Jim, you're off base on a number of points. First of all, Rep Kahn's bill is squarely, obviously in the realm of Minneapolis issues: it allows municipalities to decide for themselves whether to continue to restrict voting or not, a decision we Minneapolitans can not currently make. Hence a discussion we cannot have. If one believes in the decentralization of governmental power down to the local level (which Jim seems to, judging from previous posts), there is little logical reason to oppose her efforts. Much less to stoop to the ridiculous badmouthing Jim decided to engage in. Talk about personalizing an issue rather than discussing it on the merits... "out to lunch radicals," "harebrained," "having a scatterbrain," "grandstanding"... Come on, Jim. These aren't arguments, they're insults. As to Jim's only argument, that those of us who are willing to extend local voting rights somehow devalue citizenship: I'm beginning to feel like a broken record, but no one has responded directly to my assertion that we need not continue to confuse local and national voting. Can someone tell me why it's impossible to have an intelligent discussion of whom we, as a city, choose to allow to be part of our policy-making decision process, without always talking about "the country"? The idea that citizenship is a meaningless concept to me and the others who agree with me on this issue is spurious. Of course the concept of citizenship is important to defend. Of course becoming a citizen has tremendous value. Most of these "perks" would remain, if Minneapolis chose to open voting to non-citizens. For instance, the ability to help elect presidents, legislators, senators, governors, all of whom have tremendous effects on the lives of all residents of this city and country. Does anyone really think that immigrants will not continue to pursue citizenship, just because we let them vote for school board? If so, I'd direct your attention to the difference in voter turnout between presidential and local elections. Now, to this comment: "I wonder if next they will be just as willing to remove their rights to free speech." This accusation belies a near-absolute misunderstanding of the right to free speech. Another person exercising her or his right to speak does not infringe on my right to speak - in fact, my rights *cannot* be defended without a similar defense of my neighbors'. So the analogy between voting and speech supports my argument, not yours. The analogy to tobacco and alcohol restriction is similarly meaningless. We keep children from these substances because they are likely to cause serious harm to the children themselves, or cause the children to harm others. The same argument cannot be made of voting, unless you believe that non-citizens will vote in malicious or dangerously ignorant ways. Such a belief, as it would be based on no real data, would in my estimation be xenophobic. Another hole in the analogy is that we do not consider drinking and smoking to be the social responsibility of those old enough to indulge. Far from it. About "the ultimate sacrifice." Jim, how did you know I'm not a veteran? Same goes for your knowledge of Jason's, Andy's, and Phyllis' military careers. Looking up our personal data online? I plan to ask my Nation-subscribing veteran grandfather for his opinion on this issue. Maybe I'll get back to you. I strongly suspect that he would not find it an affront to his service for Minneapolis to open our arms to our non-citizen neighbors. As to Jeffrey Strand's comments: The role of the Secretary of State is to uphold the voting laws of the state of Minnesota. If the Minnesota legislature, spurred by the Minneapolis delegation, decides to change the laws to de-link citizenship and local voting (if local communities agree - I wouldn't want this coming down as a state dictate, just as I don't like the current dictate *against* non-citizen voting), the SOS website will simply have to change. Reiterating current law is not an argument not to change said law. That said, I have to commend Jeffrey for finally stating what I have long suspected is the argument against non-citizen voting: that it will dilute voting by citizens. I think that this fear is unfounded, and only makes sense if one assumes that the interests of non-citizens and the interests of citizens are necessarily at odds. I believe they are not. I think my Somali neighbors want the same things I do, generally. Far from drowning out my voice, I think they compliment, temper, strengthen it. If someone has a different understanding of the idea of "dilution" of votes, I'd be happy to hear it. Robin Garwood Seward _______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@;mnforum.org Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
