Posted on 08/27/2012 1:11:29 PM PDT by rhema
Edited on 08/27/2012 1:22:28 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
The Minnesota Supreme Court on Monday, Aug. 27, rejected a legal challenge to a proposed constitutional amendment that would require voters to show photo ID at the polls.
The high court tossed out a lawsuit from left-leaning groups who argued that lawmakers had failed to give voters the full scope of the changes that would result from the amendment.
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
Sweet! Justice still has a few flickers of life in what’s left of our Republic.
The decision means the Legislature's original titles go on the ballot. Legislators had called the Photo ID amendment: “Photo Identification Required for Voting.” Ritchie, following a state law that says the Secretary of State writes ballot titles, substituted this language: “Changes to In-person & Absentee Voting & Voter Registration; Provisional Ballots.”
For marriage, legislators called the amendment: “Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman.” Ritchie’s title reads: “Limiting the Status of Marriage to Opposite Sex Couples.”
Liberty isn’t dead yet!
Congrats to liberty-loving patriots in Minnesota.
“The justices said striking the question from the ballot would have been “unprecedented relief” and that the voters will be “the sole judge of the wisdom of such matters.””
+1
“Ritchie changed the title for the marriage ban from “Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman” to “Limiting the Status of Marriage to Opposite Sex Couples.””
I don’t like either title, but +1 for the decision.
Wow, I really wasn’t sure what to expect. This is great news - very great news!
I’ll ping the Minnesota list!!!
Ah-men
WELCOME TO FREE REPUBLIC’S MINNESOTA PING LIST!
151 MEMBERS AND GROWING...!
FREEPMAIL ME IF YOU WANT ON OR OFF THIS LIST!
“The proper role for the judiciary, however, is not to second-guess the wisdom of policy decisions that the constitution commits to one of the political branches,” the court wrote in ruling against the League's petition that the ID ballot question was unfair.
"The Secretary of State exceeded his authority ... when he provided titles different from those passed by the Legislature," the court ruled.
Take that, Soros!
And thank you, Tim Pawlenty.
” left-leaning groups who argued that lawmakers had failed to give voters the full scope of the changes that would result from the amendment. “
This argument from the party of “We’ve got to pass it before we can find out what’s in it” fame???
Irony is completely lost on these people, isn’t it??
LOLOL
‘Minnesota Supreme Court rejects challenge to Voter ID’
AWWW MAN ...how am i gonna find the time to go retchin and a ruckin around town to git me a ID?..It’s a downright damn nuisance i tell you. And another thing, what about all my illegal alien friends? ..How r THEY GONNA get able to vote.....? THIS IS A HUMBUG..this is a SCAM and a HUMBUG..
Looks like Soros is going to have to purchase a more effective Secretary of State!
That means Senator Franken just got tossed out of office! Look for a “retirement” in 2014.
I’m trying not to think too far ahead to 2014 - but at the same time, the state GOP really needs to make the defeat of Mark Ritchie a very high priority.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The petition of Warren Limmer, et al., is granted in No. 12-1149 to theextent that it seeks an order directing the Secretary of State to provide the following titlefor the ballot question related to the proposed constitutional amendment definingmarriage that will appear on the 2012 general election ballot: “ Recognition of MarriageSolely Between One Man and One Woman
” ; and2. The petition of Mary Kiffmeyer, et al., is granted in No. 12-1258 to theextent that it seeks an order directing the Secretary of State to provide the following titlefor the ballot question related to the proposed constitutional amendment on voteridentification that will appear on the 2012 general election ballot: “ Photo IdentificationRequired for Voting
” ; and3. The Secretary of State is directed to place on the ballot the following titlefor the ballot question related to the proposed constitutional amendment definingmarriage that will appear on the 2012 general election ballot: “ Recognition of MarriageSolely Between One Man and One Woman
” ; and4. The Secretary of State is directed to place on the ballot the following titlefor the ballot question related to the proposed constitutional amendment on voteridentification that will appear on the 2012 general election ballot: “ Photo IdentificationRequired for Voting. ”
Except policy does not equal ‘law’. Policy is in the implementation of law and as such ‘should’ be subject to judicial review.
Doubly sweet in that Minnesota’s former Secretary of State, Mary Kiffmeyer, a Republican, was one of the plaintiffs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.