voter ID bill (Ada, Walker, Adams: how much, homes, to buy)

[Glenfield]

How is proposing something that the other side of the aisle has already gone on record as opposing without offering anything that they consider important a bi-partisan effort? If the shoe were on the other foot and the Republican governor suggested changes that would, for example, simply eliminate same day registration, and then called for bi-partisan support, would you view that as a sincere gesture? Surely he/ she would not expect any Democrats to actually support such a change. So what would be the point?

Compromise requires give and take. One cannot seriously expect one's political opponents to completely abandon their views and adopt your own without offering at least some sort of compromise toward their position. In this case, Dayton has not done that, so this cannot be viewed as a serious move toward any change.

[Globe199]

Originally Posted by xandrex

I would expect the same bipartisanship if the GOP were in control.

Why would you expect it? They were already in control once (2011-2012) and did not extend any bipartisanship with regards to election law. They put voter ID on the ballot despite Dayton's objections and veto.

Originally Posted by Glenfield

How is proposing something that the other side of the aisle has already gone on record as opposing without offering anything that they consider important a bi-partisan effort? If the shoe were on the other foot and the Republican governor suggested changes that would, for example, simply eliminate same day registration, and then called for bi-partisan support, would you view that as a sincere gesture? Surely he/ she would not expect any Democrats to actually support such a change. So what would be the point?

I think you're being too cynical about Dayton. He said no major changes without bipartisan support. That's all it is. If he were a total partisan, we may have seen more progressive election proposals signed into law.

Compromise requires give and take. One cannot seriously expect one's political opponents to completely abandon their views and adopt your own without offering at least some sort of compromise toward their position. In this case, Dayton has not done that, so this cannot be viewed as a serious move toward any change.

Imagine if Tom Emmer were elected in 2010. The GOP gained control of both houses. Voter ID would now be law. Same-day registration would be history. There would likely be other winger fantasy draconian election laws on the books.

The point is, Dayton was not interested in major changes without bipartisan support.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Globe199

Imagine if Tom Emmer were elected in 2010. The GOP gained control of both houses. Voter ID would now be law. Same-day registration would be history. There would likely be other winger fantasy draconian election laws on the books.

The point is, Dayton was not interested in major changes without bipartisan support.

So if the parties in power were reversed and the same moves were made, you wouldn't call it a good faith move towards bi-partisan reform then. You would call them "other winger fantasy draconian election laws." (notwithstanding that voter ID was a propsal to amend the constitution and had nothing to do with the party in power.)

I agree with xandrex that it is admirable that Dayton will not move forward with partisan reforms like early voting.

[Globe199]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

(notwithstanding that voter ID was a propsal to amend the constitution and had nothing to do with the party in power.)

No, that's incorrect. The Voter ID amendment had to pass the house and senate, and it passed on a party line vote.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Globe199

No, that's incorrect. The Voter ID amendment had to pass the house and senate, and it passed on a party line vote.

Sorry I wasn't clear. What I meant was since it was already on the ballot it's passage or defeat wasn't dependent on which party took power in the 2012 election, although one could assume that the results would be correlated and supporters of the amendment would more likely be Emmer supporters and opponents Dayton supporters. It's sort of like our exchanges: they tend to fall along established party lines.

[xandrex]

Originally Posted by Globe199

Why would you expect it? They were already in control once (2011-2012) and did not extend any bipartisanship with regards to election law. They put voter ID on the ballot despite Dayton's objections and veto.

I don't necessarily think the GOP would do it. But I think something as important as voting laws should not have the taint of partisanship. The same way I feel that no matter which party does it, gerrymandering should not be acceptable.

Now that doesn't mean that I wouldn't support a law going through that, for instance, extended early voting. But I would think it would have been achieved in bad taste if the GOP hadn't been part of the discussion.

[Thegonagle]

Originally Posted by xandrex

It's probably best that Dayton is doing this in a bipartisan manner. Voting law shouldn't be done on a partisan basis or with the hint of partisanship. I would expect the same bipartisanship if the GOP were in control.

