Independence Minnesota

RSS

Blog

The Independence Party of Minnesota is giving Minnesotans THREE ways to caucus with the IP this year.

Posted Monday, 26 December 2011 by Independence Party  E-mail


View IP Caucus Sites in a larger map 

1) The BEST way to caucus is live and in-person with your friends and neighbors.  The Independence Party has more than 45 caucus locations planned throughout the State.  Check the interactive map below or the Minnesota Secretary of State's Caucus Finder.

2) The most INNOVATIVE way to caucus is live and online with Minnesotans from all corners of the State.  If the closest in-person caucus is not close enough, you can attend our live, online statewide caucus from your computer or mobile device (smartphone or tablet).   The live, online caucus will open online around 6:45 pm with the actual meeting begining at 7:00pm.  A link for this caucus will be available here on February 7, 2012.  

3) The next best thing to being there live, is still getting to be heard and to participate in the discussion.  If you are unable to attend any of our live caucuses on Tuesday, February 7th, the Independence Party still welcomes your involvement in our full week, online caucus.  This caucus is open from February 7th through February 13th.  A link for this caucus will be posted HERE on February 7th.

By the way, we are still looking for volunteers to convene (host) additional in-person caucuses.  Are you interested in hosting one yourself? Contact IP treasurer Sally Paulsen at  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it  and she will put you in contact with your local Congressional District chair. 

Also, keep check back here throughout the month of January as we update the interactive caucus map with more locations and detailed information about the site of each local caucus.  

Thank you for your interest in caucusing with the Independence Party of Minnesota.


 

Pledge to Vote No

Posted Tuesday, 20 December 2011 by Dean Barkley Comments (1)  E-mail


Dear Minnesotans,
 

A lot of people have asked me what I think about the constitutional amendment to ban marriage for same-sex couples. So I tell them the same thing I said when this came up during my 2008 U.S. Senate campaign.

It is long past time we acknowledge that the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution applies to all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation, in the same way it applies regardless of race, religion or gender.  I believe Minnesotans share my desire for their neighbors to enjoy the same rights, privileges and treatment that they receive.

I am proud that the party I co-founded has not only taken a stand but is actively working to defeat this amendment in next November. The proposal runs counter not only to the IP platform but who we are as Minnesotans. However, it won’t be an easy fight. In 29 other states a well-funded opposition has relied on outside wealth and fear tactics to change the conversation.

To fight back we need a people-powered movement.

The IP is a proud partner of the statewide coalition to defeat this amendment. And they're looking for 250,000 people to pledge to vote NO. It’s an ambitious goal, but I know they can do it.

I urge you to click here and pledge to vote NO on this constitutional amendment.

We have a chance to stand united next year not as partisans but as Minnesotans. I know first hand how gridlocked our political environment is. But this coalition of Independents, Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians and others will win on this issue if we stand united.

That’s why I’m counting on you to pledge to vote NO. Click here to take that pledge and share your support.

Thank you for taking a stand.

Sincerely,

U.S. Senator Dean Barkley

 

GUEST OPINION: 'No' to VoterID

Posted Wednesday, 30 November 2011 by Kathy Bonnifield and Carolyn Jackson  E-mail

On May 26, 2011, Governor Dayton vetoed a bill that would have required Minnesota voters to present only one of three IDs to vote — a valid State driver’s license, a valid State ID card, or a Minnesota Voter ID. Had this passed other IDs — such as a student ID, Military ID, or U.S. passport — would not be considered appropriate identification to vote. The impact of this legislation would have been felt by a number of populations — including many of the people who register to vote on Election Day.  


Requiring a current photo ID to vote only addresses voter impersonation.
 

One side claims that voter impersonation does not occur while the other side says that it might happen but goes undetected. But, could massive voter impersonation really go undetected? Consider the number of people the impersonator would have to pass — from election judges and the party challengers at the precinct (whom they would need to assume doesn’t know who they are impersonating) to the person they are impersonating (how sure are they that the person standing behind them is not the individual or a friend of the individual)?

