On Behalf of Mark Ritchie

In the summer of 2006, I was invited to a fund-raiser at the Kaplan's (Sam and...), both big-time power-players in the Democratic Party in Minnesota. This was at the Kaplan's condominium in downtown Minneapolis near the river in a gentrified section of the old warehouse district. I had been invited as a guest to accompany a friend of mine who happens to know several prominent politicians in Minnesota. The fund-raiser was for Keith Ellison, the Democratic nominee for MN's 5th Congressional District. Given that the district nearly completely covers Minneapolis, Ellison was a virtual shoe-in, but it was still really cool to go to a swank party.

When I arrived, I got introduced to lots of folks intimately involved in party activities. Larry Pogemiller was there, as was R.T. Rybak (MN Senate Majority Leader and Mayor of Minneapolis, respectively). As well, and very much to my great pleasure, Walter Mondale was there. I even got five minutes of Vice President Mondale's undivided time. I was awestruck and humbled by his decency. When I criticized Norm Coleman personally, he drew me up short and said, "I think we can focus on Norm Coleman's public stance without needing to discuss his personal conduct." It was a very clear that Mondale prefers civil discourse and keeping things about policy. I had just seen this man read the Gettysburg address the preceding Sunday at Minnesota's Orchestra Hall. His reading was terrific, and here I was telling him how much I enjoyed it, and when I tried to engage in a discussion of my frustration with Coleman, a man who had personally disparaged him, he defended Coleman's right to privacy.

Another person I met, and spent much of the evening talking to, was a man named Mark Ritchie.
 He was the Democratic candidate for Secretary of State. He was invigorated to do the job. He didn't malign Mary Kiffmeyer the then current Republican Secretary of State, he talked about what he wanted to get done. He also spent a fair amount of time simply talking about life, political realities and the world. He was a down-to-earth, unassuming guy. I left hoping for the best for Mark, and as it turned out, 2006 was a good year for Democrats and Mark won. He replaced a woman who had used the office of the Secretary of State to politicize polling places, famously putting up signs to warn people to "Watch Out for Terrorists", a move which clearly could cause people to vote more out of fear than reason, and given the Republicans were the party seen as stronger on fighting terrorism, would result in people voting for Republicans. She also ruled on both sides of the same vote processing issue, both times in favor of Republicans in the state, ensuring victory for both candidates. In short, Mary Kiffmeyer was entirely a political animal.

Mark, contrastingly, once elected, worked with the Department of Defense to ensure overseas voters were given more opportunity to vote. He did this undoubtedly aware that most of those he was helping were members of the military and thus almost certain to vote predominantly Republican. To Mark, that didn't matter, they deserved to vote, and so he stepped in. Tim Pawlenty, by contrast, didn't actively support Mark. But when I later ran into Mark at another event, he refused to criticize Pawlenty, and instead simply said that the DOD had helped him convince Pawlenty to move forward. Democrats working cooperatively with the DOD when Republicans weren't isn't really a normal, everyday occurrence, yet that was and is who Mark is.

As well, when the whole Coleman-Franken fight broke out after the 2008 election, and election which had very few irregularities (that's the comment from Coleman's attorneys) and which generally worked very well,(again, comments from the Coleman camp), rather than get sucked into the political maelstrom, Mark stood aside. He ensured the orders of the court were carried out, he ensured the ballots were speedily recounted, but he refused to engage in the political debate. Tim Pawlenty, by contrast, repeatedly inserted himself into the debate, and repeatedly called into question the validity of an election in a state he is responsible for. The judges time and again validated the conduct of the election judges and staff as being above board and without misconduct. They time and again commented that the elections were clearly done with very little error or issue. Nine out of nine judges, most of whom were and are Republicans time and again commended the state for having conducted a very well run election. There were groundless charges of vote fraud, charges which the Coleman camp never provided any direct proof of, and were therefore rightly and summarily dismissed. There were groundless charges that felons had voted based on statistical models, not actual presentation of evidence, charges which originally claimed that as many as 1200 (ish) felons had voted, but when pressed the Coleman camp admitted that there were no more than 340 cases which withstood even preliminary investigation. Coleman was given a chance to prove such allegations, and his attorneys offered not one shred of direct evidence - i.e. the kind you have to actually have to prove your case.

