off ballot | TwinCities.com

St. Paul has challenged the legality of the constitutional amendment requiring voters to present photo ID at the polls. In a so-called “friend of the court” amicus brief filed to the Minnesota Supreme Court on Monday, June 18, the city questions the accuracy of the language voters will read if the amendment reaches ballots. It also says Gov. Mark Dayton’s veto of the bill in April should force the Republican-led Legislature to rewrite the question and the amendment’s title. “The so-called ‘photo ID’ question is not authorized by law and should not be placed on the ballot,” St. Paul City Attorney Sara Grewing said in a statement. “The Minnesota Supreme Court should order that this bill be sent back to the Legislature for a veto override or further legislative clarification.” The brief, which is for interested groups other than the litigants, is for a lawsuit to keep the proposed amendment off the November ballot. The Supreme Court plans to hear arguments July 17 and expects to rule in time for the ballots to be ready on Nov. 6.

Minnesota: Voter ID fight escalates as Ritchie bows out of case | StarTribune.com

Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, a DFLer who has campaigned against the photo ID requirement for voting passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature, said Thursday he will not defend the language of the proposed constitutional amendment in a court challenge that names him as the defendant. Ritchie’s decision, announced in a letter to Supreme Court Chief Justice Lorie Gildea, followed a vote by Republican legislative leaders earlier in the day to hire their own attorney to fight a lawsuit that seeks to derail the amendment before it reaches voters in November. The day’s rapid-fire events escalated what has become a high-stakes summertime preliminary to the full-fledged political campaign over the photo ID plan and related election law changes.

Minnesota: Legislature can intervene in Voter ID lawsuit; Ritchie says he won’t defend proposal | TwinCities.com

The Minnesota Supreme Court on Friday, June 15, agreed to let lawyers for the Legislature intervene in a lawsuit challenging voter ID, one day after Secretary of State Mark Ritchie said he would not defend the proposed amendment’s language. The lawsuit seeks to keep off the November ballot a proposed Minnesota constitutional amendment that would require voters have photo IDs. The state Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case July 17 and is expected to issue a decision relatively soon to ensure ballots are ready by Nov. 6. As Minnesota’s secretary of state, Ritchie is named in the lawsuit. On Thursday, Ritchie wrote Supreme Court Chief Justice Lorie Gildea that he has a “ministerial duty to ensure that the ballots are properly printed, not to take a side as to whether a ballot question proposed by the Legislature accurately or completely represents a Constitutional amendment under consideration. I therefore will not be filing a brief in this matter. I look forward to honoring and following the Court’s decision in the preparation of the ballots.”

Minnesota: Ramsey County elections official estimates photo ID cost per biennium at $1.7 million | Minnesota Public Radio

Elections officials in Ramsey County may consider an innovative response to a photo identification requirement if voters amend the constitution to require it this fall. Ramsey County elections manager Joe Mansky said the requirement could make voting difficult for thousands each year of county residents who change their addresses. Mansky told the county board Tuesday that they might want to consider providing IDs to voters at the polling places.

Minnesota: State Supreme Court weighs wording of Voter ID question | kare11.com

The Minnesota Supreme Court will decide next month whether or not the proposed voter photo ID constitutional amendment stays on the ballot. At issue is whether the question, as worded on the ballot, omits important information voters need to know before voting it up or down. That wording is simple enough, to wit: “Shall the constitution be amended to require all voters to present photo identification to vote and to require the state to provide free identification to eligible voters?” Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer, the former Secretary of State who was chief author of the voter ID amendment in the Minnesota House, defends the wording. “This really changes the system from an after-the-fact check-you-out, to a before-you-cast-your-ballot let’s verify,” Rep. Kiffmeyer said. “This is a very modest one section, and the core of the whole constitutional change is requiring photo ID.”

Minnesota: Voter ID supporters seek to intervene in lawsuit trying to stop amendment | TwinCities.com

A group supporting an amendment to the state’s constitution requiring voters to present a photo ID at the polls says it will seek to intervene in a lawsuit on the issue before the Minnesota Supreme Court. Jeff Davis, president of Minnesota Majority, said the group plans to file a motion Friday, June 8, to intervene because it lacks confidence that Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie will vigorously defend the proposed amendment against a lawsuit seeking to keep it off the November ballot. The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit May 30, arguing the ballot question is misleading. The state Supreme Court has set oral arguments for July 17.