In Minnesota not one voter has stepped forward to say that someone impersonated them. 

Barriers.

Requiring a voter photo ID creates a barrier to vote. This is especially true for people who might have an ID but not the correct ID. If the proposal had become law, over 144,000 eligible voters would have immediately had a barrier to the ballot box because they do not have a current Minnesota driver’s license or Minnesota ID card. 

Anytime a voter moves, their ID would no longer be valid. Consider college students — when looking at four precincts with student housing in Northfield, we can see that over 1,300 people registered to vote on Election Day in both 2010 and 2008. In fact, many students who chose to vote at their college address would have to have one ID to vote in the August primary and another ID to vote in the November general. 

Finally, if Minnesota were to follow Wisconsin’s example, many absentee voters and mail-in voters would need to find a photocopier so they can send a copy of their valid ID along with their ballot documents. (In 2010, over 45,000 Minnesotans in rural areas were registered as mail-in voters.)

Some argue that no one has lost their right to vote because of a voter ID. Consider Sister Julie McGuire, who was a poll worker in Indiana. She had to turn away her friends — elderly nuns living in a retirement facility. The nuns were registered to vote but didn’t have the right government-issued ID. Sister Julie McGuire could identify them. But that was not good enough — they needed a specific type of identification. She and the nuns would have broken the law if they voted. The same would hold true here — an election judge would have to turn away people they personally know if they did not have the right ID.

State Costs: Voter IDs, Voter Education. 

The most obvious cost of a voter ID is the requirement to provide a free voter ID to anyone who does not have one. But, there are hidden costs including voter education. In Georgia, a federal court delayed implementation of voter ID until tens of millions of dollars were spent on voter education. Currently, Tennessee has a publicity campaign underway and is extending the hours of driver's service centers to accommodate its voter ID requirement. In addition to education and drivers service center costs, small Minnesota precincts that currently use mail in voting will have to begin again to pay for in-person voting. This new cost comes in a time when those same communities are considering whether to pay for police and fire services. 

Local Costs: Provisional Ballots and Election Judges

Provisional ballots were created to ensure that voters were not erroneously dropped from voter rosters. Election Day registration provides greater protection to voters than provisional ballots.  But because a voter photo ID requirement would contract voting rights, Minnesota would have to implement a provisional ballot system. Costs span from printing of the provisional ballot envelope as well as additional election judges on Election Day as well as provisional ballot judges in each county after Election Day. In fact, in Madison, Wisconsin they recently conducted “mock” elections to determine the needs of precincts on Election Day due to their new voter ID requirement. They determined that they needed to double the number of election judges.  

Focus should be on increasing voter turnout. Not on unneeded, costly barriers.  

Minnesota prides itself with the highest levels of voter turnout in the country, but in 2010, over 1.5 million eligible voters did not vote. Instead of focusing on the creation of costly barriers, we should be focusing on increasing voter turnout. 

Platform: no to voter ID

The Independence Party should support reform that gives strength, not limits, to the right to vote.  Vote to oppose voter ID at the January platform convention.

Kathy Bonnifield is the Executive Director of Citizens for Election Integrity MN. She can be reached at:  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it . Carolyn Jackson is the Lobbying Coordinator at ACLU-MN. She can be reached at  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it The League of Women Voters Minnesota has taken a strong position against voter photo-ID requirements, and has information and resources on its website, www.lwvmn.org Read the vetoed bill, SF509, at https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S0509.6.html&session=ls87 and the veto message at http://mn.gov/governor/multimedia/pdf/Ch-69-SF509.pdf

**EDITOR'S NOTE** The authors requested and were granted the opportunity to make their case to the Independence Party. The IP would be happy to publish thoughtful reactions as well.

 

Submit your Minnesota Firsts!

