Mark Ritchie

Recent Articles

Secretary of State Mark Ritchie discusses the voter ID amendment



By Elizabeth Ellis

Contributing Writer


On October 19, from 7:30-9 am at Turtle Bread, 4762 Chicago Ave. South, Minneapolis, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, by invitation of City Council Member Elizabeth Glidden, discussed the challenges to Minnesotans this election season regarding the proposed constitutional voter ID amendment on the ballot. “Changing Minnesota’s constitution,” Ritchie argued, “should not be taken lightly. Our state constitution is sacred to daily life.”

In his remarks, Ritchie emphasized that amending the constitution could cause changes to local taxpayers. Voting is community based, but with many different faces, such as small rural, out-state townships with 500 voters who vote by mail verses large urban counties. Continue Reading →

Filed under: , , , , , , ,

Traditional marriage and voter IDs at issue


Traditional marriage is a very important proposed state constitutional amendment in the company of voter IDs. Secretary of State Mark Ritchie got a lesson in civics when our Minnesota court tossed out his legal attempts to delay both amendments being on the November ballot (see my last column). I predict both the voter ID and traditional marriage amendments shall pass. Let me advise you that as quiet as it is kept, many Blacks, mainly Christian Blacks, will vote in favor of marriage between a man and woman despite Obama, football players, entertainers and others jumping out in favor of gay marriage. Why? Continue Reading →

Filed under: , , , , , , ,

Ritchie gets a real smack-down


Mark “The Shark” Ritchie, Minnesota’s secretary of state, was pinned in Minnesota’s wrestling pay-per-view event: 1, 2, 3, and the sound of the referee slapping the mat as Ritchie’s shoulders were down for the count. It must have been excruciating. The Democrats took a serious beating August 27, when the Minnesota Supreme Court tossed mustard on Mark Ritchie’s attempt to rewrite the titles of both the voter ID and marriage amendment questions. This columnist, speaking at various conservative meetings, predicted the court would issue such a ruling. I also provided the idea that the only reason for the challenges was an attempt to delay the matter on the ballot in November, because the expectation was that the matter would not be heard as quickly as it was, leading to motions to delay the matter until the court would decide. Continue Reading →

Filed under: , , , , , , ,