It Might Get Loud: Ernie Leidiger attends a voter ID forum at a senior housing facility [UPDATED]

Last week, the Eastern Carver County League of Women Voters held a forum on the Voter ID constitutional amendment at a senior housing facility in Waconia.  The Chanhassen Villager details what happened when State Rep. Ernie Leidiger decided to drop in on the event.

“He was loud, boisterous, argumentative and bullying,” said Glenda Noble, an LWV member who helped arrange the presentation. “His manner and tone was not appropriate. We were guests in a facility that houses older people. The public is welcome, but we expect them to behave.”

For his part, Leidiger doesn’t even really dispute the description of his behavior.

Leidiger, however, said he was just being “loud” and the LWV should be held accountable for the information presented.

And for good measure, he added, the LWV are “pathetic partisan hacks”.  The full LWV response (in the form of a letter to the editor) is here.

The best response for this sort of behavior by an elected official was provided by the conservative blogger over at the Carver County Current:  WTF, Ernie?!

Reasonable people can have different opinions about this constitutional amendment.  When you’re an elected official, though, you need to demonstrate some decorum and understand that you’re going to have sometimes deal with folks who don’t agree with you.

(It’s no wonder, with this sort of attitude and behavior, that Leidiger was one of the least productive members of the GOP majority in the House last legislative session.  Of the 31 GOP freshmen, Leidiger was 29th in bills chief authored and tied for 22nd in bills signed into law — with 1.  Building relationships is critical to your success in the chamber, and going around acting like a bully in a senior citizens home isn’t going to make you any friends.)

The LWV will be having another Voter ID presentation at 6:15 p.m. on Tuesday, September 11 at the Chanhassen Library.  If Rep. Leidiger chooses to attend that meeting, he should turn the volume down and act like an adult.

[UPDATE]:  Check out our complete archive of Ernie Leidiger coverage.

[UPDATE #2, 8/31]:  Leidiger has released a statement regarding the incident.  It reads:

The League of Woman Voters must think that Minnesota Nice means you have to swallow anything they spew out including lies, misinformation, and fear-mongering, without anyone questioning their facts or motives. They want you to wear gray, fall in line, and only believe their point of view after they scare you. This is also behavior true of those in the progressive movement in the Democrat Party. So when someone questions them and they don’t like it, then their response is … well, he’s a bully! If standing up for truth means being labeled a bully by this organization, then it’s time they are exposed for who they really are, a left wing, progressive lap-dog group that has lost all credibility. How pathetic, they stoop to such disgusting behavior, blatantly spreading fear in our elderly population in these meetings, using propaganda created by the biased Brennen Law Center.

I’m responding to the League’s letter about me challenging them on their stance on the voter ID amendment at a recent public meeting at an assisted living facility in Waconia. I attended and what I heard was astounding. The League wasn’t there providing information, they were conducting a take-no-prisoners, frontal assault on their audience using propaganda and fear tactics on the elderly to shut down the amendment.

The main speaker was from Minneapolis not a local League member. Her slick speech and video was fear-mongering, distortions, and made up scenarios designed to frighten people to vote against the amendment. The League is out trying to defeat it at all costs. One really has to wonder why they are so adamantly against verification, why anyone could be against it. I often think that maybe fraud is worse than any of us ever imagined. Why else do progressives fight such a common sense initiative which is passing everywhere across the nation with excellent results. Why is the League silent about views from those in favor of the amendment. Why do they refuse to acknowledge the origins of the initiative, the bi-partisan Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002, and the subsequent Jimmy Carter/Howard Baker Commission results of 2005 which fully recommended voter ID verification. Instead, the League supported Mark Ritchie and the Democrats to throw out the amendment or change the title on the ballot to confuse voters. Thankfully, the Minnesota Supreme Court struck down the overt and highly illegal attempt of the Democrat Administration to confuse the voters by changing language of the amendment.

The League is against the amendment. They are wrong. Minnesotans will vote yes on the amendment this November and integrity will be restored in our voting system.



156 Responses to “It Might Get Loud: Ernie Leidiger attends a voter ID forum at a senior housing facility [UPDATED]”

  1. Wow! Obsess much?

    First off, we did discuss this event at the board meeting, and it was very clear to those in attendance at the LWV event, that what they were saying was 100% inaccurate, and was designed entirely to scare seniors into thinking they would be somehow disenfranchised under this amendment. It’s false, and absurd.

    Second, which do find to be inappropriate? Lying to seniors, or standing up to defend the truth. I know what you’ll say, because you take the anti-Ernie position every time. Ernie did get loud, and we will be there to get loud at every one of these events, until these partisan hacks start to tell the truth.

    • Disagreeing with someone’s political position doesn’t make it OK to yell over them. It is possible to disagree respectfully, at least for most people.

      Also good to know that it’s the Carver County GOP’s intention to disrupt such events.

      • This is NOT a disagreement about any position. These people are out and out lying about the amendment. And when these people put on this dog and pony show, deliberately trying to scare seniors, it is our duty to stop them. Ernie only got loud after these lying hacks wouldn’t allow him to refute thier lies. And you can bet we will be on hand to do this elsewhere. It’s wrong and you know it is wrong, to out and out lie about this or any other issue.

        What Ernie did was say to these LMV folks is that “I’m not going to let you get away with this!” When he called them on thier untruths, claiming seniors would be disnefranchised, WHEN EVERY ONE gets to vote, ID or not with this amendment, he was standing up for the people in that room, listening to the garbage that was being spewed. When they tried to stop him, yes, he got loud. He was doing the fine work of standing up for and protecting these folks from a complete disinformation campaign, design to confuse the elderly. It’s shameful and will be put down when it happens. There were no truths told at this meeting by LMV. The only accurate information given was their names.

    • I worked with the LWV for almost forty years and never heard them spread misinformation. They are above all that partisan crap.

  2. Dare not call him… Bully. He sounds like the universal picture of a …defender of truth, protector against… pathetic hacks, and judge of the 100% inaccurate. Oh, thank you for the loud declaration of truth… Your Lordship.

    • You ought to read the law. It pretty short and sweet. And it’s very simple to understand. And theere is only one reason to be against it. You WANT voter fraud to continue. You NEED it to continue. There is no other reason at this point.

  3. I am an election judge, what voter fraud are talking about. I have not seen any.

    • Therefore it must not exist. I’ve never seen anyone murdered either. And I used to hang out in downtown Mpls!

      • “If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we’re going to have a tough time in this election.” John Pappageorge, GOP State Representative, Michigan, 2004

        It would be more believable that this wasn’t about vote suppression if Republicans didn’t continue to brag about vote caging, disqualification, or rigging the system to guarantee a win (see Wisconsin).

        Or if they didn’t hire calling firms to launch massive hang-up calls against get out the vote efforts in 2002, in order to suppress Democratic turnout in New Hampshire.

        Or if they didn’t send fliers saying “Skip this Election” to black voters in Virginia in 2006, or tell other voters that voting could lead to their arrest.

        Or the voter caging schemes in Michigan, Montana, Kansas, and other states in 2008, where GOP leaders targeted voters for elimination from the voter registry based on their tendency or likelihood to vote for Democrats. Those disqualified included veterans and active duty soldiers, and after a court order over 5,000 voters were added back to the rolls in Michigan. In 2007, Kansas GOP chair bragged that “To date, the Kansas GOP has identified and caged more voters in the last 11 months than the previous two years!”

        It’s worth noting that this is illegal, and in the 1980’s the RNC entered a consent decree agreeing to stop the practice after they were caught purging thousands of names from African-American neighborhoods. So much for living by the letter of the law.

        Face it, this is a partisan effort to use the power of Big Government to rig elections. If not, then why all the bragging?

        Screaming at people doesn’t erase these facts, and as long as this is the case, then I can’t support such convenient conservatism. Using tricks and big government regulations to skew the results isn’t something a real conservative would ever do.

        • Funny stuff. Do you know who first proposed voter ID? Jimmy Carter.

        • I have to ask you one simple question, Drew. How is it voter supression when the amendment allows EVERY SINGLE PERSON TO VOTE!! Even WITHOUT AN ID!! How do you get to that magic assumption? Where’s the logic? Everyone still gets to vote, but somehow, in some feeble minds, votes are being supressed? How?!?!?

          • Now, you’re really spinning. Yes, a person without an ID can cast a provisional ballot, but without and ID, the vote would never be counted.

            • That’s not right. A provisional ballot is no different than an absentee ballot. It will be counted after verification.

              • The verification process, though, is the voter providing evidence that they are who they say they are within 7-10 days of the election. Based on the standards of the amendment, that’s “government issued photographic identification”.

                Do you not even read your own side’s talking points? Or do you consider the act of filling out a ballot and not having it count as “voting”?


                • This isn’t from the law, but since you cited it, it states:

                  Provisional ballots are set aside from the other ballots and are only opened and counted once the voter provides identification or other evidence of their identity, typically within 7-10 days after an election.

                  You get to vote, and your vote does get counted, if you can be verified. Why is this so hard for liberals to understand? The only votes that don’t get counted are fraudulent.

                  If this is so nasty of a concept, can you explain why uber-liberal Jimmy Carter recommended this? When did he become a Republican? Why does he support your false notion of disenfranchisement?

                  Have you looked at the results in other states? Once voter ID is required, there are so few of these provisional ballots, because just like when people have to have an ID to fly, they get one before the trip. I believe in Indiana for example less than .2% of voters didn’t have their ID on election day, and most of those were people who forgot, and had their ballot counted soon after.

                  Why is the left so afraid of this? I can only imagine they are aware of the fraud that helps them win elections. Why don’t you want additional integrity in our voting szystem like the majority of the population?

                  • The number of provisional ballots don’t reflect the number of people who just didn’t come to the polls because they knew their vote wouldn’t be counted.

                    The evidence shows that we have plenty of integrity in our voting system, and the only problem of any significance (and even this is extremely rare) is the felon voting issue which wouldn’t be resolved by this amendment any way.

                  • If it can be verified… which means that for those who don’t need a photo I.D. (or can’t get one, as has happened to a number of senior citizens around the country with these laws), they don’t get to vote. Period. No amount of doublespeak changes that, so dodging it doesn’t work, and again I’m surprised a conservative would go this far out of the way to obscure the true cost of a wasteful government regulation.

                    No ID, no vote. Stop dodging that fact.

                    It doesn’t deal with the actual issues with voting; instead, it makes it harder for certain populations to vote. It’s the worst form of big government, in that it reduces the ability of the people to have oversight over those in charge.

                    And it does have questionable motives, as we saw in South Carolina where Alan Clemmons (the author of the South Carolina voter ID law) admitted to sending and receiving racist emails in support of the law (according to one of the emails, if there was a reward for getting an ID for the black population, “it would be like a swarm of bees going after a watermelon”). He is also alleged to have given out bags of peanuts with a note saying “Stop Obama’s nutty agenda and support voter ID.”

