|
| Date: | August 28, 2012 | | Contact Name: | Neil Pursley | | Contact Phone: | 651.296.4915 | | Contact Email: | neil.pursley@senate.mn | |
|
| Minnesota Supreme Court Keeps Amendment Titles “I am pleased the Court has upheld the Legislature’s right to title constitutional amendment questions on the ballot,” said Senator Benson |
(ST. PAUL) – The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of the Minnesota Legislature by ruling that the titles of the constitutional amendment questions which are to appear on the ballot in November must remain as the Minnesota Legislature had prescribed.
Senator Michelle Benson (R-Ham Lake) commented on the decision saying, “I am pleased that the Court has upheld the Legislature’s authority to designate appropriate titles for constitutional questions that appear before the voter. Secretary Ritchie had overstepped his authority in his effort to mislead and confuse the voter and help ensure defeat of the amendments by changing the titles.”
In a very clear ruling, the Court said, “We conclude that when the Legislature has included a title for a ballot question in the bill proposing a constitutional amendment, the “appropriate title” the Secretary of State must provide for that ballot question is the title designated by the Legislature. As a result, the Secretary of State exceeded his authority under Minn. Stat. § 204D.15, subd. 1, when he provided titles for the ballot questions different from those passed by the Legislature.”
The issue arose when Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, an outspoken critic of both constitutional amendments on the ballot this year, announced that he was unilaterally going to change both titles of the questions from what the Minnesota Legislature had originally designated.
In stepping over the Legislature, Secretary Ritchie cited Minnesota Statute section 204D.15 which provides that the Secretary of State “shall provide an appropriate title” for each constitutional amendment. While this statute specifically addresses the default job a secretary may be required to do, the higher authority of the Minnesota Constitution states no such authority for the Secretary of State.
Article IX Section 1 of the Minnesota Constitution states that “A majority of the members elected to each house of the legislature may propose amendments to this constitution.” The Secretary of State is not mentioned in the Amendment process. Authority to provide a title comes from the Legislature; therefore is subject to future action by the Legislature.
“For Secretary Ritchie to change the wording of the ballot question after very specific and understandable titles were provided by the Legislature is a blatant overreach of power by the Secretary of State, encroaching on the Minnesota Legislature.”
Secretary Ritchie sought to change the Voter ID question on the ballot from "Photo Identification Required for Voting" to "Changes to In-person and Absentee Voting and Voter Registration, Provisional Ballots."
And he sought to change the change the Marriage Amendment question from "Recognition of marriage solely between one man and one woman" to "Limiting the status of marriage to opposite sex couples."
“Both of these title changes are misleading and confusing,” said Senator Benson. “The changes Secretary Ritchie wanted to make in the Voter ID could not be more convoluted. The words “photo identification” which is at the heart of the amendment, do not even appear in his proposed title.
“The Marriage Amendment constitutional question affirms current state statute. By placing the definition in the Constitution, we allow the citizens of Minnesota, not activist Judges, to make this decision about marriage in Minnesota,” said Senator Benson.
“I also want to point out that the Marriage Amendment title was proposed by a DFL senator and approved in a very bipartisan manner by the Legislature. As a supporter of both bills, I am very pleased that the Court agreed to present voters with a clear description of the constitutional questions that they will be asked to vote on this November,” concluded Senator Benson.
###
