Gov. Mark Dayton is considering a special legislative session for state aid to flood-weary northeastern Minnesota. But some lawmakers are talking about adding another item to the agenda, that could revive two of the most controversial issues of the last decade.
It’s a call to arms for irritated Republican lawmakers. They’re preparing legislation to stop Secretary of State Mark Ritchie from changing the wording for the gay marriage and voter ID amendments on the ballot this fall.
Republicans say the new wording on the constitutional amendments is a deliberate attempt to turn voters against them. And they are preparing to pass a new law to stop it from happening.
“If the governor wants to call a special session, then game on,” said Sen. Sean Nienow, R-Cambridge. “If the Secretary of State wants to play political games, then let’s engage.”
10 Comments
This is awesome...game on!
Then the governor will veto it. Sounds like legislative grandstanding/time wasting to me.
oh, absolutely! the voters can't decide this on the simple basis of a true statement. they need poll tested wording to make it more palatible than straight up discrimination.
personally, I can't see much difference in the wording and had a hard time deciding which was "best".
In the end it seems that the wording that has been choosen is most straighforward, whereas the "definition" wording seem more like poll tested talking points.
The basic question is whether marriage should remain the same or whether it should be changed.
The revised title that mentions "limiting" marriage implies that the amendment is changing the status quo; it's not. The amendment changes nothing.
If the Minnesota legislature really wants to minimize controversy about the names of ballot initiatives, they could make those names utterly generic by naming them Amendment 1, Proposition 1, etc. This article suggests Minnesota Republicans aren't trying to take bias out of the picture, they just want their own to trump the Democrats'.
The underlying issue is SoS Ritchie's abuse of power. As mentioned in a previous post, we seem to have entered an era of trickle-down corruption, starting with the president and working its way down.
@Norma,
"Then the governor will veto it"
You mean like the way the Governor vetoed the proposed marriage amendment only to be overruled by the super majority lying in wait in the State house?
How'd that work out for them?
An honest person would be ashamed if their party grandstanded like this. One thing you can say about President Clinton; he knew how to play the game without having to depend on cheap theatrics that only succeeds at wasting everybody’s time and energy.
Barb,
What Ritchie has done is within the Traditions of MN, and over 100 years of State Legal Precedent. Out of 211 Proposed Constitutional Amendments in the State, only 3 have ever had the Legislature attempt to Name them on the Ballot. The Marriage Amendment and the Voter ID measure are two of those 3. Also, 19 Law professors from all 4 of the State Law Schools have sided with the SoS and the Att Gen, and filed a brief on their behalf. One issue many MN's have is that they are giving social issues more priority than the issues that need to be dealt with. Such as the flooding in Northern MN. There is also the issue of if it is corrupt why do they need to try and craft a law that changes the precedents?
Here’s something good writers do when writing a story about something being changed; they include what it’s being changed from and what it’s being changed to.
Here ya go, Sally:
http://www.nomblog.com/25119/