COURT RULINGS
The dissenters had the better judgment
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruling makes as much nonsense as Citizens United ("Legislature wins amendment cases," Aug. 28). In failing to scrutinize the motives, language and intent of the voter ID amendment, the majority failed its constitutional duty. As dissenting Justice Paul Anderson wrote, "While acknowledging our court's constitutional right of review, the majority nevertheless grants so much deference to the Legislature that the current Legislature is granted power well beyond that provided for in the Constitution."
Furthermore, as dissenting Justice Alan Page notes, "the Legislature has resorted to a ballot question that deliberately deceives and misleads the very voters it claims must be protected. I cannot explain, nor can I understand, the court's willingness to be complicit with the Legislature in this effort." Anderson agrees: "The people will not have before them the text of the proposed constitutional amendment. That text contains the critical information the Constitution requires for the people to validly give their consent; something the Legislature's ballot question does not contain."
Should this amendment pass, Minnesota will have a voter ID measure second only to Mississippi in its restrictiveness. This is not something the state should be proud of. The aberration of "fraud" does not justify this approach. Vote no!
MARK DAVIS, Minneapolis
• • •
The marriage amendment ballot title, "Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman," is legitimate only if it is also acceptable for the presidential ballot item to read as follows: "Barack Obama shall be president of the United States (Yes or No)."
FAYTHE DYRUD THUREEN,
Minneapolis