Kiffmeyer, Pawlenty join larger pattern of voter suppression
MN Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer recently distributed Terrorist Warning Posters and requested that they be hung prominently in polling stations across the state. Governor Pawlenty requested the city councils in Minneapolis and St. Paul to reconsider laws that limit situations in which police officers can ask about a person's immigration status. Pawlenty wants to empower police officers to ask any person, regardless of what they are doing at the time, for proof of legal status in the country.
Please note the timing of the actions by Pawlenty and Kiffmeyer. On a local, tactical level, the two initiatives raise a powerfully intimidating barrier to voting in the November 2 election. Nationally, they fit into a larger pattern of voter suppression activities by Republicans in swing states.
In Arizona, Flordia, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, and South Dakota armed police officers are investigating imigrants that file absentee ballots, the notorious florida voter purges are happening again, Posters are being distributed saying that all traffic tickets must be paid before voting, and many other resurrections of Jim Crow. The list is long and growing.
As the election nears, massive systems will be in play. Republicans who control state assets, law enforcement, immigration, data will manipulate them to exert pressure on demographics likely to vote for Kerry. It is a typical Republican strategy.
Changing the course of this is well beyond the control of the average citizen. But there is a solution: Vote. Vote in droves. If you have questions on any of the information you read or hear, ask. If you feel you are being suppressed, resist. If you have questions on how to register, ask. If you need a ride to the polls, ask.
Vote. It's our way out.
posted by Chris Dykstra @ 4:43 AM |
| 
10 Comments:
A hopefully helpful clue for you:
It does not help one's credability to make serious claims or lay accusations against someone that is directly refuted by one's link to primary information sources.
Case in point:
" Pawlenty wants to empower police officers to ask any person, regardless of what they are doing at the time, for proof of legal status in the country."
This statement infers that the Governor seeks to remove the legal requirement that an officer show probable cause to question a suspect, very big news indeed!
But the article to which you've linked quotes a police official as saying:
"If I see something and it looks to me as being suspicious, questionable, do I have the right as a police officer to question it? Yes," said Reier said. "Can I continue my investigation without determining the nationality or the citizenship of that person? Yes."
The officer is describing the actions he can and cannot take after satisfying the probable cause test.
The question at hand is nothing more than should an officer be able to ascertain someone's residency status as part of an investigation of suspicious activity.
Suspicious activity does not include walking down the street whistling a happy tune.
I take Ron Reier's comments to mean that he can investigate suspicious activity without needing to ask about citizenship (unless citizenship is part of the committed offense).
I don't see his comments as criticizing the Minneapolis ordinance preventing such questions from being asked.
The article also has this included:
"In the letter, dated Aug. 24, Pawlenty asks each city to amend or repeal 'an ordinance which effectively prohibits police officers from inquiring about immigration status if such an inquiry is the sole basis for questioning or detaining an individual.'"
I am pretty sure this means that Pawlenty wants our police to be able to question individuals on the "sole basis" of their citizenship. I see nothing about needing probable cause of a separate crime or investigation.
I'd have to agree with Carson. I'd say the the quote is fairly clear:
In the letter, dated Aug. 24, Pawlenty asks each city to amend or repeal "an ordinance which effectively prohibits police officers from inquiring about immigration status if such an inquiry is the sole basis for questioning or detaining an individual." I'd hardly call that "directly refuted."
I don't really see how the posting of warning posters is voter supression. It seems to me that it's a prudent measure, given the age that we live in. The reality is that these two people are in a no win situation. Should, God forbid, there be a terrorist attack during the election, and these two were to not do these things, you would accuse them of not protecting the community.
Jim- I have heard this arguement before, but I believe there are some important distinctions that must be made. If they have specific information about an attack and were giving it to the public... fine. No arguement here. But this is not in any way specific.
This is no different than the police telling me that there is the slight possibility a car might run me over today... but they don't know the license number, the color, the make, or model. But it would could have a dent or two. It could have some rust on one of the doors. And it might be a convertable. But then again... maybe it is a truck.
While this information might be helpful.. the only thing it is going to do is keep is keep me from leaving my house.
The point iof the poster is obviously not to legitimately warn against terrorist attacks. Car theft is much more prominent than terrorism. Why are there no posters up describing the appearance of car theives? Murder and Rape are much more prominent than terrorist attacks. Why are there no posters up describig what murders and rapists look like?
The poster functions on two levels. The first is a capmpaign poster for the President - his numbers reflect a propensity by voters to consider him stronger on terrorism than Kerry (God kows why). It is in his interest to keep this front and center as voters walk into the polls. Their operating theory is that a more fearful voter is more likely to vote for Bush.
The second is as a voter suppression technique. The stated intent of the poster is to raise the level of awareness of potential terrorists in our midst. Who are those terrorists and what do they look like? I guarantee you, the image most people have of a "terrorist" is not a Norwegian Bachelor Farmer or Princess Kay of the Milkyway. It is most likely a person of Arab, African, East African descent. The point of the Poster is to make people from those communities very, very aware that: We will be watching you.
When the Posters are distrbuted in tandem with the Pawlenty initiative, (which absolutely skirts probable cause, Swiftee), the message is even more focused on those communites, but also includes Hispanics and other immigrant communities. Now a member of one of these communities not only has to face the heightened vigilance of his neighbors, but the possibility of being pulled out of a polling queue to be braced by the cops - All in the process of casting a perfectly legitimate vote.
And oh by the way, guess how the affected community votes? Overwhelmingly Democratic.
Oh no. The intent of these two actions are abundantly clear. What isn't clear, is why decent Republicans would uncritically support members of their party who spit on Democracy in this manner. Does your drive to win surpass your love of liberty? Or what?
Of course it's voter supression on Kiffmeyer's part. Under the guise of stopping that non-existent problem of voter fraud (What? One conviction in the last 50 years?), she's attempted to make voting as complicated, burdensome, confusing and difficult as possible. She's trying to frighten people from the polls, she's releasing information guides through her reelection site, not the official Secretary of State website, and she's delayed the publication of regulations so long that there is a great deal of confusion among county election officials.
Minn Observer
I've been thinking about this story.
On reading the 'CCO piece again, I agree that the story describes acting despite a lack of probable cause.
I wish they had posted the letter, (we may have seen the last document displayed on the 'net thanks to CBS) but I've written Pawlenty's people for clarification.
I'll post their answer on pair o' dice when I get it.
I'll look forward to reading that clarification.
Chris
Post a Comment
<< Home