Keeping An Eye On The Secretary Of State Project
October 1, 2009
The Secretary of State Project is rattling the tin cup for Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and SOS challengers Debra Bowen in California and Jocelyn Benson in Michigan. The hope is that Bowen and Benson can do what Ritchie did in Minnesota: tip close elections, such as the Franken-Coleman race, in favor of their preferred candidate.
Ritchie, of course, was elected with SOS Project funding and quickly abandoned any pretense of running fair elections. According to Jeff Davis, president of the legislative watchdog group Minnesota Majority, Ritchie blocked an investigation of ACORN, which had endorsed him, despite evidence of “a number of irregularities” in Minnesota voter records - little things like dead people and convicted felons registering from prison. I guess the 2008 election was a two-fer for Ritchie as far as the SOS Project was concerned: He kept ACORN in the game and played a major role in tilting the election to Al Franken.
Like other groups funded by hedge fund billionaire George Soros - such as Justice at Stake - the SOS Project poses as a non-partisan, good government organization whose only ambition is to ensure clean elections. And, as with other Soros-bankrolled groups, this pose is used to shield the deeply partisan nature of the organization. I wonder if Bowen and Benson know that sweeping ACORN’s fraudulent activities under the rug is part of the job description for candidates taking $$ from the SOS Project.
More ACORN Allies Abandon Ship
September 30, 2009
Senator Al Franken - who once gushed that he was “more motivated than ever to work with ACORN” - has finally “got religion” according to Katherine Kersten, writing in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. Franken joined 83 other Senators in voting to slash funds for the disgraced group, but President Obama has refused to say whether he’d sign legislation to remove ACORN from the federal trough.
Kersten alludes to ACORN’s role in helping Franken sneak into the Senate, nothing that ACORN “is best-known for its massive voter-registration campaigns, which focus relentlessly on getting Democrats elected in target states.” All true, but she neglects to mention allegations by the legislative watchdog group Minnesota Majority concerning “a number of irregularities” in Minnesota’s voter registration records - including the registration of dead people and convicted felons at a time when ACORN was bragging about registering 80,000 new voters in time for the 2008 elections.
Calls for an investigation were quickly quashed by Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, whose campaign was bankrolled in part by the Secretary of State Project - a political operation funded by hedge fund billionaire George Soros to help sway close elections to liberal Democrats.
Do ACORN and the Secretary of State Project have any formal working relationship? Can’t say - but they are certainly toiling in the same vineyards.
More Questions About Minnesota
June 2, 2009
Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie faces a new lawsuit from a group of citizens and state legislators over his handling (or mishandling) of 2008 election results, reports Jeff Davis, president of the legislative watchdog group Minnesota Majority. In a Washington Examiner article, Davis calls attention to the “significant mismatch” between the number of ballots cast in the 2008 election and the number of voters in the statewide system. Ritchie himself admits the mismatch may be as high as 40,000 votes – more than enough to tip the contested Coleman-Franken Senate battle.
Davis notes that the problem surfaced last October 2008 when “a number of irregularities were discovered in Minnesota’s voter registration records” – like dead people and convicted felons registering to vote from prison. According to Davis:
“During this same time, ACORN was taking credit for registering more than 80,000 new voters in preparation for the 2008 election. Unlike other states that are now actively investigating and prosecuting ACORN for fraudulent election activity, Minnesota has done nothing. Allegations of wrong-doing were swiftly squashed by Minnesota’s ACORN-endorsed attorney general and Ritchie.”
Ahhhh … ACORN, the group which seems to pop up wherever dead people start voting.
As I reported on 5/14, Ritchie was elected with the financial backing of the George Soros-funded Secretary of State (SOS) Project – a national campaign specifically launched to help shift votes toward sharply partisan Democrats in close elections. It seems that sweeping ACORN’s fraudulent shenanigans under the rug is becoming an uncomfortable, but necessary, part of the job description for candidates seeking the $$ of the SOS Project.
The SOS Project, Mark Ritchie and the Coleman-Franken Race
May 14, 2009
As I posted yesterday, I’ll be following the Secretary of State (SOS) Project – another organization bankrolled by billionaire hedge fund kingpin George Soros aimed at pushing American politics sharply to the left. Like Justice at Stake – which works to give special interest groups like the trial bar more influence over who sits on state courts – the SOS Project poses as a non-partisan, “good government” reform effort. The truth is, the SOS Project is committed to electing sharply partisan Democrats who they believe can help shift votes in close elections to their favored candidates.
