It doesn’t surprise me that once again our government fails to actually make change on what matters, but then institute yet another law to save people from themselves. I was driving back from camping and the news on the radio said that he vetoed a bill to streamline the voter registration process, he vetoed a bill to provide medicinal marijuana to terminally-ill patients in Minnesota, and then signed a bill to allow law enforcement to pull someone over simply for not wearing a seatbelt.
As you can imagine, hearing those three things pissed me off. Clearly Pawlenty has no idea that he represents citizens of the state of Minnesota but instead thinks he was voted in by law enforcement and he should represent their interests. Maybe he even thinks he is law enforcement. More on that later.
So I decided I am going to take the only possible response to someone this ignorant, even if he won’t get it. I am going to cite fact and logical reasoning.
The first bill he shot down was one that would automatically register someone to vote in Minnesota when they apply for a drivers license or state ID. According to Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, this process would have streamlined the process for voters, saved time and money for local governments that process voter registrations, and it would reduce the number of Election Day registrations as much as 75 percent. According to Rep. Steve Simon, the sponsor of the bill in the house, this would have improved the accuracy and integrity of the records by allowing the Secretary of State have access to Social Security death records and by and requiring more extensive reporting on felons who aren’t allowed to vote.
This bill sounds like it would reduce bureaucracy for the average citizen and ensure we have a more accurate voting system at the same time. It also proactively addresses the issue of accuracy in our voting system by requiring reports be sent to the Secretary of State by agencies monthly with information about citizenship, felons, guardianship, and change of name.
So why did Pawlenty veto this?
Although there are some worthy provisions in this bill, registering to vote should be a voluntary, intentional act. Changes to election law should also be accomplished on a bipartisan basis. This bill does not reflect bipartisan support.
Really?
Voting is a voluntary, intentional act, just like vetoing. If our citizens are registered automatically, it empowers more people to vote. On Election Day people still decide whether to voluntarily and intentionally vote. And since this bill was favored by Democrats we get a two sentence ramble about bipartisanship, which is double the amount of sentences he gave us for a “reason.”
Pawlenty, if you are going to veto something that makes perfect sense, your reasoning needs to also make perfect sense. Nothing you stated is a factual reason why this bill was vetoed. You voluntarily and intentionally vetoed this bill, but you chose not to share an actual reason why.