                    A law that doesn’t achieve its main goal, that will cost more taxpayer money, that gives government more power through greater regulation, and diminishes the oversight of the people. What true conservative can support this?

                    • No ID, no vote. Stop dodging that fact.

                      It’s not a fact!

                      A law that doesn’t achieve its main goal,

                      But it does! Ten of thousands of PVC cards returned every year. And these votes are counted, and we can’t determine who made them. That’s the goal. Now we can determine who is doing this and see if it’s fraud.

                      How in the heck does it give government more power? What an absurd comment! By assuring these unverifiable votes don’t get counted? that gives the government more power? How? This pure lunacy at this point.

                      And I don’t need a lecture on conservatism from someone who fails to understand simple logic.

          • Again, screaming at people and demeaning people doesn’t change the facts, something you seem to not understand or care about. However, in the interest of civil conversation, allow me to respond.

            The Carter-Baker proposal was to have universal ID’s, free of charge and readily available, phased in over a number of years. Even then, it was flawed (see None of the voter ID proposals recently implemented follow those standards, which makes it even worse.

            In fact, the situation in Georgia has people without an ID center within 50 miles. Additionally, utility bills and other proofs or residency are rejected, but EXPIRED ID’s are accepted. What sense does that make in actually preventing voter fraud?

            As was pointed out, most voter fraud either comes from suppression or felons voting inappropriately. This law fixes none of those things; it is a big government effort to add obstacles to voting, so that one group decides who gets to have the full scope of American rights. It is more reminiscent of Stalin’s quote that “It’s not the people who vote that count, but the people who count the votes.”

            And it fails to achieve its purpose, while disenfranchising thousands who should be able to vote.

            As far as your claim about no one being stopped from voting, that arguments lacks any coherence or competence. After all, if anyone can still have their vote counted without showing an ID, then why show it in the first place? What would this law be other than a wasteful layer of regulation if that was the case?

            Lastly, I noticed you didn’t counter any of the quotes I referenced (and having a local party official refer to voter suppression and illegal actions as “funny stuff” is not the reaction I expected, nor it is something you’d want highlighted in the media). The short point is that conservatives are bragging about how this will guarantee that they will win elections. They are bragging about suppressing votes, targeting populations they consider hostile, and caging votes of those who have experienced misfortune. I’m not the one saying it’s political; the people writing these laws are, so why not believe them?

            We have competent election judges, and a system that provides access to many of the people, and yet voter turnout is not where it needs to be. The last thing we need is a big government boondoggle that doesn’t address the problems that exists, while making it harder for Americans to reign in their government.

            If this happened in the business world, you would be howling for relief in defense of the people. When it happens here, you turn blithely by. That’s convenient conservatism, and it’s nothing to be proud of, with all due respect.

            That’s the point. This is big government restricting the oversight of the people, done for political reasons (as Mike Turzai, the PA House Majority leader said, voted ID “is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania”). And people are bragging.

            It may be a great political move. But it’s not an ethical one, nor it is a conservative one. Convenient principles have no meaning.

            • This is false:

              And it fails to achieve its purpose, while disenfranchising thousands who should be able to vote.

              Everyone gets to vote! Everyone who is legit gets their vote counted. How is that disenfranchisement of anyone?

              I don’t give a rip about your quotes because they have nothing to do with MN and the fraud that exists here, nor do they have anything to do with this amendment.

            • Again, screaming at people and demeaning people doesn’t change the facts,

              There wasn’t any screaming. There wasn’t any demeaning. I wouldn’t put much stock in what the LWV said about this incident. According to people who were there, they have blown this way out of prpotion. Yes, Ernie talked over these people, but he did so only because they were lying about the bill, and wouldn’t allow him to correct their baloney.

              The left is losing their minds over this, because they are hiding fraud. It’s the only conclusion left. Everyone votes. Legit voters are counted. It’s simple. It’s easy. It’s effective. And it’s got broad support across ALL segments of the voting populace.

              • When I referred to demeaning others, sir, I was referring to you. I am not feeble minded, or corrupt, or any of the other things you throw out in your discourse.

                I do question how a conservative can support a law that has an estimated cost of over $50 million to taxpayers, allows no exemptions for religious grounds, and does not deal with the main form of improper voting in the state (felons voting after losing voting rights).

                Let me ask this simple, straightforward question: if someone cannot produce a photo I.D., either at the polling place or after casting a provisional ballot, does their vote count? Because according to the records of the state legislature, the answer is no:

                “Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to require that all voters present an approved form of photographic identification prior to voting; all voters be subject to identical eligibility verification standards regardless of the time of their registration; and the state provide at no charge an approved photographic identification to eligible voters?”

                A plain-language version can be found at

                The actual language to be added to the state constitution:

                (b) All voters voting in person must present valid government-issued photographic identification before receiving a ballot. The state must issue photographic identification at no charge to an eligible voter who does not have a form of identification meeting the requirements of this section. A voter unable to present government-issued photographic identification must be permitted to submit a provisional ballot. A provisional ballot must only be counted if the voter certifies the provisional ballot in the manner provided by law.
                (c) All voters, including those not voting in person, must be subject to substantially equivalent identity and eligibility verification prior to a ballot being cast or counted.

                The issue is that the provisional ballot is only counted if the person can certify the ballot, which still requires a photo ID, since the requirement for all voters to show ID would be enshrined in the constitution, and thus the highest law of the state.

                The only way to get around this would be to define other options for certification under the law, but since none of those exist yet, claiming that there is another path is false. Additionally, they would be bound by the constitutional language requiring equivalent identity and eligibility verification found in part (c), thus precluding a more flexible standard that would not include photo identification. Thus, your contentions are not supported by the letter of the proposed amendment.

                I formally request clarification from you, as a representative of the local GOP, as to the statements you have made in contradiction of the stated text of the amendment. (While I’m hoping for a cordial and forthcoming response, be aware that I reserve the right to pursue any inaccuracies or any defamatory accusations through the public sphere or through other forms of inquiry if necessary.)

              • It should be noted: I’m not looking for a hostile reply, but I have a number of people who are confused by this contradiction, including some who won’t vote for the amendment if someone can come by afterwards and get by without photo ID. They have been told that this is not the case, and that’s the way the text itself reads, so formal clarification is respectfully requested.

                • Your vote remains provisional until you can proove you are who you say are. Instead of today, where we have tens of thousands of voters, who cannot be verified after voting, whose votes are already part of the tally, yes you’re vote doesn’t get removed from provisional status until you can proove your identity. You have voted, along with everyone else, but now you must be verified before it is counted instead of after, when it’s too late.

                  Why is this so hard to follow? The whole point is to only count valid votes, not fraudulent votes like we do today. Does it get all of the fraud out? Probably not. Is it a step towards removing fraud? Absolutely. We’ll see that right away. Some assume that some people just won’t show up? Well, then they are disenfrachising themselves at that point. And getting an ID is so simple. You’ve got plenty of time to do this before the election. Why not just get one and be done with it? ID can even expire,and it’s useable.

                  • Still waiting for you to tell me how my bedridden mother can get a government issued ID after her recent move to Minnesota…… since you make it sound so easy, breezy.

                    • Still waiting for you to tell me how she’s going to go vote under current law. Absentee?, since she’s bedridden… does something change for absentee voters? Or is she only bedridden when it comes time to get an ID that will last her for 4 years? If she can get to the polls, she can certainly get an ID.

                    • Geez, John. Better watch your blood pressure. You sure get worked up. And don’t cast aspersions on my mother. Talk about asinine remarks. Don’t even want to dignify your comment about her faking her disabilities– that’s just sick and reprehensible. Again, if someone needs a “government-issued” ID, that would count for absentee ballots as well, right? So my question remains. Is a government official going to show up at her door on request with an ID application?

                    • Absentee ballots have the same requirement, according to the language of the amendment itself (unless you wish to officially state otherwise on this record, Mr. Brunette?).

                      So there is a physical strength qualification to vote now?

                      So much for the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

                    • How in the heck did you decide I was claiming your mom was faking anything? HOW IS SHE GOING TO VOTE IF SHE CAN’T GET TO THE POLLS? If she can get to the polls, she can get an ID, can’t she?

                      You see, we are very limited in what we can do to identify someone at a polling location. Those limits come off for provisonal ballots. There are many ways to verify after the vote is cast. An ID simply makes the voting process easier and more accountable.

                    • The language of the amendment makes no distinction between types of ballot in how you verify the voter’s identity, John. The standard is identical whether voting in-person, absentee, or provisional.

                    • I decided that you were claiming my mom was faking when you said, and I quote:

                      Absentee?, since she’s bedridden… does something change for absentee voters? Or is she only bedridden when it comes time to get an ID that will last her for 4 years? If she can get to the polls, she can certainly get an ID.

                      Implying that she is bedridden when it suits her needs. Very, very low blow, John… and very, very uncalled for!

                      (By the way, my mom is a faithful Republican– does that change your derisive attitude toward her difficulty in obtaining a government-issued ID?)

                    • I guess people think you’re going to send in your ID to cast an absentee ballot? And what would you match the photo to? You’re being ridiculous. And Drew asks about strength? Where did that come from?

                    • “Or is she only bedridden when it comes time to get an ID that will last her for 4 years?”

                      That’s how it came across that you thought her mother was faking her condition, Mr. Brunette… you said it, or at least implied the accusation fairly clearly. Thankfully, we don’t require people to prove they have enough life in them to vote… at least not yet.

                    • From the amendment:
                      (c) All voters, including those not voting in person, must be subject to substantially equivalent identity and eligibility verification prior to a ballot being cast or counted.

                      ALL voters, including those not voting in person… so again, Mr. Brunette, if you as a representative for yourself and the BPOU wish to forward a different version than what’s written in the proposed amendment, I’m going to ask for official verification of where that’s coming from.

                      If nothing else, you seem to be presenting a critical flaw in the language, which I would see as reason to vote against it.

                    • Implying that she is bedridden when it suits her needs. Very, very low blow, John… and very, very uncalled for!

                      I didn’t mean to imply that. I was merely suggesting, that if she can get to the polls to vote, she can go get an id. I wouldn’t dream of slamming anyone’s mom. Mom’s rock!

                      I’m assuming, but I haven’t heard from you, that she will vote absentee?

                    • How are absentee ballots verified today? I’ve never voted that way, nor know anyone who has.

                  • So, in other words, you are retracting your previous statement that a person could vote and have that vote counted in the end if they do not have a government-issue ID? You were very quick to say my statement was false, so I want to pin this down, as this is a critical piece to many who are considering this amendment, and your statements contradict themselves, particularly this statement:

                    “I have to ask you one simple question, Drew. How is it voter supression when the amendment allows EVERY SINGLE PERSON TO VOTE!! Even WITHOUT AN ID!! How do you get to that magic assumption? Where’s the logic? Everyone still gets to vote, but somehow, in some feeble minds, votes are being supressed? How?!?!?”

