[Mpls] Kiffmeyer thread - scope...again!

[List Manager]

Folks - this is a good example of a (mostly) general statewide post that
does not belong on this locally focused forum. A fig leaf of
Minneapolis-ness at the end is not enough.

Confine observations to things happening in Minneapolis, or suffer warnings
and expulsion.

David Brauer
List manager
 
> Kiffmeyer has repeatedly made voting more difficult, all the while paying
lip
> service to making voting easier and more reliable, and spinning things to
> praise herself.  When counties complained about the slowness of the new
voter
> registration system -- a system clearly flawed in its design and
> implementation -- Kiffmeyer blamed the counties for the telecommunications
> problems.  As a 25 year professional in computer and network design, I can
> tell you the flaw was in the system, not the counties.  And as the
executive
> in charge of the system procurement, Kiffmeyer is where the buck stops --
it's
> her responsibility.
> 
> Kiffmeyer also ordered a new policy in handling voter identification at
polls.
>   She wanted to force exact (letter by letter) name matches between what
the
> registration database lists as a person's name, and any identification the
> potential voter might present.  Fortunately, an administrative judge threw
> this bogus idea out.  Otherwise, I would not be able to vote.  Why?
Because
> my driver's license does not match the voter registration data.  And why
is
> that?  Because the state's driver's license system and actual license card
can
> NOT accommodate my full name -- there's not enough room.  So if it were up
to
> Kiffmeyer, because of the state's own short-sightedness, I would not be
able
> to vote.
> 
> Need I remind anyone that the state Supreme Court just recently put the
> Independent candidates back on the ballot after Kiffmeyer removed them?
She
> claims she was just following the law -- a law she did NOT enforce in
2000.
> So which is it?  Either Kiffmeyer is incompetent or dishonest for not
> enforcing it in 2000, or she is dishonest about trying to enforce it in
2004.
>   Either way, she is not fit for office.