Election Integrity is Under Assault

When you’re taking flak, it means you’re over the target. By the extraordinary reaction by anti-integrity forces to the introduction of a Voter ID Constitutional Amendment, it seems that we’re very close to the target. It also seems that many groups are looking to protect the constituency of illegal voters and they’re pulling out all the stops.

The anti-ID rhetoric is reaching a fevered pitch, with members of Isaiah (a radical left quasi-religious coalition) calling Voter ID “a devilish enterprise" at a recent Capitol press conference. They’re holding rallies. The League of Women Voters is touring the state with a breathless (but completely unfounded) message about Voter ID preventing grandma, minorities, students and soldiers from voting.

A letter to the editor campaign is in full swing and our opponents are getting 10 letters published for every one in favor of Voter ID.

They are lobbying legislators against passing the Voter ID amendment in large, organized numbers.

They packed a recent committee hearing to pitch lies about the amendment ending absentee voting and Election Day registration.

The truth is Voter ID will not eliminate Election Day registration – only vouching. It will not eliminate absentee voting – only require proof of the voters identity (such as a verifiable ID card number on the ballot envelope). It will not prevent any eligible voter who desires to vote from doing so.

Groups like the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, Isaiah, the ACLU and NAACP are making ludicrous claims like 700,000 Minnesotans will be unable to vote if photo ID is required. They’ve engaged in this kind of hyperbolic speculation before, but when met with the challenge of proving their claims in court, their arguments fall to pieces.

Here’s what the Indiana Supreme Court said about the League of Women Voters’ challenge of that state’s voter ID law when the Court heard the League’s appeal in 2010:

“The relief the plaintiffs seek is a declaration that it was beyond the power of the legislature to require any voters to identify themselves at the polls using a photo ID. Voters have long been required to identify themselves at the polls by announcing and signing their names. Neither of the constitutional provisions the plaintiffs invoke prevents the legislature from promulgating a new way for voters to identify themselves. It is within the power of the legislature to require voters to identify themselves at the polls using a photo ID. The plaintiffs' claim for relief cannot be granted and dismissal was appropriate. No individual voter has alleged that the Voter ID Law has prevented him or her from voting or inhibited his or her ability to vote in any way.”

The League is persistent with their disproven arguments, though. When they teamed up with two other anti-election integrity organizations, Common Cause and the NAACP to try to stop Georgia’s Voter ID law, they made the familiar claims that scores of voters would be disenfranchised because of some inexplicable inability to obtain free state-issued photo ID. They took their claims to federal court and won a temporary restraining order based on the apocalyptic scenario they painted, but on the merits of the case, the League was again rebuffed. On examining the evidence, the Court upheld the Voter ID law and decreed:

“Plaintiffs’ failure, despite their efforts, to uncover anyone who can attest to the fact that he/she will be prevented from voting provides significant support for the conclusion that the Photo ID requirement does not unduly burden the right to vote.”

Where the bogus claims of disenfranchisement have been repeatedly disproven in court, the reality of the threat of voter fraud has been proven in the courts with criminal convictions in record numbers of late.

James O’Keefe, whose undercover videos helped take down ACORN and who exposed the ease of voting in the names of dead people was in Minnesota recently and released a new video exposing how vulnerable Minnesota’s election system is (see video above or check it out at WeWantVoterID.com).

We know the truth, but right now, it’s being buried by an avalanche of misinformation and Propaganda.

Take Action! We’re asking you to take two steps to counter the lies and distortions and help advance the Voter ID amendment.

• Contact your legislators and tell them to pass the Voter ID amendment.
• Write a letter to the editor of the Star Tribune, Pioneer Press or your local paper. We’ve provided a tool to make it really easy to write and submit your letter.

Get Involved in Your Local Precinct Caucus and Make a Difference

Minnesota’s major political parties are holding precinct caucuses on Tuesday February 7, 2012, at 7:00 p.m.  A precinct caucus is a generally small gathering of your close neighbors to exercise your rights in the American political process. Caucuses are the very first step in a party's political process. Caucuses are where delegates to your party are first elected from each precinct. This is your first opportunity during the election cycle to recommend changes to your party's platform, hear from local candidates, and choose delegates to represent you at subsequent party conventions.

Precinct caucuses are also where the grassroots of a political party state their preference for the party’s nominee for governor or president in what’s called a “straw poll.” Straw polls are not binding on the convention delegates in Minnesota, but the results carry weight in the nomination process and are a strong indicator of the state party’s disposition toward a particular candidate.

Ultimately, the delegates selected at caucuses will filter up through the convention process and choose the party’s nominees. Precinct caucuses determine the makeup of a political party for the next two years. All caucus conveners and other party officials are volunteers. Like you, they care deeply about the direction and future of our state and our country.  While some attendees may be experienced caucus veterans, others will be new to the process.