One would hope, at least in Minnesota, but have you seen what's been going on in North Carolina?

The repubs got total control and they went all in on voter suppression. It's not just the ID--a lot of people understandably agree with photo ID--it's all the other stuff that makes it pain to register and vote, especially for college students.

North Carolina's governor signs sweeping voter ID bill into law - latimes.com

NC lawmakers approve sweeping changes to voting rules | Fox News

New Voter Laws - It's about Time!

A lot of people aren't going for it there, just like they didn't go for it here. But their governor already signed it into law. At least here, the people got to decide thanks to Dayton's veto.

[xandrex]

Originally Posted by Thegonagle

One would hope, at least in Minnesota, but have you seen what's been going on in North Carolina?

The repubs got total control and they went all in on voter suppression. It's not just the ID--a lot of people understandably agree with photo ID--it's all the other stuff that makes it pain to register and vote, especially for college students.

North Carolina's governor signs sweeping voter ID bill into law - latimes.com

NC lawmakers approve sweeping changes to voting rules | Fox News

New Voter Laws - It's about Time!

A lot of people aren't going for it there, just like they didn't go for it here. But their governor already signed it into law. At least here, the people got to decide thanks to Dayton's veto.

Again, I'm not saying that I don't think they'd take the chance to change the rules. I'm sure the DFL would take a crack at their own policies if Dayton had been more on board.

All I mean is that the standard I hold for a politician dictates that I be at least a little disappointed if they don't take input from the other side when changing election law.

Most other stuff I can get behind the party in control doing. But voting is so fundamental to the legitimacy of our democracy that I want both sides to come to an agreement.

[Globe199]

Originally Posted by xandrex

I don't necessarily think the GOP would do it. But I think something as important as voting laws should not have the taint of partisanship. The same way I feel that no matter which party does it, gerrymandering should not be acceptable.

Now that doesn't mean that I wouldn't support a law going through that, for instance, extended early voting. But I would think it would have been achieved in bad taste if the GOP hadn't been part of the discussion.

Were the new tax laws in bad taste? Marriage equality? More funding for education? All that was done without GOP involvement. You're never going to get significant GOP votes for expanding voting. That allows too many Democratic voters too many opportunities to vote, or so they think.

Elections have consequences. When the GOP takes control, I expect that they will continue their quest to drag us back to the 1950s. They don't waste time trying to get the other party on board; they just plow ahead. That's a reflection of party discipline. But when the DFL takes control, I expect them to implement their agenda, and yet often they extend a hand to the GOP, only to get their hand burned. I give the DFL huge credit for getting the marriage law done. That took huge courage, especially when many in the party were engaged in some serious waffling immediately after the election.

[xandrex]

Originally Posted by Globe199

Were the new tax laws in bad taste? Marriage equality? More funding for education? All that was done without GOP involvement. You're never going to get significant GOP votes for expanding voting. That allows too many Democratic voters too many opportunities to vote, or so they think.

Elections have consequences. When the GOP takes control, I expect that they will continue their quest to drag us back to the 1950s. They don't waste time trying to get the other party on board; they just plow ahead. That's a reflection of party discipline. But when the DFL takes control, I expect them to implement their agenda, and yet often they extend a hand to the GOP, only to get their hand burned. I give the DFL huge credit for getting the marriage law done. That took huge courage, especially when many in the party were engaged in some serious waffling immediately after the election.

You clearly didn't read the last paragraph of my post.

We agree on probably nearly every issue. I support early voting and some of the other discussed things the DFL could have pushed for. Had they gone alone and voted them in, I'd still support them being in law. But I would have found the change in election law (those things that have consequences, you say) in bad taste without more input from the other side.

Both the left and right have hijacked American politics into a test of purity (although I do believe the right is more guilty of this). I have strong opinions, but believe we can find compromise on many issues. I respect those who differ in views from me (as long as they do the same) and hope to set an example of benevolence and extending a hand when in power, so that when I'm not in power (read: GOP sweeps into office) that's I'll get the same in return.

"Be careful whose toes you step on today because they might be connected to the foot that kicks your butt tomorrow."