Duly Passed Voter ID Amendment Should go to Voters
St. Paul – Minnesota Majority is filing a motion with the Minnesota Supreme Court, asking to intervene in the lawsuit aimed at preventing the Voter ID Constitutional amendment from appearing on November’s ballot. The suit was brought by the ACLU, representing organizations including the League of Women Voters and Common Cause who oppose the right of Minnesotans to vote and who ultimately oppose common sense Voter ID requirements.
“The lawsuit has no legal merit, but because he’s demonstrated an obvious and very public bias against Voter ID, we don’t have faith that Secretary of State Mark Ritchie will diligently defend the amendment that was duly passed by the legislature. Therefore, we feel compelled to intervene. We will defend the right of the People of Minnesota to vote on this important measure,” said Minnesota Majority president, Jeff Davis.
“It strikes me as ironic that these organizations who claim to be for democracy and the right to vote don’t actually trust the voters and are seeking to thwart the democratic process of amending the state’s Constitution, which is in essence, the voice and will of the people,” he said.
Minnesota Majority has engaged nationally renowned election law expert J. Christian Adams with the Election Law Center PLLC and ActRight Legal Foundation as well as Minneapolis attorney Nathan J. Marcusen of Bowman and Brooke LLP as local counsel.
Adams, a former voting rights attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice said “Nobody should fear the will of the people on this. Let the voters decide.” He explained how the League of Women Voters, Common Cause and the ACLU are pursuing an anti-democratic case: “They seek to prevent citizens of Minnesota from deciding whether to integrate measures that protect election integrity into the Minnesota Constitution. They also seek to usurp the power and right of the Legislature to have the people of Minnesota decide whether to amend their Constitution.”
“The case brought by the League and Common Cause through the ACLU is misguided. They are attempting to use the Errors and Omissions statute to ask the Supreme Court to enjoin the secretary of state from fulfilling his legal obligation to put the Voter ID question before the voters,” Adams explained further. “There is no error or omission in this case. The question to go on the ballot is exactly what the legislature intended. If the secretary of state failed to put the question on the ballot, that would be an omission.”