Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: TurboZamboni
In a nutshell Ritchie sought to either use "charged" language or to blatantly obscure the issue, thus hoping to confuse enough voters so that they would "pass" on the ballot questions (an effective 'NO' vote).

Pubbies version (Marriage):
"Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman"

Ritchies version:
"Limiting the Status of Marriage to Opposite Sex Couples."

Pubbies version (Voter ID):
"Photo Identification Required for Voting"

Ritchies version (this is my favorite):
"Changes to In-Person & Absentee Voting & Voter Registration; Provisional Ballots."

8 posted on 08/27/2012 7:58:39 PM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: jonno

And it was a Dem from MPLS who proposed the original voter ID title.


9 posted on 08/27/2012 8:16:38 PM PDT by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson