« SECRETARY OF STATE TRANSITION MEETING #2 | Home | I’LL HAVE MORE POSTS… »
SECRETARY OF STATE TRANSITION MEETING #3
By Michael B. Brodkorb | December 21, 2006
Secretary of State Kiffmeyer gave Secretary elect-Mark Ritchie a three-ring binder stuffed full of information. The binder contained information Ritchie requested of Kiffmeyer in a letter sent to her office after the election. Ritchie thanked Kiffmeyer for the binder.
It's clear Kiffmeyer wants to provide Ritchie with more information than she was provided with by Growe:
"Kiffmeyer said she will help her successor learn more about the office before he is sworn in. Kiffmeyer said she went without that when she succeeded former Secretary of State Joan Growe.
'It took a while for folks to realize that in the office we had absolutely nothing,' she said, claiming a lack of cooperation hampered her transition in 1998." Source: Forum Communications, November 20, 2006
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 16 Comments »
16 Responses to “SECRETARY OF STATE TRANSITION MEETING #3”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
December 21st, 2006 at 10:24 PM
When exactly “after the election” did Ritchie request the information. Did he just request it last week? Otherwise, why did she her so long to give him the information?
When “Secretary-elect Mark Ritchie said Kiffmeyer agreed to meet with him after Thanksgiving” (from your article you love quoting) she apparently meant WAAYY after thanksgiving.
December 22nd, 2006 at 7:15 AM
Mark has a binder full of info containing exactly what Mark asked for. Even if he asked for it on November 8, you begrudge Mary taking a month and 14 days to prepare the binder for him? She did not have to prepare it at all. Many people would not. How outrageously lame is the DFL spin machine on Mark Ritchie’s transition effort. We all know Ritchie’s dilemma – he has to make the SOS office into a do nothing office and explain away Mary’s best efforts at public integrity and voter transparency. It’s truly disgusting.
December 22nd, 2006 at 10:12 AM
Jamie,
Name one case where Kiffmeyer’s efforts kept someone not eligible to vote from voting.
Kiffmeyer is a solution in search of a problem.
December 22nd, 2006 at 10:41 AM
For all the partisan wailing about Mary, get ready for Mark Ritchie and his Lets Get Out the DFL voters campaign. The dumb bastard probably doesn’t even know what the Sec. of State does for business filings, and that function was what everyone in the biz world noticed with the gov shut-down….
December 22nd, 2006 at 11:51 AM
In 2004 Mosedale had a great write up on her and had somepretty telling quotes about what people thought of her:
“The baseless allegations [that Hennepin County violated federal voter registration rules] represent an appalling lack of expertise and knowledge of the law in the secretary of state’s office. The unwarranted charges have taken valuable time away from our staff, at considerable cost to taxpayers…. As chair of the Hennepin County Board, I expect a prompt apology to our staff and the taxpayers. This is obviously not a partisan matter, as Secretary of State Kiffmeyer and I are both Republicans.”
–Randy Johnson, chairman of the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners (press release, June 18)
“If people take [her] warnings seriously, they will be suspiciously eyeing every ‘strange looking’ neighbor waiting in line [at polling places]. Thankfully, election officials around the state refused to put [her terrorist alert] posters up. But the point is: Kiffmeyer should not have sent them out to begin with. Where is her judgment?”
–Tim Penny, former Independence Party candidate for governor (Star Tribune, September 29)
“Then there’s Kiffmeyer’s bizarre obsession with voter fraud, which led her to clash with local election officials over the installation of a new computer system that complicates same-day registration. There’s no evidence of voter fraud tainting Minnesota elections, which traditionally rank among the strongest in voter turnout in the nation. But that hasn’t stopped Kiffmeyer.”
–Editorial (Ely Timberjay, October 5)
“Normally, secretaries of state manage to avoid criticism. In this case, however, much more criticism is needed.”
–Editorial (University of Minnesota Daily, September 21)
“[Kiffmeyer] told a prayer group in May, the ‘five words’ that are ‘probably most destructive’ in the nation today are ‘separation of church and state’…. Kiffmeyer’s defense of greater church involvement in the democratic process appears curious in light of rules she proposed that would have had precisely the opposite effect on most Minnesotans. Kiffmeyer recently decided that in order to vote in November every would-be voter in the state must show an ID reflecting an ‘exact match’ to the file of names, driver’s license numbers, and dates of birth circulated by her office. Such rules would have the effect of robbing the vote from thousands of state residents, including those who encounter errors in the information about them on Kiffmeyer’s official list.”
–Hans Johnson (In These Times, August 20)
“As a result of her misfeasance, all Minnesotans–including, ironically, those Minnesota National Guardsmen and Guardswomen fighting for democracy in Iraq and Bosnia–will be denied an opportunity to practice true democracy here at home.”
–Jack Uldrich, Vice-Chairman, Minnesota Independence Party (letter to the Star Tribune, September 21)
“We therefore conclude that removal of candidate Shepard from the ballot for the reasons articulated by the secretary of state is contrary to federal law.”
–Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice (and former Republican lawmaker) Kathleen Blatz (in a signed brief, September
“Kiffmeyer has been the center of controversy nearly since her first election in 1998. She claimed direct knowledge of election fraud during her campaign although has never been able to substantiate the claims. In fact, it was illegal for her as an election judge (the capacity in which she claimed to have witnessed the malfeasance) to withhold information regarding voting fraud.”
–Shawne Towle, editor of political newsletter (Checks and Balances, October 5)
“Whatever the motivation, suppressing voter turnout will be the result of most of her actions and that’s a strange thing to say about a Minnesota secretary of state.”
–Editorial (Politics in Minnesota newsletter, September 15)
“In less than six years, she has distinguished herself as probably the least competent person to hold this important office in Minnesota history.”