Posted Wednesday, 30 November 2011 by Matt Lewis  E-mail



The Independence Party of Minnesota wants you to tell us why you believe Minnesota is the true state of innovation. Take a look at the many Minnesota firsts that your fellow citizens have sent our way. You can even view them via our interactive map

Then make a submission of your own by e-mailing This e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it . We'll do our best to check out your nomination and post it as soon as possible.

Thanks for helping support the political party that will make yet another Minnesota First in 2012 when we bring innovative leadership to the state capitol.

 

Do you want a voice in the issues facing your community? Volunteer

Posted Friday, 11 November 2011 by Mark Jenkins  E-mail

All too often, people believe that the only active role they can have in their government is in the voting booth or in elected office. This is not true. The fact is that you do not have to be elected to have an important voice in the discussions and decisions that take place in our cities, counties and state every day. 

The State of Minnesota, as well as most counties and cities have advisory boards, commissions and committees made up of citizen’s like you. Unfortunately for our state and local governments, too few citizens know about these opportunities and many of these committees are understaffed. Fortunately for you, there are multiple openings for you to explore amongst city, county and state committees. Here are just a few websites to check out for an opportunity to serve your community. 



Minnesota Secretary of State’s Office listing of Open Commissions and Appointments

Ramsey County Volunteer – Advisory Boards and Committees

Hennepin County Citizen Advisory Boards
 
Sherburne County Committees
 
Stearns County Boards and Committees

Dakota County Citizen Advisory Committees

Duluth Boards and Commissions
 
Rochester Advisory Boards, Commissions and Committees

 
Please check out your county and city websites for opportunities near you.

  
 

Filing period in SD 59 special election was hasty and illegal

Posted Friday, 11 November 2011 by Mark Jenkins  E-mail

Republicans and Democrats have often used their elected offices to encourage political participation within their party while throwing up road blocks in front of the opposing party. Whether it is drawing political boundaries that protect their own party members, closed party primaries or “unfunding” political campaign refund programs, the current two party system continues to demonstrate that your participation matters if, and only if, you support one of their parties.

The Independence Party of Minnesota has been a dedicated advocate for political reform that broadens citizen participation in our government. This week we discovered another example of blatant disregard for citizen participation.


This past Thursday Governor Mark Dayton announced his appointment of State Senator Larry Pogemiller (DFL-59 Minneapolis) to run the Minnesota Office of Higher Education. On Friday, the Governor issued a "writ of election" calling for a special election to fill Senator Pogemiller's seat. The writ specified that the filing period for candidates would only last three days and would begin the very next business day (Monday, October 31st to Wednesday, November 2nd). This timeline gave potential candidates a mere 2 days to prepare, and 3 days to file for the open seat. This is short notice even for a major party like the Independence Party. The challenges facing third party and independent candidates to file for and achieve ballot access are far greater than those affiliated with a major party. According to state law, a candidate who is not running as a member of a major political party must submit a nominating petition with 500 signatures of support (number required for state legislative races) to have his or her name placed on the general election ballot. State law also states that the candidate may only collect those signatures during the filing period. The Governor's writ left third party and independent candidates with only 3 days to collect 500 legal signatures and file them with the Secretary of State's office. As a result, there will be no third party or independent candidates on the ballot in this special election.

This abrupt and inconsiderate timing would be merely shameful if it had been executed properly. Unfortunately, this hurried procedure ended up being illegal as well. Hennepin County's Election Manager told me earlier today that the writ was received on Friday evening and officially posted on Monday morning. According to State statute 204D.22 Sub 2: "The county auditor shall post a copy of the writ in the auditor's office at least five days before the close of the time for filing affidavits of candidacy for the special election." This means that the filing period could not legally close until the end of business on Friday, and not Wednesday as was ordered by the Governor.
The Independence Party does not plan on taking any legal actions regarding this oversight, be it legal or not, however limiting to a potential candidate’s participation in the electoral process. As a major party, the Independence Party was not impacted any more than the Republican Party was. We do suspect that Democrats had earlier knowledge of the opening considering the circumstances. We also believe that a court fight would be an unnecessary waste of tax dollars and would not change the outcome of the election itself. Our belief in fair and open politics does compel us to draw people's attention to the effects of restrictive electioneering on the part of the Governor.
 