                    In this statement, you (as an individual, and as a vocal representative of the local party) openly stated that a person could cast a valid vote without an ID. Now you argue otherwise.

                    A provisional ballot is NOT an official vote, not until verified, and your last statement clearly contradicts your previous arguments. And going to the ballot box but not having it count means nothing; it’s an exercise in bureaucracy, nothing more. Your last statement is more in line with the stated language; however, it is not what was said earlier, or what is being told to many people who are questioning this amendment, and we should be honest about what is being proposed here.

                    In short: without a government-issued ID, you cannot vote and have it count. So that burden and tax shall be added to our state, our communities, and our people. Agreed?

                    As for the idea of requiring the ID, this is out of step with most of the rest of conservative philosophy. For someone who doesn’t need an ID as part of their life where they are at, this is a government intrusion, and in any other case the conservative/libertarian voice would rise against it. They do when it comes to environmental regulation, gun regulation, and pretty much any form of regulation. Except voting.

                    Hence those quotes you referred to as “funny stuff” (that has drawn a negative reaction from those I’ve spoken to). This is a big solution that offers more regulation, without addressing the known problems. It is political, not just.

                    Again, I await confirmation.

                    • So let’s calrify, even though you will never get it, I’ll try again. EVERYONE gets to vote. If yo9u don’t have an ID, your vote is provisonal. It remains that way until you proove that you are who you say you are. If you are unwilling to proove you are who you say you are, then who is disenfraching you. YOU ARE! This only happens at the polls. If you can get to the polls on election day, the only reason you vote won’t count without identification is if you died before you prooved you are who you say you are. That’s the only way anyone’s vote will not be counted, if they are indeed who they say they are. Any other scenario, it is the voter who has the ability to get identified and place is vote into the counted pile.

                      This really isn’t very different from our current law’s design. It’s just the current law has a way to work around the system. There is a huge gaping loop hole. You can have your vote counted, and not be who you say are. And there’s every indication that it happens undeer current law. Ten of thousands of unverifiable same registrants every major election in MN. Why doesn’t that concern you.

                      I’ve got news for you. this is a very conservative perspective. In fact, it enjoys nearly 100% support from conservatives of every stripe. Libertarians even have wide support for this. There is only one group who seems to think it’s a bad idea. Those on the very far left. Only a fraction of Democrats are against this bill.

                      You seem to think, along with others, that we stand for zero government spending. That’s simply not true. You also seem to think there’s no fraud that will be fixed by this. Again, that is simply not true. Everyone from every race, color and creed believe this to be true. there is fraud, and this closes a loop hole that allows that fraud.

                    • First off, your tone is grossly inappropriate. If anger and attacks is something you cannot restrain, then I politely suggest you find another hobby.

                      Everybody can cast a ballot; that does NOT mean everybody can vote. A vote is not official until it is counted; thus, this law eliminates voting rights for those most vulnerable to this restriction. Proof of this can be found when a 93 year old woman in Tennessee was denied the right to vote, even though she had cleaned the capital building for 30 years: ( ). She was delivered via midwife, so she can’t get the documentation needed.

                      Or an 86 year old veteran in Ohio who was denied the right to vote, even though he had a photo ID from the VA: (

                      Thus, your argument is not factually valid. In these and many other cases, real people are being denied the right to vote, even though they are documented citizens. No hypothetical situations, no “maybe we can find fraud now” argument, but tangible cases, plain and true.

                      And your argument on fraud lacks proof, even under favorable circumstances to finding it. Texas, under the direction of a republican legislature and governor and led by attorneys appointed and aligned with the GOP, had an investigation looking for the very evidence you claim exists. They didn’t find it. Since when do conservatives support laws that spend taxpayer money without proof of need?

                      An electronic poll registry would have dealt with many of the real issues and abuses, without these infringements. It was rejected in favor of a flawed solution that will cost local communities thousands of dollars, by those who brag about the advantage this will give. If nothing else, shouldn’t we take the bragging as true?

                      As for the mailings that get returned: first off, I’m skeptical of this argument, because of its similarities to voter caging, as previously discussed. There are dozens of reasons for a card to be returned, from deployment overseas to loss of home to living in a shelter for domestic violence. If you want better verification, then fine, but this approach doesn’t do that. It just adds obstacles to an inherent right of the people.

                      True conservatism believes that the empowerment of the people provides the greatest safeguard against tyranny. The pursuit of hypothetical fraud in a way that could disenfranchise over 10 million Americans nationally is the worst form of big government intrusion that could ever exist.

                    • In the cases you cite, did these states not have provisonal ballots like do? If so, wouldn’t thier problems have been resolved, and their votes counted? I don’t see how that applies here.

                      And again with the lessons of conservatism from liberal? Please. Stick with things you understand.

                    • As for the mailings that get returned: first off, I’m skeptical of this argument,

                      Your skepticism doesn’t change the reality of the issue.

                      If you want better verification, then fine, but this approach doesn’t do that.

                      Other then the fact that it does. If we only count verified voters, then yes, it does exactly that.

                    • First off, your tone is grossly inappropriate. If anger and attacks is something you cannot restrain, then I politely suggest you find another hobby

                      Apparently, you are new here. This site is dedicated to such behavior. Ernie’s been called a porn peddler, a shady businessman, assinine, a moron. So the feigned outrage over “tone” and “anger”, if it exists, is the standard here.

                    • Again, the vulgar and demeaning tone, and the assumption about my beliefs. You once said that the Democrats drove you away from the party… well, guess what your tone and conduct is doing for me?

                      Proof, sir, please… and none is forthcoming. The examples I quoted would not have been changed by provisional balloting, since they were either denied the very ID needed or had an otherwise valid ID rejected, so the fatal flaws in your premise remain.

                      As for accurate verification, there lies the problem. The argument being presented is that anyone without an ID must be invalid or lazy; however, for many people the cost or need is not sufficient to merit the ID. Government should not be empowered to deny the fundamental right that all other rights rely on, just because of perception. It’s like arguing that since guns are used to shoot people, all gun owners should be held as suspects in crimes. It lacks logic and common sense, and is a massive intrusion into individual rights.

                      Dozens of examples are rapidly emerging of invalid disqualifications, cases where bureaucracy doesn’t allow a person to get the ID, or elements that add fees to acquiring the ID (can we say Poll Tax?). And yet, major studies conducted by neutral and conservative parties say the very fraud you’re arguing exists… doesn’t. Not liberals whining about it, but conservative states and leaders striking out. That’s the problem, in that the real issues and problems with voting aren’t addressed by this. Instead, this amendment imposes a burden on local taxes and governments, and a hardship on good, independent Americans, without any evidence that it is actually needed (and saying that there’s evidence, without providing it, doesn’t count).

                    • Two studies as examples: the Brennan Center found that voter impersonation fraud was less likely than winning the lottery.

                      Even more telling, the Republican National Lawyer’s Association study that found amazingly few examples of voter fraud, and no foundation for additional ID laws.

                      Also, the Texas ID law was struck down as discriminatory.

                      On a separate note: yes, the porn accusations were flimsy (sorry, everyone else, but they were), but some of the other questions had merit. Even more importantly, you will drive people away as long as your responses always question their intelligence, decency, or humanity. Just saying…

                    • so the fatal flaws in your premise remain.

                      No they don’t. Your ballot remains provisional until you proove who you say you are. Just like provisional ballots today. I can’t speak for Ohio. In our law, does it say that if you show up, and your ID is invalid, that you cannot vote? Nope. You get to vote. Does it say we will tear it up if you come back with something invalid? Nope. Go get an ID, and come back. From the language in the bill i see no restrictions on the number of attempts you can make to proove your who you say you are. Do you?

                      And seriously, if you insist on remaining so obtuse, I’m calling you on it.

                      And what is this confirmation you seek? Do you imagine I’m here at the request of the GOP? I’m a volunteer. I don’t create laws or policy. But I will defend the truth about them, as they are explained to me by the people who write and vote for them.

                      What you see me post something as John Brunette, Communications Chair of the Carver County BPOU, you’ll know I’m giving an official stance from that organization. I wouldn’t hold your breath however. My official communciation end up in newspapers, but never on a blog site other than our offical site, and even then, it usually as a private volunteer. I merely give my full name, because Sean is brave enough to use his.

                    • question their intelligence, decency, or humanity

                      Are you not doing the same to me? Pfft.

                    • Can you go one post without insulting someone? How disappointing…

                      “Nope. Go get an ID, and come back.” Hence, to the point you keep dodging, that even though a person might have other forms and ways of proving their identity, or that there is no study showing the need to spend taxpayer money on this solution to a phantom problem, they are required to spend time (and often times money, as I illustrated) to get one. Without it, they cannot cast a valid vote, period. So the same tax on local election boards, and the same burden without cause. Your example of casting a ballot basically means they get to stand in line, knowing that for many of them their vote will never count, just like the examples I brought up (tangible, concrete examples, no less). So no, they cannot cast a valid vote.

                      And it is political, as I’ve documented. Does anyone honestly believe that it is pure coincidence that after 2010, a wave election for the GOP, that these efforts kicked in? Or again, setting aside other arguments, that we shouldn’t note the fact that multiple politicians involved in these efforts have bragged publicly about the motive of winning elections being the driving force? If nothing else, shouldn’t we take them at their word?

                      As for the lines between you as a person and as a representative of the party, forgive my observation that you have referenced meetings within the party to say that you’ve received information showing how great this amendment is (without providing an example that has withstood scrutiny to this point, it should be noted). So either provide non-partisan examples that can be confirmed, or I suggest getting used to having people call you on it when you blur the lines.

                      It’s a poor law. Even you have questions about how elements will actually work, good questions that defy simple answers. Better solutions were available that offered fewer burdens, at a lesser cost to taxpayers. Instead, this route was chosen, but so far I’ve seen nothing for tangible proof of the claims behind this, not even from conservative organizations who tried to find it. And there are too many “conservatives” bragging about how these laws will keep them in power.

                      Why add more regulation and burdens without cause? Where’s the proof?

                    • I have not, in one instance, directly demeaned your intelligence or humanity. I have questioned your tactics and challenged your beliefs, but still refer to you as Mr. Brunette or sir. I resent the accusation to the contrary.

                    • Why add more regulation and burdens without cause? Where’s the proof?

                      the proof is the tens of thousands of PVC that come back as inavlid addresses. Places that don’t exist. Businesses that never heard of this person. etc. This despite what you on left claim doesn’t happen, is fraud.

