What titles would you give the ballot questions for the proposed constitutional amendments?

Republicans in the Legislature have gone to court to object to the titles Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has assigned to two ballot questions that concern proposed constitutional amendments. One deals with voting procedures, and the other with the definition of marriage. Today’s Question: What titles would you give the ballot questions for the proposed constitutional amendments?

  • reggie

    1) Amending the Minnesota Constitution to restrict voting rights to native-born, property-owning, tax-paying Minnesotans.

    2) Amending the Minnesota Constitution to placate fundamentalist Christians by imposing their religious creed on all.

  • Dianne

    1) Question #1 to amend the Minnesota State Constitution.

    2) Question #2 to amend the Minnesota State Constitution.

  • Gary F

    Ah, duh, how about the ones the legislators passed? What a concept?

  • John

    Lets vote on what was passed by the legislators.

    We have to show ID to drive a car, get on a plane, buy cigarettes and liquor, whats wrong with showing it if you want to vote.

    I personally don’t care about the marriage law, being married is a tough responsibility and commitment; if anyone wants to give it a try, go ahead.

  • Larry M.

    Amendment to spend millions of tax payers to discourage voting of youth, elderly and poor.

    Amendment to force the religious opinion of one dying off generation onto future generations who disagree, led by a campaign of a foreign religious nation’s head of state, the Pope, to deny equality of American citizens in regards to marriage.

  • GregX

    1) the marriage amendment

    2) the voting amendment

    and – as the justicies suggested – put the entire language of the amendment on the ballot.

    I’d say anything else is political marketing and ballot box tampering. Its up to the ballot to clearly identify which choice is being made. Its up to the voter to udnerstand what they are votring on.

    the legislatively defined titles were bent to the right, Ritchie to the left. Neither was prime reading.

    Also – I find it categorically stupid that we are going to pass into amendment anything that includes the phrase, concept, permission slip to modify it later – if passed. that voter ID amedment is the worst case of political reach-back I’ve ever seen written. It will be nothing but law suits and trouble from here on out.

  • Jim G

    1. Indentifikation Papiere, bitte!

    2. Prohibition of Marriage of same sex couples.

  • CarlS

    Real Problem Distraction Ploy #1

    Real Problem Distraction Ploy #2

  • Ann

    Just ask people if they want to change the definition of marriage.If they do, then the word “marriage” should be taken out of all public and tax documents.The citizens should not have to give tax and social benefits to a completely changed institution. Marriage can then be a completely personal and private action. Marriage only means one thing to me.On the voting question-I have to show my ID to do anything.I have to give my email address to write my opinion on this web page.Showing ID’s and giving personal information are required everywhere.

  • Kurt Nelson

    #1 We are not bigots (really), but we want to deny you basic human rights because we object to how you have sex. That’s okay right.

    #2 There is no real data to suggest fraud, we just don’t want more brown people, poor people, and the elderly voting. That’s okay right.

  • Gary F

    We deny they right of same sex couples to get married right now. Correct?

    Why hasn’t there been a bill in the legislature to change this?

  • Bill

    Let the people vote and decide on the current legislation!

    There is nothing stopping anyone last I’ve check from obtaining a State ID. Poor, minority, majority, whoever; propaganda BS.

    Marriage issue is like abortion issue, just more smoke and mirrors against the real issues of debt, banksters, war funding, Israeli funding, WAR.

  • david

    1) the right wing ploy to steel elections because we are running out of duped morons to vote for us so we want to disenfranchise people who realize we don’t have their best interest in mind and won’t vote for us anyway amendment.

    2) in our effort to dupe morons into voting for us we want to pander to the bigot and unthinking religious zealot crowd and wag this carrot in front of them while raising their taxes, destroying social security, and making the world a more polluted, dangerous, worse place after we are long gone amendment .

  • Paul

    1) Prevent the legislature from making any law allowing state spousal benefits for gay people (because they might want to and this is an easy way around that).

    2) Require the legislature to make a law mandating bio-metric testing to vote (because they might not want to and this is an easy way around that).

  • Mark in Freeborn

    Question 1 – Voter ID

    Question 2 – Same-Sex Marriage

    Let the reader figure out what each question means and then let them vote. Whatever title or wording is used is bound to anger someone, someplace.

  • Jefferson

    First of all, this is an issue for the legislature…if they created a clearly inappropriate title then the Secretary of State could intervene, otherwise he should to stay out of it. The best way to look at it is imagine how you would feel if the roles were reversed…would you think it was okay that a single Republican could change the title of a Democrat legislature passed amendment in order to deceive voters?

    Second, we have to remember that we are discussing the titles of the ballot questions; the actual questions are set by the legislature and are not up for debate.

    Finally, the titles should be short, quick and strait to the point. They should describe what the majority of people should expect if the amendment passes. They should look something like this:

    1) Voter Identification Amendment

    2) Same-sex Marriage Ban Amendment

  • David Poretti

    For those who commented that they have to show their ID to cash a check or buy liquor or … please understand those are privileges, not rights.