–Hennepin County Commissioner Mike Opat (Star Tribune, October 6)
———–
Jamie, what’s disgusting is the way republicans protect incompetency as long as its their person. It’s exactly why you lost at the Federal level. By the way, there has been no spon on the transition except by Mary and Co. She started it with the quote that she would have the capitol police follow her through the office so that she leaves with her reputation in tact. Yet, she invited Republican spinmeister himself Michael Brodkorb to the meeting (instead of say an auditor). I guess she assumes that the Dems were going to get revenge on her by lying like the REpubs did about the White House vandalism when Bush moved in.
December 22nd, 2006 at 11:54 AM
You’re fun to read at times, but this has to be your lamest series of posts ever. The only thing for which you’ve criticized Ritchie is the conveniently unprovable fact that he “did not seem prepared” in your opinion. (Your criticism of Growe is equally unprovable, in addition to being not relevant to anything.)
Also, the fact that Kiffmeyer would invite a hack like you to ambush her replacement at a transition meeting undercuts your attempts to sing her praises. It suggests she’s not interested in an orderly transition, but finding dirt on the person who beat her. The fact that your attacks on Ritchie have been so limp only proves that he’ll make a strong SoS.
To be fair, I guess there isn’t much political news around the holiday season.
December 22nd, 2006 at 12:07 PM
DJZ
Get your own blog.
December 22nd, 2006 at 12:39 PM
I got one.
December 22nd, 2006 at 12:39 PM
DJZ: Have you seen any exit polls that say that voters elected Ritchie because they disapproved of Kiffmeyer’s performance. Absent that, the only likely scenario for why she lost is that she was caught up in the anti-Bush tidal wave.
The same sort of tidal wave sunk Democrat candidates in 1994 and 2002. Performance had nothing to do with it. How else could you explain why top Democrats with long years of service were defeated those years.
December 22nd, 2006 at 1:05 PM
Trotting around cases where it is not easy enough for voters to vote is the same old DFL BS. We need to ensure the integrity of the system. Mary worked on that. She was not the problem until Ritchie, in search of a problem for his coming solutions, needed her to be seen as a problem. It is disgraceful how he smears a public servant like Mary and goes along with the DFL spin against her. None of you lefties are talking about Mark’s plans. You are all smearing Mary on the eve of your big opportunity to “reform” the SOS. You all are pathetic. The DFL needs to be heeled. The DFL couldn’t persuade anyone to trust them on this issue. The DFL won’t sell the idea of abolishing a planned picture id requirement for voters successfully. Neither should Mark. Mark should maintain the office in the same way Mary did and share her view on picture ids. It goes to the very architecture our system and need not be partisan. Piling up on Mary for no legitimate reason is unseemly and un-minnesotan. Mark needs to tend to the architecture of the system to ensure trust. He will not gain it any other way. This means picture ids.
Oh and DJZ thanks for showing everyone you are the modern age version of the bitter old guy clipping newspaper articles.
December 22nd, 2006 at 1:08 PM
Tarvaris – Thanks for the info. Mikey Boy here is trying to swift boat a good man.
December 22nd, 2006 at 1:30 PM
Jamie
In what way did Ritchie smear Mary Kiff? Smears and attacks that are false, or misleading. I saw none of that.
Mark Ritchie never went negative on Mary Kiff. His ads stated who he was, his record of running the largest NON-PARTISAN voter registration project in our nations history “remember the November 2 bumper stickers?” and removing partisanship from the office.
Kiff’s problems happened long before this year. She has been overturned by the courts many times, she was going down his year no matter what happened at the national level.
Oh, and I think the DFL did persuade people to trust us on this issue. For the first time I can say “look at the election results!â€
You want to talk about Ritchie’s plans? For one he supports legislation that forbids a secretary of state from being a state chair of a national political campaign. For example he supports law making sure he cannot run Obama, or Clinton’s presidential campaign in Minnesota. You know who didn’t support that law? Mary Kiff, Katharine Harris, and Ken Blackwell.
Harris and Blackwell are the two worst secretary of state office holders in our nation’s history.
December 22nd, 2006 at 2:20 PM
#12
No idea what legislation that is but SOS don’t vote on legislation do they?
Ritchie was video-ed saying Mary suppressed or wanted to suppress votes. That meets your definition unless he had a specific incident. Are you surprised he was caught repeating the party line and possibly linked to the party’s flakey irresponsible agenda(oppose all barriers to voting – actblue.com)? Well he was a candidate at the time maybe he didnt know better. Mike’s Mark Ritchie category is unavailable but it’s probably still in his archives.
Smears still remain on his campaign website.
http://www.markritchie06.net/
Photo id requirements in the voting process are not a partisan issue – the national Dems, mindless blogs, and stooges like you are making it partisan.
December 22nd, 2006 at 3:58 PM
#13
You are correct they do not vote on legislation, but they do have a bully pulpit with the office on voting issues.
Photo id laws have also been over turned by the courts in many states. When one registers to vote, they need a photo id. Once registered your name and address is on the rolls, you can go ahead and vote.
I share your concerns with voter fraud, as I am sure Mark Ritchie does as well. If we can find a way to make sure nobody votes twice, everybody whom is eligible to vote has free and easy access, and machines that work 100% of the time, I am all ears.
Luckily Minnesota has some of the best voter protection laws in the country, such as mandatory paper ballots, and now the optical scan election audits. On top of same day registration.
December 22nd, 2006 at 5:18 PM
Why can’t we require a picture id with matching face and address at the polling place? It’s really that simple. It’ not complicated.
December 22nd, 2006 at 9:57 PM
Actually, the best ID verification I’ve seen is matching the signature on file with the voter’s signature.
I suppose liberals will find a way to bitch about that too.