Precinct caucuses, to many, may seem like mysterious political voodoo, but they’re actually quite simple and easy to participate in. In essence, they are a small, relatively informal gathering of neighbors who participate in a grassroots, democratic and open process to elect neighborhood representatives to the party and determine the desired priorities of the party for a two-year election cycle.

It’s easy and only takes a couple hours.

If you ever wanted to get involved in a political party and didn’t know how, this is your doorway, but it only happens every two years. Don’t miss it!

Who Can Participate?

Individuals who are eligible to vote at the time of the next general election may participate in caucus meetings.  You must choose which party's caucus meeting you wish to attend (you cannot attend more than one). You must generally be in agreement with the principles of the party as stated in the party's constitution and affirm that you intend to vote for some candidates endorsed by that party.

Where Do I Go?

The caucus meetings in your local area may be held in schools, churches, libraries, other public buildings and sometimes in a neighbor’s home.  The locations of your party's local caucus meeting can be found by clicking on one of the links below (note that some minor parties may conduct caucuses entirely online or by other means - see websites for details):

Constitution Party: http://www.cpmn.org/

DFL: www.dflcaucuses.org/

Green Party: http://www.mngreens.org/

Independence Party: http://www.independenceminnesota.org/

Libertarian Party: http://www.lpmn.org/

Republican Party: http://pf.mngop.com/

Also see the secretary of state's caucus site for more information, more parties and a handy caucus finder.     

How Can I Prepare?

Minnesota Majority has developed some resources that you can print out and take with you to your local caucus meetings.  There's a Beginner's Caucus Guide that provides some basic information about the meeting and the process. Also see a brochure produced by the office of the secretary of state.

Caucuses are generally very informal and accessible, but are technically governed by Robert's Rules of Order. Your caucus convener will help guide this process and answer questions along the way, but if you want to learn more about Robert's Rules, see here for a quick reference: http://www.RobertsRules.org

Platform Resolutions

We have three platform resolutions that you can consider bringing to our caucus meeting and recommend them as part of your party's platform. Just click on the links below to view and print the proposed resolutions.

Voter ID Resolution

Employee Freedom Resolution

Marriage Protection Resolution

Fulfill Our Civic Duty

Our Founding Fathers had the wisdom of establishing a government "of the People, by the People and for the People".  While we may, at times, become frustrated by politics, we have no right to complain unless we are involved in trying to improve the situation.  Each of us has the right and the responsibility to be involved in the political process in an effort to preserve freedom and liberty for future generations of Americans.  Please take the time to attend your local caucus meeting on Tuesday, February 7th.

St. Paul - Senator Dave Thompson (R-Lakeville) and Representative Steve Drazkowski (R-Mazeppa) announced the introduction of a constitutional amendment that would give Minnesotans the opportunity to vote on whether or not Minnesota workers should have the freedom to join a union or not.  Currently, if someone is hired by a company with a collective bargaining agreement in place, that person is required to join the union or pay fair share dues. 

“In Minnesota law, if a worker refuses to pay union dues, they are fired. This isn't fair and it's definitely not free,” Representative Drazkowski said. “To me, this is the most important pro-jobs bill we can pass this session.  It's estimated that had Minnesota passed this amendment 30 years ago, the average Minnesota working family would be earning an additional $7,000 or more every year.  Nearly 70% of Minnesotans support employee freedom - let's allow the people to decide whether they want to guarantee this fundamental right in our constitution.” 

If Minnesotans vote in favor of this amendment, every Minnesota worker would still have the right to join or support a labor union, only now it would be his or her own decision.  Union employees would still be able to collectively bargain the same as under current law. 

“Our bill is simple: let’s allow Minnesotans to vote on whether or not an individual should be forced to pay a third party in order to work.  Jobs are our number one priority – this bill recognizes Minnesota workers’ ability, and right, to decide whether or not they’d like to be part of a union.  States that have granted employees this freedom have experienced rapid growth in business, leading to greater job growth.  From 1993 to 2009, private sector employment increased nearly 38% in those states versus only 19.6% in forced-unionism states,” said Senator Thompson.  “We have an opportunity, as a state, to increase freedom and grow jobs – it’s an opportunity Minnesota cannot afford to turn down.”

Constitutional Amendment Ensures it will be Easy to Vote but Hard to Cheat

Senator Scott Newman has introduced a bill to amend Minnesota’s Constitution to require voters to present photographic identification before casting a ballot (SF1577). If enacted, the amendment will also require the state to provide photo ID to voters at no charge and ensure that all voters are subject to equal standards of eligibility verification, regardless of when they register to vote.

The bill will have its first hearing in the Senate Local Government and Elections Committee, chaired by Senator Ray Vandeveer on Wednesday, February 1st.