    You do not have to show an ID to speak out, to worship, to associate with others. Those are rights, not privileges.

    As for the question of the day:

    1) Amendment to avoid the Supreme Court from enforcing constitutionally protected civil rights.

    2) Amendment to avoid the Supreme Court from enforcing constitutionally protected civil rights.

  • Jefferson

    [For those who commented that they have to show their ID to cash a check or buy liquor or ... please understand those are privileges, not rights.

    You do not have to show an ID to speak out, to worship, to associate with others. Those are rights, not privileges.] *** What about the right to bear arms? Are you seriously suggesting that because you fell that something is a “right” that you should be able to avoid showing an ID to maintain that “right”? Let’s apply your logic to guns, asking for an ID to purchase a firearm violates an individuals rights and would not be constitutional. Voting might be a right but it only pertains to certain individuals, it is not an unalienable right that stretches to all individuals across the Earth; therefore it must be regulated as such. In the end Voter ID is perfectly constitutional, so there is no debate to be had about “rights” not requiring an ID…see Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 2008.

  • John

    Voting is a privilege not a right. If it was a right it could not be taken away, like if you commit a felony.

    Also, try protesting, free speech right? And a cop comes up to you and asks you for your ID, you have to show it to him/her, its the law, except if you’re an illegal immigrant, then you just get to vote.

  • Kurt Nelson

    @John,

    There is no legal obligation to show the police an ID if they ask for one, while you are on public property (and are not committing a crime. If you are driving, well then of course, but just walking (biking, rollerblading) down the street and a police officer approaches and asks to see your ID, sorry no.

    The burden is on the state, not the individual, or at least that was what the Court ruled on this matter. You are obligated to give your name, and you cannot lie, but you do not have to produce an ID

    It might make good sense not to piss off the police by refusing, contempt of cop can lead to a lethal situation, but they are just fishing.

    That tired canard about having to produce an ID to fly needs to be put to rest. I have flown twice post 9/11 without an ID. It was more unpleasant, what with the increased probing and all, but I still got on the plane without an ID. Do people really think the TSA is going to stop people from flying if they lost or had their wallet/purse stolen just prior to flying, sorry no.

    I often purchase beer without my ID, if I am paying cash, and the gray hair clearly shows I am over 21, so again no ID, no problem.

  • David Poretti

    Voting is a “Right”, not a “Privilege”, at least according to the U.S. Constitution – see the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Ammendments – all specifically use the language “the right to vote”. According to Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States, “Voting is a ‘Constitutional Right’ and ‘Not a Privilege’”. Read the “Civil Rights Act of 1964″. Spend some time on the web site for the U.S. Supreme Court.

    If you are so afraid of a fraudulent vote, do you really think an I.D. card will prevent someone who is determined to vote illegally? Did the ACLU pay out on their challenge to anyone that could document that a fraudulent vote had been cast in a Minnesota election that this amendment would have prevented? Not one organization or individual was able to show one single fraudulent vote that this amendment would have prevented. Not one dime was paid out. This is nothing but an attempt to repress the vote, by conjuring up a solution to a non-existent problem.

    Let me ask you this – How hard is it to get a fake state I.D., such as a driver’s license, and then use that fake I.D. to vote (or buy beer)? How would this amendment prevent fraudulent absentee voting? How would a college student get a state issued I.D. with their current address on it in time to vote, if they just moved into their apartment or dorm room a few weeks before the election?

  • John

    @Kurt,

    Your right about the TSA, you can get on a plane if you lost you wallet, BUT passengers whose identity cannot be verified by TSA will not be allowed to enter the screening checkpoint or an airplane. Another words, if you are not in the US database, name, address, SS#, you will not be flying.

    If voting was like that, I’d be OK with that.

  • Jefferson

    [Voting is a "Right", not a "Privilege", at least according to the U.S. Constitution - see the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Ammendments - all specifically use the language "the right to vote". According to Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States, “Voting is a ‘Constitutional Right’ and ‘Not a Privilege’”. Read the "Civil Rights Act of 1964". Spend some time on the web site for the U.S. Supreme Court.] *** I would suggest the same to you; so what if voting is a “right” or a privilege…that doesn’t matter one bit what category you put voting into if Voter ID is constitutional. Again please take the time to read the Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008) case. Voter ID is constitutional, end of debate.

  • Kurt Nelson

    To echo David’s points about fraud and ID. Of all the cases of voter misconduct prosecuted in 2010, if not all, then the majority of those cases were felons who had not been re-enfranchised yet. They were not lying about who they were, they just were not able to legally vote because of their status.

    What we need it seems, is an amendment fixing the problems with felons voting. Some can, some can’t, and the rules are complex. Fix a system that affects a couple hundred of people, or chase a non-existent problem by impacting 3 million.

  • Dave

    I would give these two titles for the two proposals I’m aware of, I will let you guess what they are:

    “The Let’s Suppress the VOTE Act, (and fix a problem we don’t have).”