Consider Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, elected in 2006 with the financial backing of the SOS Project. One of the critical roles for Secretaries of State is to oversee elections and serve as an impartial arbiter while overseeing recounts in disputed contests. Yet shortly it became obvious that the Coleman-Franken Senate race was headed for a long, drawn-out recount, Ritchie went on national TV and accused Coleman’s campaign of trying “to win at any price.”
The Coleman campaign said Ritchie’s partisan comments showed he couldn’t govern the recount process fairly, but don’t listen to them. Here’s what Minneapolis Star-Tribune columnist Katherine Kersten had to say (emphasis added):
“Let’s assume the 32 disputed ballots in Minneapolis were legitimate. Let’s assume the newly discovered 100 votes in Pine County — all for Al Franken — were just overlooked by a sleepy official, and the 100 votes found in Mountain Iron — again, all for Franken — were valid.
“Let’s suppose the trickle of votes moving inexorably in Franken’s direction is just a function of a normal process, as Secretary of State Mark Ritchie’s office assures us.
“One fact remains troubling. The referee in Minnesota’s hotly contested Senate race must act in a nonpartisan fashion, yet Ritchie came to office through a nationwide partisan strategy. He was elected in 2006 as part of a national campaign to ensure that Democrats could wield influence in precisely the sort of hair’s breadth race we now have here.
“Ritchie gained office with the help of the Secretary of State Project (SOS), an independent 527 group co-founded by former MoveOn.org leader James Rucker. SOS is based in San Francisco, and is funded in part by ultra-liberal kingmakers such as George Soros.
“Secretary of state positions are a “new front” in the “battle for political control,” the paper explained, because they are “the obscure but vital state offices that determine who votes and how those votes are counted.”
Ritchie has also come under attack for his ties to ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), the same group that figured in voting issues in Ohio in the Presidential election last year. Trent England in the pages of the Wall Street Journal described the group as “a group under investigation in several states for suspected voter registration chicanery.”
If any of this happened under a Republican watch, you can bet the Democrats would be crying “dirty tricks.” When it helps Democrats can get to the magic number of 60 seats in the U.S. Senate, no one seems to mind. Tilting close elections like Minnesota’s in their favor is exactly why the SOS Project is spending millions to assure that left-leaning Democrats control these offices.
Among The Elites In Minnesota
March 11, 2009
A campaign is on to strip Minnesota voters of their right to choose state judges – a right enshrined in Article VI, Section 7 of the Minnesota Constitution. Our friends over at Gavel Grab/Justice at Stake – the group funded by hedge fund billionaire George Soros that is lobbying to abolish democratic judicial elections across America – have a thumb-sucker on the attempt to shift the power to select judges away from the people toward a tiny tribunal of lawyers.
Well-funded groups (like Justice at Stake) are pushing for a constitutional amendment that would “require all judges to submit to periodic professional performance reviews.” Actually, Minnesota judges are already “required” to submit to performance reviews: In a democracy, we call these “reviews” elections.
But a “performance review” isn’t really what Justice at Stake has in mind. The Quie Commission – named after former Minnesota Governor Al Quie – wants to set up two more commissions: A Judicial Performance Review Commission and an Appellate Court Merit Selection Commission.
The Judicial Performance Review Commission will consist of 30 people that “must be respected individuals of outstanding character and integrity and reflect the diversity of the state.” This august panel will have a majority of non-lawyers, but does anyone doubt that when these 30 “respected individuals” convene to pass judgment on a judge’s performance that William the Attorney won’t have more influence than Bill the Mechanic?
Actually, Bill the Mechanic probably won’t be allowed into the smoke-filled room because neither the Governor nor the Chief Justice, who will make all the appointments, will likely consider him, ummmm, “respected” enough to evaluate judges. Minnesota Chief Justice Eric Magnuson, after all, is on record as saying you “need to have a certain level of experience and insight and sophistication to be able to say that a judge got that [ruling] right.” Sorry, Bill.
But don’t judges – like any other public official – serve Bill the Mechanic as much as William the Attorney? Read more
“Superlawyers” To The Rescue: The Fight Over How To Choose Judges In Minnesota
October 30, 2008
The Minnesota Lawyer Blog gives us a ring-side seat to an exciting fight, carried out in the op-ed pages of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, between Charles Lundberg, a fellow of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, and Paul Woods, a product manager at a publishing firm, over how best to vote for judges.
Sure sounds like a mismatch…but I smell an upset.
Mr. Lundberg instructs voters, who he says basically know “very little” about which appellate candidate to chose from, to “consult” someone who is “well-qualified to help you evaluate the judges.” Who does he have in mind? Well, another appellate lawyer – like himself for instance.