If the committee approves the bill, it will likely next be referred to the  Judiciary and Public Safety Committee chaired by Senator Warren Limmer who sponsored the 21st Century Voter ID bill last year. That bill was vetoed by Governor Dayton, but the governor does not play any role in the process of amending the constitution. If approved by the legislature, the question will be put to the voters during the 2012 General Election this November.

Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer introduced an identical Voter ID amendment bill as chief author last year. It will likely have its first hearing in the House Civil Law Committee chaired by Representative Torrey Westrom in the coming weeks.

The Senate Local Government and Elections Committee hearing is open to the public and public testimony is welcome.

The hearing will take place in Room 112 of the State Capitol at 1:00 PM on Wednesday, February 1st.

To sign up to testify, contact committee administrator, Carl Jacobson. Testimony from unregistered attendees may also be heard as time permits.

Legislature considering whether to put Right-to-Work issue on the ballot in 2012

Minneapolis, MN - Minnesota Free Market Institute at Center of the American Experiment today released a new study, "Minnesota Right-to-Work: How the Freedom of Workers in the Workplace Enhances Prosperity," by Dr. Richard Vedder, Matthew Denhart, and Jonathan Robe. 

The study found that a typical Minnesota resident would have a higher income and standard of living if the state had a Right-to-Work provision that allowed workers the freedom to join, or not to join, a labor union.  Twenty-two states, including neighbors North and South Dakota and Iowa, currently have similar measures and Minnesota legislators are considering a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would be placed on this November's general election ballot. 

"Minnesotans would have a higher standard of living and greater job opportunities if the state had adopted a right-to-work law 30 years ago," said Dr. Richard Vedder, chief author of the study. "Minnesota's future prosperity would be enhanced if the state allows employees to decide whether or not to join a labor union." 

The study estimates that annual personal income per capita, on average, would have been $2,360 to $3,072 higher in 2008 if Minnesota had adopted Right-to-Work in 1977. On a per household basis, income would have been somewhere in the range of $5,960 to $7,740 higher if such a provision had been in place. Instead of being 14th in the nation in per capita income in 2008, the state almost certainly would have been in the top 10. 

"This study provides useful information to voters and legislators as they consider this contentious issue," said Kim Crockett, COO and General Counsel at Center of the American Experiment. "Minnesota should take all possible steps to strengthen our economy. While workplace freedom would be a cultural shift, it would also be a key factor in unleashing Minnesota's talent and attracting investment to our state." 

This finding adds to economic evidence connecting Right-to-Work laws with economic growth, which suggests that passing Right-to-Work in Minnesota will help the state's economy grow stronger and more competitive.   Importantly, the cost to the state government would be minimal as enacting Right-to-Work requires no expenditure of taxpayer dollars. 

"Minnesota's economy has experienced a slowdown largely attributable to the national and global recession and slow recovery," said Peter Nelson, Director of Public Policy at the Center of the American Experiment. "We're interested in solutions to help Minnesota regain economic strength.  This study looks into whether providing workers the freedom to join or not join a union would translate into greater prosperity - not just for employers - but for employees, as well. We found that Minnesota has missed growth opportunities that would have benefited both employees and employers. This study clearly demonstrates that Minnesota would benefit from employee workplace freedom." 

While the study does not focus on the state budget, it does not sidestep how Right-to-Work can help improve the state's balance sheet by containing public employee labor costs.  Public unions are especially troubling in states without Right-to-Work, because they represent an agreement between two monopoly providers: state governments have a monopoly over the provision of public goods within a state, and unions (in absence of Right-to-Work) hold a monopoly over employment services. This can lead to above-market compensation levels for employees and sharply higher costs of providing public services. 

The report concludes that the United States operates largely under Depression-era labor laws that are increasingly out of touch with the realities of a global labor market. The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 provided states an opportunity to reduce some of the adverse effects of these laws by passing "Right-to-Work" measures that give workers the right to decide whether they wish to join a union or pay union dues. Minnesota did not take advantage of that opportunity and has paid a high economic price for not doing so. 

Right-to-Work has been proven to attract productive resources (both capital and labor) to a state. Following a decade of relatively slower economic growth, it may well be time for Minnesota to become the 23rdstate to pass Right-to-Work. 

Read the study: "Minnesota Right-to-Work: How the Freedom of Workers in the Workplace Enhances Prosperity"

Take Action: Contact your legislators and tell them to support the Right to Work Amendment.

“This is an example of why creating two classes of voters is unacceptable,” said Davis. “You shouldn’t be subject to less scrutiny than everyone else, just because you waited until the last minute to register. Less responsible voters are allowed to cut in line and cast a ballot without being validated and this is what happens.”

Read the full report here.

Take Action: Contact your legislators. Tell them to support voter ID.

