I
was surprised by their decision because I thought they’d do the right thing and
not the political thing!
by Charlie Leck
by Charlie Leck
By a 3 to 2 vote!
It was by a split decision that the Minnesota Supreme Court voted to allow a very poor description of an amendment to the constitution to stand on the November ballot just as the legislature wrote it and not as the Secretary of State had amended it. The three justices who voted to go with the legislature’s wording were all appointees of the former conservative Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty. They also ruled that the legislature’s original title for the Marriage Amendment question for the Minnesota Constitution should stand. [If you wish, you can read the StarTribune story about the decision here.]
It was by a split decision that the Minnesota Supreme Court voted to allow a very poor description of an amendment to the constitution to stand on the November ballot just as the legislature wrote it and not as the Secretary of State had amended it. The three justices who voted to go with the legislature’s wording were all appointees of the former conservative Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty. They also ruled that the legislature’s original title for the Marriage Amendment question for the Minnesota Constitution should stand. [If you wish, you can read the StarTribune story about the decision here.]
Progressives
wanted that language clarified on both constitutional amendment proposals so that voters would know exactly what they are
voting on when they have the ballots before them in the voting booth. The
language on both issues is very misleading.
Chuck Samuelson
of the American Civil Liberties Union of
Minnesota bluntly stated the following: “Today we are Florida! This was a
political decision by a political court!”
In his dissent,
Justice Alan Page (elected and not appointed to the Court), had some scathing
things to say:
"It is ironic, if not Orwellian,
that in the name of 'protecting' the voter and preventing unspecified voting
'fraud,' the Legislature has resorted to a ballot question that deliberately
deceives and misleads the very voters it claims must be protected."
Orwellian?
Indeed!
Make no mistake,
this was a victory for the conservative and Tea Party cause in Minnesota!
The League of Women Voters in Minnesota, which
brought the law suit, was disappointed but looked for the positives: “At least
we got the conversation started.”
_________________________
Why not become a follower?
If you read my blog regularly, why not become a follower? All you have to do is click in the upper right hand corner and establish a simple means of communication. Then you'll be informed every time a new blog is posted here. If all that's confusing, here's Google's explanation of how to do it! If you don’t want to post comments on the blog, but would like to communicate with me about it, send me an email if you’d like.
If you read my blog regularly, why not become a follower? All you have to do is click in the upper right hand corner and establish a simple means of communication. Then you'll be informed every time a new blog is posted here. If all that's confusing, here's Google's explanation of how to do it! If you don’t want to post comments on the blog, but would like to communicate with me about it, send me an email if you’d like.
No comments:
Post a Comment