If you’re so lowly that you’re not lucky enough to travel in the company of appellate lawyers, have no fear. In that case, Mr. Lundberg instructs, “vote for the incumbent.” Why? Because “more than 100 of the top appellate lawyers in Minnesota have evaluated the candidates [for an appellate slot] and publicized their conclusions. These lawyers have both the unique qualifications and the professional responsibility to candidly assess sitting appellate judges.” (Unlike you, of course.) This august group of legal grandees “include members of the state bar appellate practice section, the amicus curiae committees of both the plaintiffs and defense bar, the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, and attorneys designated appellate law ‘SuperLawyers’ by Minnesota Law & Politics.” They all support the incumbent because “generally speaking, appellate judges learn and improve and get better at their job over time.” If an appellate judge is good enough for them, he/she should be good enough for you.
But these blows did not faze Mr. Woods, who called the arguments “self-serving and insulting to the intelligence of Minnesota voters.” He ridicules Mr. Lundberg’s “weighty legal rationale” that incumbent appellate judges “generally speaking” get better at their jobs over time. Mr. Woods writes:
“Doh! Doesn’t everyone, generally speaking? If this is the case, why hold any official up for election at all? Just think of how much better our governor, congressional members and president would be if we just let them keep their jobs and bring to bear all the experience they’ve gained in office?
“So the real practice being advocated by Lundberg is to have the governor choose our judges, who then become incumbents, who we are then told to vote for by the likes of Lundberg and the clan of appellate lawyers, because they are…incumbents.”
Mr. Woods feels the citizens of Minnesota are perfectly capable of doing their homework and figuring out who to vote for – even without the help of Mr. Lundberg and his fellow “SuperLawyers.”
“We elect governors, don’t we? Why not judges too?”
The winner by knockout: Paul Woods.
No Merit for Minnesota
October 29, 2008
A Minneapolis Star Tribune article has a good update on the upcoming judicial races in Minnesota.
Judicial candidates have found many innovative ways to inform voters about the judicial philosophies – including YouTube videos – without compromising their independence. The Star Tribune reports that judicial campaigns this year are mostly “low-cost, low-key and low-profile affairs.” Kind of makes you wonder why some top Minnesota lawyers and outside special interest groups are lobbying to take judicial selection away from voters and hand it over to a tiny committee dominated by lawyers. Do they really think people don’t have the “insight and sophistication” to pick judges? Or do they just want to give legal special interests more power in deciding who sits on the bench?
What Are Election Opponents Afraid Of In Minnesota?
October 21, 2008
Minnesota Lawyer posts videos from two candidates for Minnesota Supreme Court: incumbent Lorie Skjerven Gildea and challenger Deborah Hedlund. Both show serious, thoughtful candidates who are fully capable of discussing their qualifications in a dignified manner that is fully accessible to every fair-minded Minnesota voter. Is this the type of nasty judicial campaigning that would justify denying Minnesota citizens the right to vote for judges, as “merit” selection proponents favor? According to Minnesota Lawyer, both candidates have even set up Facebook pages to help voters understand their background and judicial philosophies. The horror!
Democracy In Action
September 30, 2008
For all those “merit” selection supporters who think voters can’t be trusted to evaluate judicial candidates, take a look at this video of an incumbent judge running for re-election in Minnesota. I have no opinion on Judge Philip Bush’s candidacy, but he shows that judicial candidates are perfectly capable of having a reasoned, open dialogue with voters about their judicial philosophies without impairing their ability to be impartial on the bench.
The Politics of “Non-Political” Judicial Selection
September 22, 2008
Proponents of abolishing democratic election of judges always claim that “merit” selection gets politics out of the process. But Minnesota judicial candidate Dan Griffith gives us a peek into the backroom dealing that goes on when judges are chosen in secret by “merit” panels controlled by lawyers.
There’s a strong correlation between those who actually end up on the appellate level courts and also on the district court level…that they first served on the selection committee, which means they were first politically appointed by the governor on this committee.From there, they get appointed to the appellate court or the Supreme Court. The majority of people on the appellate court first were on the selection committee. Basically, it means they’re selecting from themselves.
Democratic elections, of course, don’t remove politics from judicial selection any more than “merit” schemes. But at least the politics occurs out in the open for everyone to see, rather than being hidden behind closed doors. Most importantly, as Mr. Griffith reminds us:
In a democracy, what sets us apart is that we are able to choose our own leaders, not have them chosen for us. That is not what many other countries enjoy.