    “Marriage is between one man, one woman, two attorneys and a judge Act.”

  • Chris

    Minesota’s Tea Party would like to restrict the rights of Minnesotan’s who will not reelect them

  • jockamo

    “Did the ACLU pay out on their challenge to anyone that could document that a fraudulent vote had been cast in a Minnesota election that this amendment would have prevented?”

    Of course not.

    The ACLU “challenge” is a gigantic fraud. Nothing but a cheap and ugly falsehood, fooling only the cranially inept.

    If a person is “caught” before they vote, they will not be allowed to vote. If they are not caught, and do indeed vote, then they will never be found out to be voting illegally.

    Therefore, to “document” an intentionally cast fraudulent vote in a Minnesota election is impossible.

    The fraudulent nature of their “challenge” is certainly known to the ACLU. Which makes them liars. Con men. Three-card monte cheaters. Alas, the only critters they can catch are the davids of the world. Har.

    But, just because it is impossible to document does not mean it doesn’t happen.

  • Sheri Smith

    Amendment to change the election system, requiring the presentation of govt.- ID to vote, possibly removing same-day registration & absentee balloting.

    The last has to be in there because it is not in the text of the actual amendment. Without words to this effect, voters will not have accurate information about the extent of the structural change being proposed.

  • Steve the Cynic

    “First step toward instituting internal passports in Minnesota, and possibly the US”

    and

    “Meddling in personal decisions about life partnerships”

  • Steve the Cynic

    And just because the ACLU can’t prove to your satisfaction that it’s not happening, georges/jockamo, doesn’t mean it is. But then, being open to proof requires an open mind, which you seem to lack.

  • Dan

    WHAT TO CALL THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT?

    Here is the optimal verbiage sure to placate both progressives and conservatives…….

    “The Deregulation of Marriage Rights” bill!!

    It is inclusive of both party platforms of the Democratics and Republicans.

    Thanks!

  • georges

    This question was correctly answered at 6:25 AM.

    But that’s no fun.

    1) Amending the MN Constitution because public school teachers have failed to properly impress on young minds that privileges and rights for Citizens are, in fact, limited to Citizens of these United States and the State of Minnesota.

    2) Amending the MN Constitution so State Government can pretend that it continues to be necessary for them to interfere with the private connubial contracts of Minnesota Citizens.

  • Bill B

    We can save ink and just ask just one question.

    Are you a Bigot? Yes No

    Cause that all it comes down to.

  • Tom

    Let’s pretend marriage is sacred and ignore the half of marriages that end in divorce and, thus, prove that marriage is nothing more than a financial contract with unlimited obligation for one party.

    I’m afraid you might vote on principles and the issues rather than having been influenced by our millions of dollars in negative advertising.

  • georges

    For anyone who is confused:

    Voting is both a right and a privilege.

    It is a right recognized in the U.S. Constitution, but limited to a privileged class, to wit, U.S. Citizen, attainment of voting age, suitably moral (non-felon), cranially competent, etc.

    Marriage is also both a right and a privilege.

    We all remember when that Democrat state legislator tried to lower the voting age to 12 years old. Poor deluded thing. We should raise the voting age to 25. The object should be to produce a voting class that is competent.

    When the object is merely to produce a class that is the largest possible numerically, quality will naturally deteriorate proportionally.

    Then there was the group of lefty libs who purported to “help” mental patients vote. Turns out, they just filled out the ballots themselves, voting straight Democrat Party ticket. Why trust the mentals, eh? They might have voted for the Republicans.

    HarHar

  • Charles

    The recognition of every human, plant and animal as legal and have a “voice”. Thus effectively ending the problems brought about by the “Illegal Aliens” and “Drug War”.

    The recognition that marriage is an individualized religious sacrament and should not enter into to law, only civil unions to be recognized by the state.

  • Paul Weimer

    If these big companies can’t afford to pay more than minimum wage–then its our duty as a society, then.

    The plight of the nickel and dimed gets shoved under the rug as “only teenagers get paid this” or “people move up the ladder”. In the meantime, people are struggling to make it at the lower end of the economic food chain.

    Aren’t we more enlightened as a society than “For ye have the poor with you always”?

    • sethw76

      Society already does pay for benefits for these low-wage workers. Most of these workers qualify for federal programs provided by taxpayer dollars. The Walmarts, Targets, and McDonalds are essentially receiving US-paid welfare so they don’t have to provide benefits or a living wage.

      • Paul Weimer

        And yet even though Federal and State programs are falling short. Worse, many state governments seem to think that such programs should be slashed or cut back, or are actively doing so. (see the restrictions put on Unemployment Insurance)

        The “cut back benefits and they will be motivated to find work” philosophy I see around just doesn’t fit what sort of bind the lower quintile of American households are in.

  • http://www.kizi10.info/ Kizi 10

    Great company but not pay the minimum wage more employees. It is true that for a realistic worst.