                    • In 2010, the number of PVC’s turned over to county attorneys for being returned for unknown reasons was 399.

                      Not buying it.

  4. From USA Today, 8/20/2012:

    A new nationwide analysis of more than 2,000 cases of alleged election fraud over the past dozen years shows that in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which has prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tougher voter ID laws, was VIRTUALLY NON-EXISTENT. (caps mine)

    The analysis of 2,068 reported fraud cases by News21, a Carnegie-Knight investigative reporting project, found 10 cases of alleged in-person voter impersonation since 2000. WITH 146 MILLION REGISTERED VOTERS IN THE UNITED STATES, THOSE REPRESENT ABOUT ONE FOR EVERY 15 MILLION PROSPECTIVE VOTERS. (again, caps mine)

    The News21 report is based on a national public-records search in which reporters sent thousands of requests to elections officers in all 50 states, asking for every case of alleged fraudulent activity — including registration fraud; absentee-ballot fraud; vote buying; false election counts; campaign fraud; the casting of ballots by ineligible voters, such as felons and non-citizens; double voting; and voter impersonation.

    The analysis found that there is more alleged fraud in absentee ballots and voter registration than in any of the other categories. The analysis shows 491 cases of alleged absentee-ballot fraud and 400 cases involving registration fraud. Requiring voters to show identification at the polls — the crux of most of the new legislation — would not have prevented those cases.

    So John, tell us again– where is the problem??

    My concern more than Rep. Leidiger’s belief in the prevalence of voter fraud, is his shouting and rude behavior. That is totally unacceptable.

    As a former city council member in a Minneapolis suburb, I was exposed to plenty of shouting, name-calling and accusations from the public. But you know what? It was my responsibility as an elected official to maintain my cool and respond accordingly. How the representative could go off the rails at a LWV is beyond me. THAT is the real issue here– one of character.

    • If there’s no fraud, and all still get to vote, why don’t we follow Jimmy Carter’s recommendation for voter ID? The only consequence of this amendment is that fraud becomes more difficult. We will see after this passes, because this amendment has massive support. No one will be denied to vote. It’s absurd to think that this is bad idea. There can be no poor effect by making certain voters are who they say they are. This doesn’t hurt same day registration. It enhances it. In states where this has been enacted, there are extremely few of these ballots, and the process merely becomes more accurate and more efficient.

      • Explain to me how my bedridden mother who just moved here from another state will be able to get an ID. Explain to me how a college student who just moved here can vote. Explain to me how this process will work since we’re being told not to worry, the details will be worked out later.

        • How is your bed ridden mother going to vote? If she cannot obtain some form of proof of who she is by the next election, how is she going to vote? Absentee? That’s the same as a provisional ballot! A college student who just moved here CAN VOTE! Why is this so hard to understand? You still get to vote, and then you will be verified, JUST LIKE AN ABSENTEE VOTE!

          • Okay, then how is she going to be “verified”? The point is that the way all of this is worded is that it will be determined at a later date. So again, John, if the qualification is a government issued ID, how are people like my mom going to get said ID? You didn’t answer my question.

            • How does she vote under current law? I’m guessing absentee. Since she’s bed ridden, and too sick to get an ID, I assume that’s how she votes today. Does that change?

    • We know for a fact there is fraud. Here in MN, evey election cycle ends with thousands of unverifiable postal verification cards from same day registrants. Tens of thousands. Is it fraud? Maybe not, and maybe so. But there’s no way to know after the fact, and there’s no way to preclude these from the record. They’ve already been tallied. As provisional ballots, this type fraud can be determined. We will now be able to see for the first time ever, how much fraud exists in the system, due to this current practice.

  5. John – sometimes people on ‘our side’ don’t deserve to be defended. Don’t let them drag you into Ernie’s mess. Regardless of the policy position of the LWV, Leidiger does not help the cause of Voter ID by making an ass of himself at a Senior Citizen facility. Let Ernie defend himself on this one.

    • He didn’t make an ass of himself. He stood up and challenged BS. That’s commendable. Was he loud? Yes, but only when they tried to shut him down. We cannot allow this kind of nonsense to go unchallenged, and I highly recommend folks attend any of these events, and set the record straight. Lying about this and scaring seniors will not stand!

      • He made an ass of himself. He made an ass of himself and he hurt the cause. Yelling at old people did not gain any support for Voter ID. It made Ernie Leidiger look like a ass in front of the people he represents and it gave the LWV free publicity so they could spread more misinformation about Voter ID.

        Ernie blew it. He hurt the cause.

        Arguing with Sean on his blog is not going to change that.

        • He didn’t. I guess you know all about it. First hand accounts, other than from LWV tell a supportive story. Your ass is our hero. And your hero is lying thourgh thier teeth. I’d love to see how you think standing up for the truth of this bill hurts the cause. Ernie did not yell at a single old person, despite what you might think. He did talk over LWV people. So stop painting a false picture of a lunatic going wild in an old folks home. It’s fantasy, and makes you look stupid.

          • And you think it’s okay to “talk over” people instead of having constructive discourse? That shows disrespect and a lack of civility. By the way, John,telling people they “look stupid” and your other disparaging remarks distract from any points you think you are making.

          • The issue will be won with our truth, not their lies. But in order for that to happen you have to get people to listen. And you can’t do that by shouting.

            The fantasy is that it’s OK to be rude because you think you are right. TYPING IN ALL CAPS DOESN’T MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT STRONGER.

            If you think Ernie acted appropriately at the event, you are the stupid one. You and he have not gained one vote for the Voter ID Amendment for all of your bluster.

            Those votes are lost. You’re not going to get them back, here. Why not move on?

            • Ms. Jennifer… someone is calling me stupid… time get on your high horse and chastise this fella.

              Why would I move on? Do you think pointing out the falsehoods of this amendment cost us votes? How’s that? Even the originally story about shouting and bullying is a fabrication to some degree. And we look stupid. You sir, make me laugh!

  6. Actually, we don’t know how same-day registration and absentee voting will be impacted, because the amendment is silent on the issue, other than indicating that such voting is subject to the same “government issued photo identification” standard as everyone else.

    If the amendment passes, the Legislature is going to have to work out the details of how to implement it, and it’s entirely possible that the Legislature may choose, for instance, not to invest in the sort of technology that would be required to make same-day registration possible.

    • Baloney. As happened in Indiana, this amendment will enhance same day registration, and make it more efficient. Same day registration went up in IN with the voter ID. And it was easier to process with valid ID’s.

      • Indiana doesn’t have same-day voter registration, John.

        You have to be registered 29 days before the election.

        • I’ll check my notes when I get home. At a recent meeting, a repsentative was going over the facts of the bill, and I must be thinking of the wrong state.

        • It was Wisconsin.

          • Wisconsin’s voter ID law, passed in 2011, was found unconstitutional early in 2012. The surge of same-day registrations in the Walker recall election were under the original WI same-day registration rules.

            • I’ll have to look when I get home then. We talked about a lot states and their successes with voter id. It works out greaet everywhere it’s tried. the nation is moving to it, whether the left likes it or not. Now even New York has popular support for it. People from both sides know there is fraud. They won’t stand for the status quo.

  7. My conservative buddies are sure getting a hoot out of this discussion. I also know there is an official respionse coming out about this so-called “bullying” nonsense. I can hardly wait for the silly reactions from the left when they read it.

    • I cannot wait for the “official respionse.” I hope it contains an apology for his behavior.

    • I’ll be happy to publish the official response verbatim when it comes out.

      • It’ll be in next week’s paper, I’m sure. I’ve scanned it. There’s not much in it that I haven’t already told you. Bullying was done by LWV, and then responded to. Info about the left leaning Brennen Center and LWV, and mis info about voter ID. Yadda, yadda. Time to get to the lake. Catch you lefties another time!!

  8. This wild stuff:

    Face it, this is a partisan effort to use the power of Big Government to rig elections. If not, then why all the bragging?

    First of all, there is nothing partisan about voter ID. It as wide suport across all spectrums.

    Second, it’s not using the power of big government. It’s being taken to the people to decide.

    Third, what bragging?

    • Do I need to site all of my sources again? The ones that I referenced earlier, to which you replied “I don’t give a rip about your quotes…”?

      The author of the South Carolina ID bill who responded favorably to racist emails in support of the effort, and passed out gifts with notes directly linking passing the voter ID bill to making sure that Obama would lose?

      Or similar quotes in Pennsylvania and other states (see above)?

      Again, the people writing these laws are saying that the goal is to win elections. It’s not my fault they said it, but we should listen to them before doing the same thing in Minnesota.

      As far as big government, remember Joseph Stalin: “It’s not who vote that count, it’s the people who count the votes?” In our history, the worst government intrusion has always come from when the government inherently diminishes the standing of a citizen, and what could be worse than diminishing the right to vote, without which all other rights are fundamentally weakened?

      According to the U.S. Constitution, each state must guarantee a republican (small r) form of government. If the right to vote is abridged for a part of the populace, then the representatives shall not reflect the needs of the whole, and the foundation of such a system shall be fatally undermined.

      • Well, we tried it the representative way, and the Governor vetoed it. The people still want it. They want the fraud to end. This is a big step in that direction. I don’t give a rip about what someone in PA says, or SC says. I’m not familiar with their voting problems. I am familiar with ours however, and ours is flawed with fraud, despite what the left says.

        If you think those people were bragging about our law, I’d think they’d wait until it passed. I know I bragged about the GOP president winning an election, but not before the results were in.

        To which I actually think Mitt might even win MN, as bad of a job as Obama is doing, The biggest problem if he wins, is he’ll have to blame himself when he inherits his mess. Ha Ha! So is that bragging!

        And I’d even go so far as brag that votes will be supressed under this change. But only fraudulent votes, which never should have been counted to begin with. If that’s bragging, I’m in!

        And yes, the goal is to win elections. Getting thousands of fraudulent ballots out of the tallies is good for all. If we can’t have honest elections, what’s the point? Which seems to get at the crux of the matter. Why are Democrats the only ones that seem to think this is bad law? Are they aware of the fraud they generate? Do they participate in these invalid votes somehow? They are making such a stink, even aginst thier constituents that many are starting to ask, “Do they use fraud to get elected?”

        Don’t these fraudulent votes disenfrachise the rest us at some level? In the case of Franken/Coleman where the tally difference was so small, couldn’t 40,000+ PVC rejections indicate a different result? Could be. We’ll never know.

        Now jump ahead to after this passes, and it most likely will. Imagine a vote is so close, that the provisonal pile will decide the outcome. You don’t think those people will race in to get ID’d to get there votes counted? (Remember, Jenny’s mom will vote absentee, I imagine, so she will be validated under those rules, before the election polls even open, unless God willing, and I’m praying, she will get better by then, if it’s possible. i don’t know her condition. I know when my Dad was sick, there became a point where we were relieved when he left us.)