Because of actions like this one, and because the Independence Party platform states "that serving the interests of all the people should be a higher priority than serving the interests of a powerful few", we will continue to expose restrictive electioneering on the part of any elected official. For these same reasons, we will continue to lend our voice and our effort to real political reforms like ranked choice voting, independent redistricting efforts, and now, special election reform.
 

Getting the IP newsletter?

Posted Tuesday, 08 November 2011 by Matt Lewis  E-mail

The Independence Party is regularly rounding up commentary, the latest campaign information, events, and updates from our partners. And we want to hear from you! If you've missed our previous issues that's ok. Just sign up for our mailing list to get the next one!

Thanks for your support.

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required
Email Format
 

St. Paul is ready to rank!

Posted Monday, 07 November 2011 by Matt Lewis  E-mail

Monday, Nov. 7, 2011
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

 
St. Paul Ranked Voting Launch is Tuesday, Nov. 8

A week of intensive GOTV events wraps up comprehensive RV awareness campaign

ST. PAUL – In just a few short hours, St. Paul voters will experience Ranked Voting for the first time – and the new voting system’s Capital City debut is expected to be every bit as successful as its Minneapolis implementation in 2009.

Voters in wards 1, 2 and 3 – each of which has three or more candidates running for city council – will have the chance to rank candidates in preferential order on the ballot. A voter’s vote always counts for her highest-ranked candidate who can use it to get elected. Her second or additional choices are backup choices, and will only count if her first choice is eliminated – as would happen in a traditional runoff.

A voter may rank only one choice, but is encouraged to rank as many candidates as she likes to ensure that her ballot continues to count if her favorite candidate is defeated.

FairVote Minnesota, the city of St. Paul and Ramsey County have spent months educating St. Paulites at neighborhood and community festivals, public forums, and demo elections, as well as through door-knocking, voter mailings and print and online media. See schedule of educational activities over the past several months on our educational website at http://votestpaul.org/.

Election results will be reported on the Ramsey County Elections website. Races in which a candidate receives a majority of first-choice votes will be declared on election night. Those in which no candidate receives a majority of first choices will be manually tallied and reported on Monday, Nov. 14. See details about St. Paul’s ranked voting elections and the counting process at http://www.co.ramsey.mn.us/elections/ranked_voting.htm

Jeanne Massey, FairVote Minnesota executive director, and St. Paul voter education coordinator Brian Kimmes are available throughout Election Day to offer information and perspective on the Ranked Voting rollout.

By folding two elections into one in local nonpartisan races, Ranked Voting (or Ranked Choice Voting, as it’s called in other cities, including Minneapolis) accomplishes what traditional two-round elections do – but in a single, cost-effective, higher turnout election.

St. Paul is one of six cities using Ranked Choice Voting tomorrow for municipal elections.

-n-

 

Vikings Stadium Meetup

Posted Thursday, 03 November 2011 by Matt Lewis  E-mail

The Independence Party knows that Vikings fans hold a wide range of views when it comes to the ongoing stadium debate. Rather than limit those positions to just a couple of panelist opinions, the IP is opening the floor to anyone who wants to share their vision with the public, express their frustration or react to what's on the table.

Join us in St. Anthony before the Vikings-Packers Monday Night re-match as we lead a discussion on the issue and then stick around to watch the Vikes upset the Packers at Lambeau. We'll offer up concluding comments on the discussion at halftime. 

Whatever your stance we want to hear from you! RSVP now on Facebook or e-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it and stay tuned for more information.

WHAT: Stadium Debate "Un-Panel" and Vikings-Packers Watch Party
WHEN: Monday November 14, 6:30
WHERE: The Village Pub, 2720 Highway 88 (The corners of New Brighton Blvd and St. Anthony Blvd), St. Anthony 
WHO: Minnesotans with diverse views on the Vikings stadium debate. Bring your own ideas!

