Dan Wolgamott's dictionary dilemma

Dan Wolgamott's op-ed is either proof that he needs a new dictionary or that he isn't tightly tethered to the truth. The subject of Rep. Wolgamott's op-ed is voting rights. Specifically, Rep. Wolgamott insists that "elected Republicans in Minnesota are doubling down on Trump’s baseless lie that the election was stolen in order to pass voter suppression laws to limit, restrict and undermine your vote for their political gain."

Continuing, Wolgamott said "It’s time for Republicans to return to their principles, stop lying to the people they represent, and work with Democrats to strengthen and protect your right to vote." That's a rather provocative statement for a state legislator to make. The word suppress is defined as "to stop or arrest, to vanquish or subdue (a revolt, rebellion, etc.); quell; crush." Nothing that Republicans have done remotely comes close to crushing people's right to vote.

Wolgamott's 'proof' that Republicans want to crush people's right to vote is "imposing oppressive voting laws, such as “Voter ID” (which Minnesotans resoundingly rejected when it was on the ballot in 2012), eliminating same-day voter registration and severely limiting absentee voting by mail will make it more difficult for Minnesotans to vote. Worst of all, these laws disproportionately affect the ability of Minnesota’s seniors, Minnesotans of color, and Minnesotans with disabilities to wield the power of their vote."

Jimmy Carter once co-chaired a commission with James A. Baker III, George H.W. Bush's Secretary of State. One of the recommendations of that commission's report was creating "a uniform photo identification method to match the voter to the voting roll, while establishing more offices to all non-drivers to more easily register and acquire photo IDs." In his op-ed, Wolgamott wrote this:

Worst of all, these laws disproportionately affect the ability of Minnesota’s seniors, Minnesotans of color, and Minnesotans with disabilities to wield the power of their vote. Restricting these voting rights is wrong and unpatriotic, and I won’t stand for it.

That's sloppy workmanship. Why didn't Mr. Wolgamott read the opinion in Crawford v. Marion County Board of Elections? Writing the majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote this:

Promptly after the enactment of SEA 483 in 2005, the Indiana Democratic Party and the Marion County Democratic Central Committee (Democrats) filed suit in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against the state officials responsible for its enforcement, seeking a judgment declaring the Voter ID Law invalid and enjoining its enforcement. A second suit seeking the same relief was brought on behalf of two elected officials and several nonprofit organizations representing groups of elderly, disabled, poor, and minority voters.5 The cases were consolidated, and the State of Indiana intervened to defend the validity of the statute. 

The complaints in the consolidated cases allege that the new law substantially burdens the right to vote in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment ; that it is neither a necessary nor appropriate method of avoiding election fraud; and that it will arbitrarily disfranchise qualified voters who do not possess the required identification and will place an unjustified burden on those who cannot readily obtain such identification. Second Amended Complaint in No. 1: 05–CV–0634–SEB–VSS (SD Ind.), pp. 6–9 (hereinafter Second Amended Complaint). 

After discovery, District Judge Barker prepared a comprehensive 70-page opinion explaining her decision to grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 458 F. Supp. 2d 775 (SD Ind. 2006). She found that petitioners had “not introduced evidence of a single, individual Indiana resident who will be unable to vote as a result of SEA 483 or who will have his or her right to vote unduly burdened by its requirements.” Id., at 783. She rejected “as utterly incredible and unreliable” an expert’s report that up to 989,000 registered voters in Indiana did not possess either a driver’s license or other acceptable photo identification. Id., at 803. She estimated that as of 2005, when the statute was enacted, around 43,000 Indiana residents lacked a state-issued driver’s license or identification card. Id., at 807.

Utterly "incredible and unreliable" expert reports shouldn't see the light of day. Instead of pitching that information into a wood chipper, Mr. Wolgamott made it the centerpiece of his op-ed. This cartoon should set Mr. Wolgamott straight:

Mr. Wolgamott's faux outrage is bothersome and I won't stand for it. He should be ashamed of himself for writing such a poorly-researched op-ed.