Donate to the cause. Well-funded national organizations are gearing up to fight ratification of Minnesota's Voter ID Constitutional amendment and they're prepared to spend millions of dollars on the effort. To fight back and ensure passage, we need financial help. We don't have to match our opponents dollar for dollar, but we need some resources to counter the misinformation campaigns that are getting underway. Please help us enact voter ID with a contribution.

Judge Lindman seemed to agree that the governor had overstepped his authority and also expressed concern that only 4,300 childcare providers would be permitted to vote on forming a union that would likely affect all of Minnesota’s 11,000 home-based childcare providers.

Take Action: We're over the first hurdle, but need money to continue the push for an injunction. Legal battles aren't cheap. We need to raise another $35,000 to push this case past the goal line. Please consider making a secure, online contribution.

Who's a State Employee?

Joe owns a neighborhood convenience store. Joe has a little terminal on the counter that looks like a credit card machine. His customers on welfare can use EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfer) cards to pay for food (the modern version of food stamps), and the money is directly deposited into Joe’s business account.

Some of Joe’s customers applied for and receive monetary support from the state and they choose to spend some of the money they receive at Joe’s Corner Store. Therefore, Joe receives government subsidies. If he’s paid in government funds, he must be an employee of the state.

Mike has an old Schwinn bicycle he’d like to sell. His neighbor, Dave is on welfare and gets a couple hundred dollars in cash to spend how ever he sees fit each month. Dave can’t afford a car, and thought Mike’s old Schwinn might make good transportation for a while so Dave paid Mike $100 for the bike.

Mike received government money. Maybe he should join the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union and pay some dues.

Jane operates a small Daycare from her home to supplement her family income while caring for her own 2 year old. She got licensed by the state and cares for 4 neighborhood kids along with her own during the day. Jane enjoys being self-employed.

Karen is one of the parents whose child Jane cares for. Karen needs a little help from the state with her daycare bill and is enrolled in a program called CCAP (Child Care Assistance Program) through the state. It provides $130 per week toward her daycare costs.

Jane charges $150 a week for her service, but Karen can afford $20 more, so after the state covers the first $130, Karen makes up the balance.

Governor Dayton thinks since Jane receives state dollars, she should be part of a government employees union and pay dues. The $130 in CCAP money was meant to make Karen’s childcare expense more affordable so she can go to work, but AFSCME wants a piece of it, first. They want part of Karen’s subsidy payment, but since Jane ultimately receives what’s left, she’s a state worker and should be a union member.

It may be painful to try to follow along with these mental stretches, but for people who routinely walk around with their heads inserted into their own posteriors, these kinds of contortions are child’s-play.

Limber up.

Take Action: Attend the Childcare Freedom Rally at the State Capitol, Noon on Saturday, December 3rd.

Minority Rule is not the American Way.

At a press conference this morning, a group of home-based childcare providers announced the filing of a lawsuit to block a vote to unionize their business. They contend that the vote ordered by the governor is unfair and unlawful. They also expressed doubts about the governor’s assurances that union membership would be voluntary.  

Childcare provider Becky Swanson spoke for the plaintiffs. “Despite the talking points from the governor and union organizers, unionization will affect all childcare providers, but only a select group of providers is being allowed to vote. Since Minnesota is a ‘fair share’ state, non-members can still be required to pay a portion of union dues, which has been the case in several other states that unionized childcare,” she explained.

Two major labor unions, SEIU and AFSCME have been pushing to unionize home-based childcare providers in Minnesota for several years and many providers have cried foul about their tactics.

Swanson said SEIU and AFSCME organizers operating under the names, “Kids First,” and “Child Care Providers Together” obfuscated the purpose of union authorization cards presented to childcare providers. “If unionization would really be such an advantage for us small business owners, then why did union organizers approach providers during the day, when we were busy caring for children, and try to trick us, telling us the cards were just requests for more information?”

Tom Revnew, one of the attorneys representing the childcare providers, said besides being fundamentally unfair, he believes the governor’s order is unlawful. “We believe the governor has no authority to order this vote and the Bureau of Mediation Services has no legal authority to design and conduct it,” he said.

“Governor Dayton says the vote he ordered is ‘the American way’ and that a vote is the fair way to resolve a dispute between those providers who want a union and those of us who do not. Besides the obvious fact that we don’t just vote on every idea that anyone has, rule by a minority is the exact opposite of the American way. If this unionization vote prevails, it will be because a minority of providers voted for it.  In Michigan, just 6% of providers voted to unionize, but that vote forced the union on all providers in the state. That’s not democracy. That’s not American,” said Swanson.

See the lawsuit complaint here.

Take Action: Attend the Childcare Freedom Rally, Saturday, December 3rd at noon in the State Capitol Rotunda. Details and RSVP at facebook.