        • With all possible respect, the claim you have made repeatedly of “tens of thousands” of suspect PVC’s returned is a patent falsehood, according to the numbers from the state, as reported by the Minnesota Majority, a conservative organization. In 2010, there were exactly 399 PVC’s returned for reasons that could not be readily explained and verified; all the others were attributed to either typos, delayed mailing, moving after the election, or other explainable causes. So please stop offering this utter nonsense as justification, because other conservatives already reject it. In fact, the reporting and additional investigation was due to a change in laws that came into place to address this very issue.

          This is at least the third example you have offered that has been debunked by either conservative or non-partisan sources. You have yet to present a valid, confirmed argument that justifies taking tax dollars from local communities to inconvenience thousands of people, all to address a problem that doesn’t exist in the way you are presenting it. This does nothing to address felon voting (which is usually done through a misunderstanding of the restoration of their right to vote), and has been debunked by multiple studies. Plus you’ve been offered tangible examples of how this will hurt voters, examples you cannot explain away.

          I’ve presented hard examples and evidence, and in return have had nothing presented that stands up to even the most basic of scrutiny. Simply repeating false arguments doesn’t make them true; if anything, it show a callous disrespect for the citizens of Minnesota.

          As for not caring about the other quotes… you seem to be a minority there, because every other person I talk to is troubled by the idea of rewriting the state constitution to favor a political party in future elections. And no one buys the idea that the same motives that moved other Republicans to brag while drafting and passing these laws have no effect here. In a way, your colleague was right, in that the very nature of your presentation (and that of Mr. Leidiger) is driving voters away from your position (I’ve flipped three so far, just by showing them this forum).

          So, to recap: a lack of credible or sustainable evidence, a clear political agenda, a lack of civil discourse, a tax and burden on communities and the people. Why would this ever be considered a good idea?

          • With all possible respect, the claim you have made repeatedly of “tens of thousands” of suspect PVC’s returned is a patent falsehood

            No, it isn’t. You have your sources, I have mine. My source says ten of thousands. And even if it is only 399, it is 399 too many which will be rectified by the updated law which will pass in November, hands down.

            I can fully guarantee you that this will pass in November. I don’t know who you talk too, and frankly I doubt they are reasonable. this will pass and will pass with flying colors. And it will demonstrate the fraud that used to exist as these ten of thousands of PVC issues will be closed.

            I’ll admit I do have a clear political agenda. Mine is a fair and honest election process. That’s my agenda. This brings us closer to that. No one doubts that except for left wing hacks who don’t want this fraud exposed for what it is, that this change will result in fairer and more accurate elections.

            Even the judges threw out the LWV lawsuit. Riitchie lost his too. It’s over. It goes to the people and the people are for it. You’re domecratic party fraud will end in November in MN. No more election stealing, no more false votes, no more election rigging, just fair and honest elections. Oh, I’m sure the Domecrats will do everything they can to get felons to vote, as they usually do, but the majority of the fraud ends in November. I can hardly wait.

            And you are right about one single thing. Lack of civil discourse. These opponent groups will stop at nothing to get their phony message across that there is no fraud. Despite a loss on title change, and legal action, a veto and everything else the left can throw at this, this will pass. And it will pass by a landslide. And yes I’m bragging now, because it’s high time we had fair elections and cleared the majority of the fraud from our vote tallies.

            • What sources? Every “fact” you have offered has been debunked almost instantly. My numbers come from the state itself, and were accepted by other conservative organizations. So what is the magic source for all this information that you have, but can never seem to find?

              You don’t need a photo I.D. to need help from the police or fire department. You don’t need it to be treated at a hospital (at least not yet, although some of the extreme right-wingers seem to cheer for that idea, regardless of the contradiction with Christian standards). You don’t need it to be affected by work safety and environmental issues. And you don’t need it to pay taxes to the various levels of government. So why require it to address a form of fraud that you can’t prove exists, in a way that gives government more power by reducing the oversight of the people.

              Slander and accusations aside, you’ve offered no proof to back your claims. So why should anyone support this?

              There are a lot of things that have had popular support, that were wholly wrong. This is one of them.

              I’ve now flipped 9 people from supporting this amendment to leaning against, just by showing them this forum and saying “would you want a politician who behaves like this [referring to your behavior and that of Mr. Leidiger] outside of the control of the people?” People who instead of organizing their own presentation, come in and launch attacks at a presentation to senior citizens? Who, every time their claims are proven to be completely wrong, can only win through attacking everyone who thinks differently than them?

              So, once again I wait for any credible facts or evidence. Glad I’m not holding my breath.

              • The data is below. And I’m glad to know you approve of scaring seniors as a method for changing opinions.

                Look, there have been several law suits on this. All have lost. For a legal standpoint, there appears to be no disenfranchisement, but you want to try to convince voters otherwise. As does the LWV. They are not doing a worthy service with these BS presentations. They are distorting the law, and the results of their lost challenges to it.

              • Who, every time their claims are proven to be completely wrong

                In your mind, perhaps. My claims are not wrong.

  9. On a side note, if you want to attend the DNC in Charlotte, guess what you to show to get in. That’s right, an ID. How are the minorities and women going to attend?

    • You don’t even make any sense. It’s Labor Day. Why don’t you just relax and ponder the great working conditions in the U.S. brought to us, in no small part, by those evil unions?

      • What do you mean I don’t make sense? The rip on voter ID is that it disenfranchises minorites and women. But you need one to attend the DNC in Charlotte. So I’m wondering why the Democrats don’t want to let women and minorities to thier event?

        • Do you ever attend any conventions for your business, John? I do, and I can tell you that I have NEVER been to a single one anywhere in the country where you were not required to have a badge or ID for entry. That’s because they are held for specific groups of people or associations. How does that keep out women or minorities? Hence my comment about you not making sense, because you clearly don’t.
          It’s not relevant to a voting booth that is supposedly available to all eligible Americans. You keep throwing stuff out to see what sticks and it gets refuted every time.

          • If the photo ID requirement is limiting to women and minorities for voting, then it clearly is for flying, attending conventions, buying cold medicine, etc., as well. Pretty simple to understand.

  10. Over 46,000 of these postal verification cards have been returned to the county auditors as non-deliverable since 2004. About 38,000 of them were from 2008 and 23,000 stemmed from Election Day Registrations (EDRs). After accounting for legitimate reasons for undeliverable PVCs, over 6,000 unexplained, undeliverable PVCs resulting in challenged voter status remain outstanding from the 2008 election, and over 1,200 from 2010

    • The difference was 225 between Franken and Coleman. Over 6,000 unexplained, undeliverable PVC’s that year. I guess that doesn’t concern those of you on the left, because you got the result you were looking for?

  11. Here’s where Drew’s phoney baloney 399 number comes from:

    The first report to the legislature under the new requirement was issued March 1st, 2011 and included information about 399 returned PVC cards that were referred to county attorneys for investigation as of that date. This first report does not appear to fully comply with MN Stat. 201.121, in that it only covers those PVC cards that were referred to, or requested by, county attorneys for investigation. The statute seems to envision a full accounting of all PVC card returns for the prior election year, but the language is somewhat ambiguous.

    Which also shows that we don’t the full results from elections prior to 2010.

    • Gotcha.

      I had figured that this was the source of your misleading numbers, so now I can walk through how they are wrong.

      First off, you conveniently forgot to cite your source as a handout from the We Want Voter ID group, hardly a nonpartisan or neutral source. Even then, you cropped out a part of that report that said “but the language is somewhat ambiguous.”

      The language they are referring to is in subd. 3 of the statute: “If a notice is returned as not deliverable, the county auditor shall attempt to determine the reason for the return. A county auditor who does not receive or obtain satisfactory proof of an individual’s eligibility to vote shall immediately notify the county attorney of all of the relevant information and the secretary of state of the numbers by precinct.”

      In other words, if the discrepancies cannot be explained, then they must be forwarded on for additional investigation (see, I give the full source, not just bits that fit my argument).

      I find the Minnesota Majority information on this topic very enlightening. The hail the procedure as “an improvement in election transparency” and also state that “Those forwarded to the county attorneys could not be explained by typos, change of address or simple errors.” In other words, a conservative organization that favors this effort is undermining your own misinformation by pointing out that only 399 cards presented enough of a discrepancy to merit additional scrutiny under the exact text of the law.

      To use an analogy: let’s say that the state of Minnesota reports that 20,000 people are delinquent on their taxes, but after an initial investigation it is found that 19,601 of them were reported that way due to clerical errors, delays in receiving payment, or other explanations. By your logic, all 20,000 are proof of fraud, and we should pass a huge and intrusive law that might find more evidence while restricting people’s rights and costing millions of dollars in taxpayer money.

      I’m not buying it.

      I also find it rather sleazy that you would accuse me of “approv[ing] of scaring seniors as a method for changing opinions.” I’m not the one who, instead of scheduling a separate presentation to argue my point of view, “got loud” and verbally attacked others in a senior center and in the local newspaper. Nor did I insinuate that someone’s mother was faking her medical conditions to avoid getting an ID (your retraction was noted, but far less than full-throated). Nor did I refer to acts of open discrimination and violations of citizen’s rights as “funny stuff.”

      The simple fact is that the vast majority of “evidence” you’ve presented can’t withstand three seconds of scrutiny. Every time a new “fact” is offered, it is discredited almost immediately. Additionally, you still have no answers for how this will be paid for with taxpayer dollars, or how someone who is disabled and normally votes through absentee ballot will be able to do so. You have no counter for the studies (including the NRLA study) that show the fraud you claim is rampant hardly exists at all.

      And you can’t counter the examples emerging from other states of how this disenfranchises many of the most vulnerable, examples that I cited, examples that are now becoming far more common. Why shouldn’t seniors be worried about these efforts when they see examples of their peers losing their vote?

      Or read about how over 750,000 Pennsylvanians could lost their ability to vote under the new ID law:

      Or the testimonial of Royal Masset, a long-time Texas Republican consultant who wrote the thought-provoking article “The Voter ID Bill will Kill my Mother’s Right to Vote.” ( ) It is an absolute condemnation of every point you make, with evidence to support every claim, coming from a die-hard conservative who saw firsthand the effects of these laws.

      His final section is compelling, and blows all of your arguments out of the water:

      “Many proponents of HB 218 talk about how easy it is to get photo ID. In doing so they show how out of touch they are with many Americans such as my mother. If any of them ever cared for an invalid family member, besides talking a good game, they would know invalids don’t have recent ID cards and may not even pay bills. When voting in America is only allowed to healthy and wealthy people than the America I know is far sicker than my mother. HB 218 is a direct descendent of poll taxes, and of allowing only white male property owners to vote. In its effect it is racist, barbaric, antidemocratic and contrary to everything that made America great. My mother has sacrificed her life raising my severely handicapped sister and I and making this a better country. She and all mothers like her deserve the right to vote.”