Minnesota: State Supreme Court drawn into newest chapter of ‘voting wars’ | StarTribune.com

The Minnesota Supreme Court plans to move quickly in determining whether to change or quash a constitutional amendment on voter ID before it appears on the November ballot. The court has ordered oral arguments for July 17, an expedited schedule that would allow it to order changes to the ballot question before the November election. Opponents have asked the court to strike the ballot question, which would require voters to obtain government-approved photo identification before voting. They say that as worded, the amendment gives short shrift to broader changes the amendment would make. In its scheduling order, the high court has also asked the state for a deadline by which a decision is needed “in order to modify the ballot, if necessary, before the November” election.

Minnesota: Lawsuit may halt November Voter ID vote | KMSP FOX 9

Many Minnesotans have been deciding whether they are for or against the Voter ID amendment when they head to the polls in November — but a new lawsuit over the language in the amendment may take the question off the ballot. Several local organizations — including the American Civil Liberties Union and the League of Women Voters Minnesota — came forward on Wednesday with a lawsuit that says the language is misleading and inaccurate. They hope the Minnesota Supreme Court will intercede. The exact wording reads as follows: “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?”

Minnesota: At least part of recount group’s ‘mystery CEOs’ case may be solved | MinnPost

At least part of Minnesota’s strange political mystery may be solved. That’s the puzzler of how business executive George Fraley was erroneously listed as the CEO of Count Them All Properly Inc. (CTAP), a Republican fundraising group for the recount of the 2010 governor’s race. Fraley says the cyber-trail shows that the listing originated within his own company,HealthLink Minnesota Management Group, an Edina firm that provides business services for medical practices. Fraley is executive vice president there. He says an internal investigation has shown that an administrative assistant at Healthlink, intending to enter Fraley’s name on the Minnesota secretary of state website on behalf of a client, mistakenly entered an ID number that led to the CTAP corporate filing.   “My attorney said, ‘George, maybe you need to tell me what’s going on because the [computer] IP address used to change this was yours,’ ” Fraley said. Fraley was concerned and perplexed by the news. “I was aware of some dispute involving Republican funding,” he said.  “I was not aware of Count Them All Properly.”

Minnesota: Conservative Seniors Protest AARP’s Opposition To Minnesota Voter ID | CBS

A dramatic protest from a group of Minnesota seniors Wednesday: They cut up their AARP cards, upset because AARP is opposing the Voter ID amendment on the ballot this fall. Minnesota seniors make up the largest single voting block on Election Day. Polling data seems to show a majority of Minnesotans support the idea of showing ID when they vote. But AARP, the state’s largest senior advocacy group, says the amendment could stop thousands of the elderly from voting. So, in a show of protest and defiance, conservative seniors cut up their AARP cards. They are calling the state’s biggest advocate for the elderly out of touch with its members, whom they say support Voter ID.

Minnesota: Could Photo ID be scuttled even if voters approve constitutional amendment? | MinnPost

The fate of Minnesota’s Voter ID constitutional amendment hinges on the November elections in more ways than one — and it could be procedurally defeated even if approved at the polls, according to some experts. Democrats may get a final chance to soften the blow they say the measure would cause voters if it truly became part of the Minnesota Constitution. Republicans will have to watch the gamble they took in deciding to bypass the governor and to leave the specifics of a Photo ID system to the next Legislature. The amendment, which polls show highly favored by the public, would require voters to show a photo ID in order to cast a ballot. Despite highly publicized campaigns against Voter ID, many opponents seem resigned to the likelihood that it will pass. But even if it does, it would be up to the next Legislature to fill in the statutory blanks of how the system would work, since the wording of the bite-size amendment speaks only in generalities.

Minnesota: Secretary of State Ritchie uses election official role to move headfirst into voter ID battle | StarTribune.com

Thrust into the partisan hothouse of back-to-back statewide recounts, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie went out of his way to take on a referee persona despite the “D” after his name. But on the voter ID constitutional amendment now headed to the November ballot, he’s openly taken a side. Ritchie has steadily increased his opposition as the proposal advanced, to the point of arguing it will deprive voters of their rights. In the process, he has drawn blowback from Republicans and other supporters of the voting-law change, who accuse the state’s top elections officer of going too far. Ritchie acknowledged that he’s stepped outside of his default “stay out” approach to politics. “I’ve taken a very strong position in general that my job is to run the elections and be a partner with local election officials, and I stay out of other people’s lives and campaigns and their work,” Ritchie said. “But when something is about elections and about our basic election system, then I always take a more active role.”

Minnesota: Photo ID proponents, opponents readying for ballot battle | MinnPost

The political battle is already gearing up over Minnesota’s proposed Photo ID constitutional amendment, which was approved last week by the Legislature. At least three Ballot Question Committees have filed with the state board that tracks political organizations, and more groups are poised for the fight. Some groups are focusing on legal issues, preparing litigation opposing the amendment, which would require voters to show an ID and affect same-day registration and absentee balloting procedures. Others will focus on the political campaign, with both proponents and opponents trying to persuade voters about the Republican-backed initiative that will be on the November general- election ballot.