I also recall a Mark Ritchie who, when I confronted him about an allegation that he had lied about use of a vote list for fundraising surfaced, drew me up short and offered to show me exactly what had transpired. He was clearly somewhat offended that I'd have the audacity to discuss this directly with him at a fund-raiser (a different one), but explained his stance, his side of the story and in the end, the allegation that he lied proved more to be that he simply hadn't been fully forthcoming. He patiently allowed me to explain my concerns, confronted them and offered to provide a pretty thorough accounting. Whether Mark was fully honest was less the point than he showed himself to have patience and tact in a pressure situation, to focus on facts, and to be willing to deal with difficulty directly.

By contrast, Mark's opponent this year, Dan Severson, has alleged that there were massive irregularities in the Coleman election, something no judge, election or appellate, agreed with. Something which was never presented in court. Severson is simply repeating the wild accusations of the far right. Had Severson offered a contrast to Ritchie's conduct as Secretary of State to say that Ritchie shouldn't be re-elected because we've seen voter rolls which were highly inaccurate or poorly managed or he hadn't worked to enable as many voters as possible to vote, or many other key jobs the Secretary of State has to do, maybe there'd be a reason to listen to him. Instead, he seems like a shrill, intolerant and extreme voice from the far right, repeating lies which he absolutely ought to know are untrue and even more, if he intends to lead the office, should absolutely not be suggesting the policies and practices of that office are wrong, polices and practices which have lead to Minnesota to be considered a model of voting fairness. Those aren't my comments, by the way, they are the comments of Norm Coleman's attorneys during the trial and during the appeals. In short, Mr. Severson needs to recognize that salacious allegations of felon voting, allegations which were never proved, never presented in evidence and never agreed had any even remote bearing on the trial, Mr. Severson should recognize such allegations are damaging to the state and to the office he seeks to be elected to. The allegations alone disqualify him from consideration and show him to be extreme and motivated solely by political aspiration. In short they show him to be exactly what Mark Ritchie isn't.

But further, Mr. Severson has said, "There's no such thing as separation of Church and State." While it won't be Mr. Severson's job (should he win) to enforce Constitutional liberties, this kind of tripe (focusing on whether the Constitution reads "separation") identifies him as, like Christine O'Donnell in Deleware, a small-minded thinker about Constitutional law/liberties. While the 1st Amendment may not have the text, it has text which reads "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or preventing the free expression thereof." Both the framers (in subsequent letters) and our Courts have consistently and uniformly held that the Constitution in fact does prevent government (and all government, state and local included, because the 1st Amendment has been "incorporated") from establishing practices and or laws or spending money to support any particular religion. That's what's meant by "respecting the establishment". Severson may not get that, but the courts do, and he's so clearly wrong, been so clearly held to be wrong by conservative, liberal, and moderate courts really since the begining of our country, that he demonstrates just how out-of-touch he is, and with him the Tea Party activists who got him nominated are as well. To suggest the government can support one religion is to suggest that the government can and should involve itself in church. That is a violation of one of the most fundamental principles of our Constitution, namely religious freedom, a freedom upon which the Puritans sailed to America and helped establish this country. Severson's "defense" of the Constitution is nothing of the sort, his willingness to offend those freedoms for his own political agenda makes him appear to be a dangerous and extreme voice who would not enforce the election laws as they are intended or written, but rather as he would chose to interpret them for his own (and his party's) benefit.

If you live in Minnesota, I'd ask you to vote for Mark - he's been effective, non-partisan, dedicated, thoughtful and very fair. Or, you can vote for someone who will once again turn an office which is supposed to be non-partisan into a pulpit for the shrill policies which favor their party at the expense of the rest of the state.