      • my point of view, “got loud” and verbally attacked others in a senior center and in the local newspaper. Nor did I insinuate that someone’s mother was faking her medical conditions to avoid getting an ID (your retraction was noted, but far less than full-throated).

        How childish. The verbal attacks came at Ernie, not from him. Go to the next session and see for yourself who the bullies are and were. And I did not insuate any such thing about anyone’s mother. Jennifer seemed to be using her mother as a human shield of sorts, claiming she can’t get an ID, but then claiming she’ll get to the polls. It’s this kind of convenience of inability when it suits you, and then feigned outrage when it doesn’t that makes you both look just plain silly. Only a fool would come to such a conclusion. You can’t have it both ways. If you can go out and vote, you can get to the DMV. If you think that means someone is faking something, well, then that’s on you, not me. I never implied anything of the sort.

        I cannot counter the other states, because every state has different laws, and this law is not based on another states constituion, nor does it suffer the same fraudlent tallies that other states face. Every state as different voting rules, problems and loop holes. You can state all you want that these 399 are all that can be fraudulent, but you still don’t know about impersanation where the fraudulent voter does get a valid registration and then uses it. And we currently lead the nation in voter fraud convictions. If that’s so, then how is it that there isn’t any fraud, hmmm?

        I’ll also note that there will be savings from these tens of thousands of PVC cards that might not be necessary with voter id. We do a lot to check the validity of the voter. Why not do it up front, before their vote is counted. Makes sense to the general populace by far. And it will likely make the process much more effiicient and less costly when all is said and done. Why it might even reduce the nonsense during recounts to some degree.

        When voting in America is only allowed to healthy and wealthy people than the America …

        Now we get to the crux of the matter. More class warfare. Yippee. The calling card of the left. I’m thrilled. It’s good to know that only the wealthy have ID’s Maybe we should tax the carp out of them, just to make it fair.

        Additionally, you still have no answers for how this will be paid for with taxpayer dollars

        Isn’t just like a liberal to only give a damn about the money when it’s a cause he’s against. I’m shocked. It’s a blip. A drop in the bucket in government spending. And so vastly overstated, without any mentions of savings through greater voting efficiency.

        I maintain the only real reason for this high objection from so few on left is to protect the fraud they use at their convenience. There’s not left to support the claims. The courts have thrown out all objections. It’s over. This bill makes such perfect sense to such a vast majority, including the courtrooms, that it will pass, and it will pass by a landslide.

        Perhaps it’s time to get Jennifer back out here to judge what my blood pressure might be at this point. Or perhaps it’s time to judge my “tone” again. It’s easy to insinuate anger where you imagine it exists, but I have absolute confidence in this law and it’s passage. I have nothing to be angry about other than the continued slander of a good man from a wanna be journalist.

        • John, DO NOT use me or my mother in your responses. I never said that my mother would go to the polls, and I don’t know how you jumped to such a conclusion. She is BEDRIDDEN. My concern was her getting a “government-issued ID”, because if everyone needs that to vote, she would need it for absentee voting. Again, will a government employee go to her home and register her? I never received a response from you on that. The language as it stands is vague, and all we seem to hear from politicians is “don’t worry, we’ll figure it out when it’s time.”

          • Well that’s what I asked you several times, and you never responded. Is she voting absentee? There was no answer until now. If she’s voting absentee, it takes her out of the polls vs DMV thing doesn’t it.

            For the absentee voting, and the provisional voting that will be added, we will have more capability for identification, just as we do with absentee voting today. This capability doesn’t exist at the polling place. All we have at the polls are the lists of registered voters, and your word that you are who you say you are.

            • I replied to you three times on August 31st– here’s one of my comments:

              want to dignify your comment about her faking her disabilities– that’s just sick and reprehensible. Again, if someone needs a “government-issued” ID, that would count for absentee ballots as well, right? So my question remains. Is a government official going to show up at her door on request with an ID application?

              And here’s a definition of bedridden from

              World English Dictionary
              bedridden (ˈbɛdˌrɪd ə n)

              — adj
              confined to bed because of illness, esp for a long or indefinite period

              Now tell me– what part of bedridden don’t you understand?

              Where’s that answer to my question from the 31st, John? You seem to have more details than the rest of us, so how will she get that valid “government issued ID”? As I asked last week, and as I asked earlier today, will a government employee show up at her door since she is BEDRIDDEN? Or will she be unable to vote?

              • She will be able to vote the same as any other absentee voter votes. The statement I made before stands. IF your mom can get to the polls, then she can get an ID. If not, I assume she’s voting absentee, which is what I’ve said everytime you brought it up.

                I don’t get where you feel I don’t understand what bedridden means from my statement. I said, I assume she’s voting absentee, otherwise…. yadda yadda. You made the false assumption, not me. Read.

                • John, read the amendment. There is no distinction in the amendment between voting absentee and voting in-person. The standard for verification of an in-person ballot, an absentee ballot, and a provisional ballot is identical. If you need an ID for one type of voting, then you need an ID for them all.

                  • (c) All voters, including those not voting in person, must be subject to substantially equivalent identity and eligibility verification prior to a ballot being cast or counted.

                    Seems the court was satisfied that this was satisfactory language. Absentee voters will have to be identified, just as they have to be identified today.

                    • OK, John, then what is a “substantially equivalent identity” that would work to verify a absentee voter? Currently, you don’t have to provide identification to get an absentee ballot — the current minimum standard is to compare signatures on the application versus the ballot itself. Are you saying that standard is sufficient?

                    • That’s incorrect. Identity requirements for absentee according to statute is as follows:
                      An application shall be approved if it is timely received, signed and dated by the applicant, contains the applicant’s name and residence and mailing addresses, date of birth, and at least one of the following:
                      (1) the applicant’s Minnesota driver’s license number;
                      (2) Minnesota state identification card number;
                      (3) the last four digits of the applicant’s Social Security number; or
                      (4) a statement that the applicant does not have any of these numbers.

                    • Right. And if #4 is the case, then they verify the ballot by comparing the signature on the application to the signature on the ballot. So, how would that be handled following the amendment?

                    • No, I mean to get the application. They first have to have identification to match a signature to. The officials will have time to verify the individual in the case of number 4, and then they will have a signature available to match to when the ballot is cast.

                      This substantially equivalent, because you cannot send a photo ID through the mail. How could you possibly match an photo to a person using the mail?

                    • So, Jennifer’s question still remains, then. If a person doesn’t have an ID and is physically incapable of leaving the house to get one, how do they vote?

                    • I think you guys are getting too hung up on the absentee, provisional process. that process can make use of other identification tools and methods, because these tools and methods can’t be available in the voting locations. A photo ID can be brought to the poll, which makes this process far more efficient while preventing fraud. For the fraction of people who will get provisional ballots, it will not take long to perform the same verification routines that are available to process the current absentee application identification.

                    • They vote absentee. Jeepers. We’ve been over this. read the current statutues for absentee. We have processes in place now that are susbstantially equivalent to showing up in person.

                    • Don’t tell me we’re getting too hung up on it — you’re the one who’s advocating changing the Constitution of the state of Minnesota here. This is a question you should be able to answer, and it’s telling that you can’t.

                    • Now what question can’t I answer? I’ve answered everything you’ve thrown out there. Is there something else you want to try to stick to the wall.

                      Apparently substantial equivalence is too confusing of a term for you folks.

                      Let’s try again. On election day, at the polls, you must provide a photo ID in order to cast a regular ballot in order to prevent the fraud that does exist, whether you believe it to or not. If you don’t have an ID, whether you forgot it at home, or for some odd reason, never had an ID, then you cast a provisonal ballot.

                      Provisional ballots are held until the person can be identified, but then are counted. Simple enough. If you can get to the poll, you can get an ID. You should have gotten one long before the elction, but maybe you just moed here, and have no form of identification. So you go get one, and your ballot is released. But also, since you are no longer with your ballot, and aren’t present, election officials can try to obtain a substantial equivalent identification, i.e. something that does identify that you are who you say that you are.

                      Absentee ballots don’t really change at all. An absentee ballot by definition means that for whatever legal reason, you make it to your polling place in person, whether sick, or hospitalized, or living out of state, or deployed, or what ever other reasons exist within the statutes, you vote in the same manner as always. In order to get your application, you provide several pieces of information that allow the election official to verify you are who you claim to be, before you get your ballot.

                      You’ve basically satisfied the substantial equivalency of provided a photo ID, with out one, because a photo does no good, if you aren’t standing in front of the election official.

                      This is so simple, that a second grader could figure it out, and yet those of you wwho want your fraud protected, keep trying to poke holes in it, because you need as many fraudulent votes as possible to get elected in a center right state. It’s the only conclusion that is left to be against this. It further reduces fraud, and makes voting more efficient and accurate. And if it’s too inconvenient to go and get your free ID, then I guess that’s on you. There are rules, and they have to be followed. You follow other election rules, or you are supposed to, so what’s he big deal?

      • You also missing the point again. The 399 figure does appear to fully comply with the statute. I never said the tens of thousands were all fraudulent. But you conveniently ignore the part that many of these will likely go away after voter ID, thus making the process more efficient and less costly to tax payers.

        You also conveniently pick at probklems in other states. Do these states have same day registration? you see this change enhances same day registration, by making it more efficient, as less prone to error, which is where a majority of the PVC problem comes into play. When you are pre-registered, your addresses are likely to be correct, because those addresses have been scrubbed by address verfication software.

        But voter fraud can be much more than just same day registrants. As was demonstrated recently, you merely walk into a poll, knowing a person’s address, and vote on their behalf. For example, my wife’s parents don’t vote. It drives me nuts that they don’t, but I could register them to vote, and have someone go down and impersonate them without photo ID, and since I know their addess, I’d be allowed to vote.

        We have no way of knowing how much of this type of fraud currently exists. I recently learned that if they did vote, they’d vote for Obama, but they don’t think it matters who the president is, so they stay out of it. They are just a bit cynical about government, for some reason. And they figure, MN usually picks a Democrat anyway, so why bother. They don’t follow politics and don’t want to learn about local candidates. Their apathy is so aggrevating, but they are just sick of the endless empty promises from politicians, and we can’t convince them otherwise.

        • Nonsense. As I’ve pointed out from multiple studies, many of them by conservative and Republican organizations, the voter fraud you describe doesn’t exist. Period. As Royal Masset put it:

          “The Burkablog last week summed up these findings when it reported “The U.S. Election Assistance Commission reported in December 06 (see page 10) that in its wide reaching interviews of election officials and scholars, ‘Many asserted that the impersonation of voters is probably the least frequent type of fraud because it is the most likely to be discovered, there are stiff penalties associated with this type of fraud, and it is an insufficient means of influencing an election’.”