Minnesota: Voter ID battles often land in court | Politics in Minnesota

Even as Republicans in the Minnesota Legislature were advancing a voter ID constitutional amendment on to the November ballot last week, DFLers were predicting court challenges. In 2011 Republicans passed a statutory photo ID requirement in both chambers, but their bill was vetoed by Gov. Mark Dayton. This year the GOP-controlled House and Senate regrouped to pass the measure as a ballot question shortly before the Easter/Passover recess. The constitutional route, if successful, carries the twin benefits of bypassing Dayton and codifying the policy in a way that’s very difficult to reverse. Legal challenges are nothing new in states that have advanced voter ID proposals. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a photo ID law in Indiana. In other states — most recently, Wisconsin and Missouri — voter ID has stumbled in the courts for different reasons.

Minnesota: Governor Dayton vetoes Voter ID bill, but it goes on November ballot anyway | MinnPost

It was a ceremonial gesture only, but this morning Gov. Mark Dayton vetoed the Voter ID bill approved last week by the Republican-led Legislature. The bill calls for a statewide vote in November on a proposed constitutional amendment that, if approved, will require all voters to show state-approved photo IDs. But the measure will be on the November ballot anyway. The governor’s veto can’t keep amendments passed by the Legislature off the ballot, which is why the Republican majority went that route.

Minnesota: Lawsuits likely before and after Voter ID balloting | MPRN

Only days after the Legislature approved a proposed constitutional amendment that will ask voters this November to require that Minnesotans show photo identification at the polls, groups that oppose the measure vowed to fight it in court. “This question is deceptive and misleading to voters and the court should strike it down and reject it,” Mike Dean, executive director of Minnesota Common Cause, said Monday. Dean said his group and the Minnesota chapter of the America Civil Liberties Union are preparing a lawsuit to stop the amendment from getting on the ballot.

Minnesota: Debate ramps up over potential effects of voter ID measure on students | The Minnesota Daily

With the state Legislature’s recent passage of the voter ID constitutional amendment, the future voting process for college students rests on many factors. And while both sides agree it’s too early to tell what the implications of the law would be if it passes on the November ballot, some worry about its affect on students. If the majority of Minnesota voters vote to mandate valid photo identification at the polls, details of how the amendment will work will be left up to the next Legislature. How it will work will also be dependent upon the makeup of the new Legislature — all 201 state legislators are up for re-election in November. On Wednesday, the Senate re-passed the bill to put the constitutional amendment on the ballot in November. All DFLers voted against the amendment, and all but one Republican voted in favor. Sen. Kari Dziedzic, DFL-Minneapolis, who represents the University of Minnesota’s district, said she worries about the potential impact on students and same-day registration. Although proponents of the amendment say that same-day registration will remain, Dziedzic said it’s unclear how it will work for students and may make voting more of a hassle.

Minnesota: Voter ID: The devil may be in the details | Mankato Free Press

A party-line debate and party-line vote in the Legislature is likely to result in a major change in Minnesota voting rules, but the actual consequences remain in dispute. Democrats predict dire consequences — high costs, new restrictions that will discourage voting by certain groups, an end to Minnesota’s tradition of same-day registration — if voters approve the amendment as expected on Nov. 6. Republicans, who control the Legislature and put the issue on the general election ballot, say Democratic warnings are wildly overblown. The new requirement that voters show a government-issued ID before casting a ballot will boost confidence in elections while not substantially curtailing the right to vote, supporters of the law say. For the people who run local elections, though, the issue goes much beyond the standard partisan debate.

Minnesota: Voter ID amendment is now up to voters | StarTribune.com

Minnesota’s historic battle over photo ID and the future of the state’s voting system moved from the Capitol to the voters themselves on Wednesday. The House and Senate, with Republicans supplying all the “yes” votes, gave final approval to a proposed constitutional amendment that would require voters to show a photo ID, create a new system of “provisional” balloting and end election day “vouching” for voters without proof of residence. It passed the House on a 72-57 vote shortly after midnight and was approved by the Senate Wednesday afternoon on a 35-29 vote. The decision puts Minnesota squarely in the center of a national debate over election security vs. ballot access. Five states have strict photo ID requirements in law. Wisconsin and several other states are battling the issue in court or in their legislatures. Minnesota now joins Mississippi and Missouri as states that have sought to impose the changes via constitutional amendments. Minnesota’s amendment will likely face court challenges of its own before it goes to voters.