To the editor:
Mary Kiffmeyer use The Journal to tell some whoppers about her proposed constitutional amendment regarding election law.
Rep. Kiffmeyer justifies her use of a constitutional amendment rather than ordinary statute by claiming to have seen "U.S Attorney-General Eric Holder challenging Voter ID laws in other states for conflict with respective state constitutions." But in fact Holder has no authority to enforce state constitutions and has made no attempt to do so. His challenges to other states' election laws have been under the federal Voting Rights Act and would have applied equally had the challenged provisions been inserted into state constitutions.
Kiffmeyer also claims to have "worked hard to get provisional balloting in the amendment because of how highly she valued people's right to vote." But in fact provisional balloting was in the amendment from the moment Rep. Kiffmeyer introduced it and no attempt was ever made to remove it. That's because without it, a strict photo ID requirement would be struck down by federal courts.
The Journal reports that Kiffmeyer "was unable to source her numbers during the interview." Her alarming statistic about "unreachable and unaccounted for" election-day registrants in fact comes from an unofficial analysis by the lobbyist Dan McGrath. As the representative ought to know, the Secretary of State's office refuted this number with official data they provided to the legislature.