 

A Small Business Perspective on the Affordable Care Act

Posted Monday, 17 October 2011 by Robin Carpenter  E-mail

For the last 13 years, as long as I have owned my small business, I’ve spent every October navigating the next year’s health insurance options for our employees. Health insurance is a very important benefit in our office. We have a lot of young families. (One year, our holiday card was a picture of all of the babies born in our office.)



While this time consuming process is important, it is also maddening for two very different reasons. And I don’t think either of them are addressed very well by the Affordable Care Act set to be fully implemented in 2014.

First off, the annual benefits planning is maddening because I don’t think it should be my role as an employer to define the benefits being made available to employees. The needs of employees are very different. I don’t believe I should be dictating the parameters of their individual coverage. The options for small businesses aren’t all that flexible. Choices are limited, so we provide a higher cost traditional plan with moderate co-pays as well as a high deductible plan with a Health Savings Account. And we hope that we are providing at least two solid options that reflect different ends of the spectrum.

Under reform, the state insurance exchanges being readied for 2014 are not a great option for our employees, who typically make more than 250% of the poverty level. They will not be eligible for the Federal subsidies that would allow them to purchase better coverage at lower out-of-pocket cost than they would be able to from us. And it remains to be seen how customized the offering within the exchanges will be.

One innovation that would address some of our needs is now being offered by an entrepreneurial start–up based right here in Minnesota - Bloom Health. Their configurable offerings would address the flexibility required by most of our employees, and it doesn’t require the Affordable Care Act to work.

The second and equally frustrating part of employee health benefit planning that will not be enhanced by the Affordable Care Act is the lack of substantive incentives to make insurance policy holders behave like good consumers. At least with high deductible health plans and health savings accounts that were implemented in the last five years, there is an incentive for consumers to compare price and quality of procedures, doctor visits, hospitals and/or prescriptions. Unfortunately, the health care system doesn’t make it easy for us consumers to make these comparisons. (When was the last time you tried to compare prices at different pharmacies for a prescription covered under your insurance?)

Only in the last couple of years have we started to see some improved options for comparison shopping. But the incentives for comparison shopping are tied to the consumer having a direct vested interest in the outcome. This happens to some extent with a health savings account because the money belongs to the employee/consumer. It’s not clear what incentives, if any, consumers who buy their insurance through exchanges will have to comparison shop for their care.

And, of course, the Affordable Care Act does nothing at the system level to reform the fee for service structure of health care payments.

So what is our company planning to do this year to prepare for open enrollment for health benefits next month? We’re maintaining our benefit levels and have managed to find a third plan choice for our employees, expanding their range of options a bit. And we’re adding a new benefit - Long Term Care Insurance.

Please don’t misunderstand my intent. I fully support the idea of the Affordable Care Act to extend access to health care to the millions of uninsured and underinsured. I also think that employers with lower wage workers and more part time workers will adopt the insurance exchanges at a fast pace. It’s just that none of this actually addresses the true cost of care at a system level or make us better consumers of our care at an individual level.

Robin Carpenter of Edina is the vice chair of the Independence Party of Minnesota 3rd Congressional District.

 

Page 1 of 19

...here's the operative quote: 'When underdogs choose not to play by Goliath's rules, they win.'

Jack Uldrich in "How the IP Can Win" Join the discussion

All events

Upcoming Events

February 5–18, 2012

Next

  • S
  • M
  • Tu
  • W
  • Th
  • F
  • Sa
  • S
  • M
  • Tu
  • W
  • Th
  • F
  • Sa
  1. 5
  2. 6
  3. 7
  4. 8
  5. 9
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. 13
  10. 14
  11. 15
  12. 16
  13. 17
  14. 18

Sunday, February 5th: Executive Committee Meeting

Tuesday, February 7th: IP Caucuses