          Even the excellent report by the Texas Conservative Coalition Research Institute, which supports voter ID, admits, “The items acceptable as ID in lieu of a Drivers License or SSN have nothing to do with the citizenship status of the applicant.” They also point out that even Drivers licenses and other photo IDs do not prove citizenship.”

          In other words, your fraud claims are a lie, as is your backpedaling about the 399. You tried to argue that it was not legitimate (“phoney-baloney”), and cited a source that said it wasn’t within the statute. Up until I called out your source, presented facts to counter it, and shot it full of holes. It seems that you keep offering claims that fail just with a simple investigation, and then shift to something else without admitting that the foundations of your argument are complete fiction. As least stop flip-flopping so much.

          Voter apathy won’t be fixed by making it harder to vote. In fact, the nations that have the highest turnout have expanded voter registration efforts, options, and days for voting. So let me ask, why are conservatives cutting off all of these things?

          Your fraud claims are a fraud in themselves. You can’t provide an example of another state that does this without restricting legitimate votes. None of your “facts” hold up. And your claim about saving money ignores how much it will cost to implement the system, and all the effects that it will have, which has been priced at a minimum of $50 million. I find it appalling that a supposed conservative will howl about school votes, but encourage everyone to turn a blind eye to a massive tax increase without any valid purpose.

          I would love to challenge you to a public debate, a debate with a neutral moderator that won’t let you dodge the contradictions in your claims, that won’t humor degrading everyone as a way to dodge legitimate, gaping holes in your argument. Because nothing you’ve offered has substance.

          No proof, no substantiation, and a massive government intrusion and tax. What real conservative would ever support this?

          • You are so hung up about other states. This has absiolutely nothing to do with any other state. Our elections laws are very different than any statee you mention.

            We lead the nation in fraud convictions, and yet you claim there is no evidence of fraud. OK. Shove your head deep into the sand and say there is no fraud, and then claim there is no argument for it. Brilliant.

            There is no massive instrution, as almost everyone has this identification alrady. What the heck is massive about this? Nothing. Just another false claim to drum up support for continued fraud, that has to be the last thing you are protecting. A vote against this, is a vote for more fraud.

            And there is no tax from this. this part of the normal cost of running elections, and in the end liikely SAVE money, due to improved processing.

  12. The LWV meeting in Chan keeps getting pushed back. I see it won’t be in the library anymore. Can’t have these noisy ladies at the library, shouting over objections to their lies.

    • In other words, the LWV have to protect themselves against those who can’t win the argument on its merits, and come to intimidate anyone from hearing a different point of view?

      Those who feel that intimidation and slander is an appropriate form of debate?

      Those who, after every argument they offer falls apart with a simple tap, accuse the elderly of faking illnesses to fit their needs? That one belongs to you alone, Mr. Brunette.

      If I was hosting a forum, and I saw people like yourself and Mr. Leidiger planning and bragging about such public intimidation, I’d have the police ready. I’m sure footage of Mr. Leidiger being escorted out (or taken into custody, if so warranted) would make for interesting news.

      • I never once said or implied that anyone was faking anything, and you know it.

        Ernie was first bullied by these people and responded in kind.

        Funny how liberals suddenly think protesting is disgusting. You make me laugh.

        • In the words of Ronald Reagan, the LWV “paid for their microphone”. If you guys don’t like what they’re saying, get your own microphone instead of preventing others from using theirs.

          • Did the LWV pay to talk to these seniors? Somehow, I doubt that. I know, I know, when it comes to liberal speak, we’re all nuts if we disagree. Or Nazis or bullies. Funny how that turns around when you actually think about it.

            • Yes, you did state and imply that they were faking it: “Jennifer seemed to be using her mother as a human shield of sorts, claiming she can’t get an ID, but then claiming she’ll get to the polls. It’s this kind of convenience of inability when it suits you, and then feigned outrage when it doesn’t that makes you both look just plain silly.”

              Your own words, which ignored the fact that she clearly stated her mother votes absentee, and that the very language of the amendment requires the same level of ID. If you don’t like the implications of your remarks, then stop saying such monstrous things. (By the way, I did forward that remark to a few friends who work with some of the local papers, and to others who work in senior care facilities, and their interpretation was the same. It would be interesting to see what the general public will make of those comments.)

              Your approach is to drown out anyone who disagrees. That isn’t protesting, that’s intimidation, and it lacks Christian decency. If you want, you can set up all sorts of public forums, present your info, and actually have a dialogue. Instead, you encourage a public official to go to another forum and “get loud” in order to silence their presentation. It’s interesting that the only time a person gets to speak without being attacked or shouted down in your version of things is when they agree with you (after all, according to your statement above, just pointing out how Mr. Leidiger’s view could be wrong constitutes bullying him). Sorry, but I can’t support such an authoritarian, socialist view.

              I would accept any invitation for a debate, held in a public forum with a neutral moderator. So far, absolutely none of your “facts” have held up, so I’d be interested to see what would happen when the name-calling and avoidance is removed from this discussion.

              As for the forum: Mr. Leidiger “got loud” by his own account. He deliberately interrupted a presentation to silence someone else, instead of following a decent path and pursuing his own opportunity to present his views. If I was hosting a guest presentation, and had someone behaving so inappropriately, a consideration would be to call the police to restore civility. Strange that an elected official and his supporters would be proud of such behavior.

              • Very well stated, Drew. Apparently, it is more convenient for John to ignore his own words (which I referenced to him more than once) than to acknowledge that it is clear that I was concerned about absentee voting for my mother. I will never understand the need for disparagement and bombastic posturing. I’m sure other commenters on this blog are like me, and enjoy vigorous debate. Unfortunately, name-calling seems to be the best & only response we receive. Lively disagreements are great…. but instead we get intimidation and rudeness. By the way, a public forum with a neutral moderator would be marvelous.

                • A public forum? Sounds like a great idea. Are you up for it, John? I’d be happy to help arrange something as well as find a mutually agreeable moderator.

                • Nothing well stated about it. He’s a fool who can’t read. I said clearly, several times times, that if she’s bedridden, I assume she’s voting absentee, SO THE PHOTO ID DOESN’T APPLY. Duh! Jeez. How frekin dense can you be? How can you use PHOTO ID WHEN YOUR AREN’T THERE!!

                  I then stated, that if someone can get to the poll, they can get an ID. Somehow, you two knuckleheads figured that meant someone was faking something. There’s a stretch. Someone blow the whistle for crying out loud.

                  So yeah, Jennifer, you appear to want to use your bedridden mother when it suits your argument, because if she’s voting absentee, NOTHING ISAID ABOUT GOING TO POLLS APPLY! Do you understand that yet? Sean, can please post a picture or something so these knobs can understand what the heck I’m saying here?

                  • Quote from John Brunette:
                    Or is she only bedridden when it comes time to get an ID that will last her for 4 years? If she can get to the polls, she can certainly get an ID.

                    Do you have a wife and kids? God bless ’em! You must be a very unhappy person to have to call others names when others are just trying to debate with you. Your arguments would have more credence if you didn’t do that, and if you could spell properly. I don’t know if your cohorts are reading your comments, but if they are, they may be a little embarrassed for you. Seems like you’re hurting the cause. Good night, John. I have better things to do than read your drivel.

              • By the way, I did forward that remark to a few friends who work with some of the local papers, and to others who work in senior care facilities, and their interpretation was the same. It would be interesting to see what the general public will make of those comments.

                Well, goody for you. Bravo. Did you send them the whole orignal remarks with the timelines so they could easily see what I ACTUALLY said about beridden people and absetnee voting and that PHOTO ID doesn’t apply to them?

                Of course not. That wouldn’t suit your purpose. SO you manufacture a rumor based on your inability to read. fantastic. I’ll be happy to show any doofus that buys anything you have to say about this bedridden nonsense. My name is right there. have them give me call. I’m in the book. I’m not hiding from anything, and I sure as heck won’t hind from this stupid baseless nonsense.

                • I sent the full thread, so once again I must ask you to stop making such appalling accusations. And it should be noted that your approach above doesn’t seem to be well-suited to winning many converts…

                  And you’re omitting a key part of that thread, the part where she (and others) pointed out that the amendment doesn’t make exceptions for other types of voting. In fact, the exact language was quoted by myself. And yet, even after offering an initial retraction, you went right back to a demeaning accusation that you initially apologized for (what happened to the idea of “Moms rock!”?). If you do not like the way this makes you look, then my advice would be to stop saying such things. After all, aren’t conservatives supposed to be all for personal responsibility?

                  I sent the link for the full thread, and let people judge for themselves, just like I believe that the LWV should be able to speak without having someone yell over them, just like you should be able to set up a presentation to offer a different view. I am confident enough in the strength of my ideas to let facts stand without being draped in the language of anger and malice.

                  The start of this whole discussion was the idea that a publicly elected official should not try to silence opposition, and most definitely shouldn’t brag about it. That believing something different doesn’t lessen a person’s humanity or integrity. That voting is an inherent right essential to the oversight of government, not a privilege to be stripped for convenience and without thought to the consequences. I am confident that my statements in this forum represent that which is best about America, the ability for all to stand equal before the law. This proposal doesn’t forward that standard; the flaws are too gaping to ignore. So my challenge to you is to reply without a demeaning comment to anyone else, to stand on merit alone, in this or another public forum.

                  • I challenge anyone who thinks I’ve been off base to walk through this thread, looking at time lines and find where I was stating Jennifer’s mom was faking anything. I stand by my remark, that only a fool could come to that conclusion.

                    • Posting your remark yet again, from August 31st, 2012, 11:41 a.m.:

                      Or is she only bedridden when it comes time to get an ID that will last her for 4 years?

                      Sounds like you’re accusing her of faking to me, and to everyone else who has seen this.

                      Just a suggestion, quit harping on the same little detail. If you have something of substance to add to the conversation, we’d love to hear it. Otherwise, it seems that this is just becoming a time-sucker.

                    • No, what it actually demonstrates is your use of her condition to claim that she will somehow be disenfranchised under the amendment. And when I call out that IF she’s not voting absentee, (which again photo ID doesn’t apply, because A: you can’t do photo ID through the mail, and B: you are already verified BEFORE YOU VOTE), if she’s not, then she can go get an ID.

                      I said it each time. If she’s voting absentee, this doesn’t apply. The mistake was on you two, not me.

                      I stand by my statement.

                  • Wow, Drew K for President? Who ever he is. On second thought, let’s pick a guy who knows what the word substanital means.

                    • Again, the demeaning remarks… I had hoped for an argument of substance. I’ve debated against those who wanted Voter ID, who could make reasonable arguments (I showed this to one such friend, whose comment about this thread was “does it come in hardcover?”). Again, I offer the challenge for an open forum.

                      Looking at other states (just as you did in your initial defense of the amendment), a substantially equivalent standard places significant restrictions on what is accepted, a point you granted earlier. So the same point still remains a fatal flaw in this proposal.

                      As does the fact that it does nothing to address felon voting, which is the cause of most of the voter fraud you are citing. This proposal is the equivalent of a town trying to deal with a speeding problem by throwing jaywalkers in jail. A person could call it a “traffic safety” initiative, but the actions would do nothing to address the actual problem, while providing an expensive and intrusive layer of government on people’s lives. That is what we are seeing here.

                    • It’s not my fault that you can only offer up straw men to make your false claims. What is your official capacity arounD voter ID? Or are you just some guy of the street who wants to muddy the amendment so he can keep cheating?

                      In otherwords, why would I debate you, if you are not a spokesman for anything, including any current legislation? What’s your angle?

                      I fully recognize that I’m just a guy responding to pure BS on a blog site, which appears to be designed soley to slander a good and decent man. I can make all the points I want, but in the end, I won’t be writing any new laws, and niether will you, so what’s the point? Give you another opportunity to spread more disinformation about this amendment? Cause that’s all you have left, is disinformation.

                    • I beg your pardon, but I’ve cited sources for everything I’ve presented. I’m not a legislator, nor a politician at all (bless my heart), but an informed voter who realizes when he’s being sold a false bill of goods.

                      You tried to argue how good this was for other states… until it was pointed out that none of your examples worked (I’m still waiting to hear back on what you had in your notes on that, by the way).

                      You tried to argue that there were thousands of cases of fraud to be sorted through… until your source was revealed to be partisan, and then countered with facts even other conservatives agree with.

                      You tried to offer felon voting as an issue… until it was pointed out that this doesn’t fix that problem.

                      I’ve offered facts that others can look up independently, only to be met by the same drumbeat without evidence.

                      (By the way, your line about “Or are you just some guy of the street who wants to muddy the amendment so he can keep cheating?” implies that I’m committing voter fraud. I’m hoping that this was just an ill-phrased remark said in the heat of the moment; however, I formally ask for a retraction of such slander, or I will consider formal channels for redress. And yes, I am serious; your remark was way out of line.)

                      Yes, this site does definitely have an anti-Leidiger slant (and sometimes, it strays out of public policy issues in the approach, in my opinion). But on this debate on policy, I’ve offered the facts, facts that you’ve conceded on many points.

                      I’m just a Minnesotan… but that doesn’t lessen my voice. If for nothing else, that is the problem with your position; someone shouldn’t have to have money or power to be heard.

                      Again, I’m open to that forum (and waiting for that retraction).

                    • I’d like to address the notion that I’m picking on Rep. Leidiger. Yes, this site has spent quite a bit of time on Rep. Leidiger. Here’s why:

                      1.) Rep. Leidiger is my state representative — at least until November when redistricting moves me into a different district. Naturally, the record of my State Rep. is going to be of particular focus.

                      2.) Leidiger, despite being in what is one of the statistically safest districts in the House, ran a particularly dirty and ill-informed campaign. His opponent was subject to some rather nasty personal attacks, and Leidiger frequently misstated basic facts that a legislative candidate should know, like, how the gasoline tax in the this state works or how much the state government was actually spending.

                      3.) Leidiger’s 2010 campaign proved to be an accurate preview of his actions as an elected official. From the behavior described in this thread to his speeding ticket fiasco to shading the truth, he has proven himself, in my opinion, to be unworthy of the office.

                      4.) Leidiger’s rhetoric stands in contrast to his behavior. Is it strictly a policy-based critique? No, certainly not. And people are free to place whatever weight they see fit on the information I provide. I don’t hide anything, I link to my sources.

                      5.) I’d also contrast Leidiger versus Carver County’s other legislators, Sen. Ortman and Rep. Hoppe. The voting records for Leidiger, Ortman, and Hoppe are practically identical for the 2011-12 legislative session. The difference is their behavior beyond their voting records.

                      I’ve had multiple people complain to be on multiple occasions about Leidiger’s behavior and how they were treated when they approached him with an opinion he didn’t agree with. If I put a post out every time someone told me one of these stories, John would really be mad. For that matter, I didn’t do anything about this LWV event until the Herald and Villager published something on it despite multiple attendees contacting me about it. I choose things that I think are germane to his record as a legislator. (Your mileage may vary.)

                      No one has ever complained to me about being treated poorly by Ortman or Hoppe when they have a conversation with them about an issue.

                      It’s about understanding that as a public official, you represent everybody in your district, even the people who disagree with you. Not every decision is black or white. Reasonable people can look at the same set of facts and come up with a different conclusion. And doing so doesn’t make them evil or stupid. If Leidiger can’t deal with that reality without “getting loud”, then maybe he’s in the wrong job.

                    • Amen, Sean! Joe Hoppe and I don’t agree on many issues, but he’s a stand-up guy and I’d love to have a beer with him. Julianne Ortman and I are definitely not on the same page, but our conversations have always been cordial and respectful. My only in person contact with Rep. Leidiger was a visit for my association’s “Day on the Hill”, and he went off on a tangent that had nothing to do with what we were discussing, and wasn’t even based on fact. He really wasn’t interested in what we had to say as constituents. (And no– we weren’t asking for any money!) As a representative, he represents ALL of us, hence the title “representative”, not just a certain group that agrees with him. I’d like to think that my rep would at least pretend to listen to my concerns.

                    • You make me laugh. Are you stating that I can slander a guy with that question? A guy with just a handle and not even a name. That’s rich.

                      You certainly seem to be for maintaining the current status quo for fraud in the elections, a fraud indicated to exist by the likes of Jimmy Carter no less.

                      I have to wonder why you want that fruad protected, if your or your party do not have a vested interest in keeping the cheating in play. That’s not a character assassination, it’s an observation of potential reality Cretainly less ridiculous than your assertion that I implied Jennifer’s mom was faking something.

                      This process could well help to remove felon fraud. We’ll have to see what comes of the implementation. But it cretainly provides a greater opportunity to ctach a questionable voter through the use of provisional balloting. This is a step in that direction

                    • So you stand by your comments? Noted.

                      I don’t want fraud protected, but this doesn’t fix fraud, . As I quoted from a Republican (Royal Masset) before, “The Burkablog last week summed up these findings when it reported “The U.S. Election Assistance Commission reported in December 06 (see page 10) that in its wide reaching interviews of election officials and scholars, ‘Many asserted that the impersonation of voters is probably the least frequent type of fraud because it is the most likely to be discovered, there are stiff penalties associated with this type of fraud, and it is an insufficient means of influencing an election’.”

                      You could argue for more accountability in handling voter registrations, or for an updated electronic registration system. Those debates would at least be targeted on potential issues, not something that even the detailed study by the Texas GOP found to be virtually nonexistent.

                      Multiple studies, including the NRLA study, show that this is like a blind fishing expedition in the desert. I’ve offered facts and studies, even from those who would disagree with my position; where’s your proof?

                      And the remark “This process could well help to remove felon fraud.” How, considering that in most of the cases of voter fraud they walked up to the polls and voted under their own name anyways? Some of them probably showed a license as part of that process, so this does nothing to address that issue. Plus, we shouldn’t be restricting the rights of others based on things so theoretical that they have no substantiation.

                      Again, personal insults and a lack of evidence. Let’s bring this into a public forum, and lay it all out for the people to judge on merits alone. You know Sean and many of the others, and in this case we could avoid the whole bullying issue with proper moderation. Unless the average person isn’t worth hearing?

                    • I’m done with this thread. It’s old and full of BS. the timelines are jumbled, so folks don’t know what is a response to what. I’ve got everything laid out on the other thread. Bring it.

                    • So no public forum? I’ll have to ask on the other thread then.


  1. Ernie Proves He is an Idiot | Carver County Current - September 1, 2012

    […] the Brick City Blog: Leidiger has released a statement regarding the incident. It […]

  2. Do you stand with Ernie Leidiger? | Brick City Blog - September 12, 2012

    […] loud” and disrupted a League of Women Voters meeting at a senior center in […]

  3. GOP Rep. Ernie Leidiger owes $144,000 in unpaid taxes - LeftMN - September 16, 2012

    […] campaign funds, which resulted in $800 in fines. And he found the time to go to a nursing home to disrupt an anti-photo ID amendment session offered by the League of Women Voters.Leidiger’s problems are a perfect distillation […]

  4. LWV vs HMWHC | Carver County Current - September 20, 2012

    […] really blame him, and honestly, by the time you work through his tax problems, business dealings, yelling at old people, campaign finance violations, and Bradlee Dean, the forum would be over and no one else would get […]

  5. We Can Do Better Carver County - September 25, 2012

    […] forum:  Chanhassen Villager     Brick City Blog Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like […]

  6. The Tax Cheat, The Lobbyist, and the Liar | Carver County Current - September 28, 2012

    […] problems: Campaign finance problems, Bradlee Dean problems, tax problems, business problems, and a shouting problem. It is not at all surprising that Ernie hasn’t been seen in public in a while and […]

  7. 47A: CCC Endorsement | Carver County Current - October 12, 2012

    […] finance problems, Bradlee Dean problems, tax problems, business problems, and a shouting problem. It is not at all surprising that Ernie hasn’t been seen in public in a while and doesn’t seem […]

  8. Don’t let Ernie Leidiger fly under the radar | Brick City Blog - October 23, 2012

    […] House District number of 34A.  He ducked the League of Women Voters candidate forum after his ridiculous behavior at a LWV Voter ID forum was exposed, leaving tomorrow’s Waconia Rotary/Waconia Chamber of Commerce/Waconia Patriot […]

  9. Ernie Leidiger uncorks some whoppers at the Waconia candidate forum | Brick City Blog - October 24, 2012

    […] that’s right.  Ernie Leidiger — the guy who started this regrettable trend of brawling with the League of Women Voters by acting the… — now wishes there would be more candidate forums.  He could have acted like an elected […]

  10. More Than Just Ernie: The Best of Brick City Blog in 2012 | Brick City Blog - December 28, 2012

    […] that still wasn’t all.  In August, Leidiger made headlines for “getting loud” at a League of Women Voters voter ID forum at a senior living facility in Waconia. […]

  11. A final look back at the 2011-2012 legislative session for Ortman, Hoppe, and Leidiger | Brick City Blog - January 7, 2013

    […] Looking Forward:  Leidiger was one of the least productive of the House’s GOP freshmen last session.  Out of 31, he ranked 29th in bills chief authored, tied for 22nd in bills signed into law, and was only asked to participate in one of 92 conference committees to hash out final versions of bills.  As a member of the legislative minority now, Leidiger looks destined for a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing unless he radically changes his approach to the job. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: