MINNEAPOLIS—The Minnesota Supreme Court will take up a case threatening to toss a proposal determining the future of Minneapolis policing from the November ballot.
The city of Minneapolis and Yes 4 Minneapolis on Wednesday morning asked the state's high court to intervene, saying voters deserve the chance to weigh in on a key issue this fall — and that officials need clarity to avoid a repeat of the court battles that are threatening to postpone a vote on this central issue in the first municipal races since George Floyd's killing.
Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea asked attorneys working on all sides of the debate to file "informal memoranda" by Wednesday evening.
The justices face intense pressure to act quickly. Early voting is set to begin Friday, and ballots have already been printed.
Hennepin County Judge Jamie Anderson on Tuesday blocked elections officials from using the latest version of the ballot question or from counting votes on the measure in the November races.
On Wednesday morning, both the city and Yes 4 Minneapolis, the political committee that wrote the proposal clearing the way for officials to replace the Police Department with a new public safety agency, asked the Supreme Court to intervene on an emergency basis.
"The questions in this case must be answered to ensure the integrity of our State's elections," wrote Terrance W. Moore, an attorney for Yes 4 Minneapolis.
Minneapolis Assistant City Attorney Ivan Ludmer took the unusual step of asking the high court to intervene by Wednesday — the same day the appeal was filed.
"The City recognizes and understands the burdens placed on the Court by this request," Ludmer wrote.
Complying with Anderson's order, he wrote, requires election workers to prepare thousands of ballots for early voting.
"It is not feasible to prepare these both with and without the inserts required for compliance," Ludmer wrote. "In the event of reversal, to prepare sufficient unaltered ballot envelopes, and in light of the solemn religious holiday observed by a number of City staff, the City would need to begin doing so as early as possible on September 16, 2021."
The proposal has been marred in political and legal fights over how to write a neutral ballot question for a measure that would clear the way for city officials to replace the Minneapolis Police Department with a new public safety agency.
The measure changes the Minneapolis charter by removing the requirement to keep a Police Department with a minimum number of officers. It then requires the city to create a new agency providing "a comprehensive public health approach to safety." Throughout a litany of fast-moving court proceedings, lawyers argued vehemently over how to interpret those charter changes and what that meant for the fight over how to present a neutral question to voters.
In her order, Anderson described the current phrasing as "unreasonable and misleading."
"The Court finds that the New Ballot Question does not ensure that voters are able to understand the essential purpose of the proposed amendment," she wrote, as she struck down the ballot question wording for the third time in a month.
Yes 4 Minneapolis decried the judge's decision. JaNaé Bates, the group's spokesperson, said Minneapolis residents' votes had been "stolen" by people who oppose the proposal.
"That is completely undemocratic," she said in a virtual news conference. "That is the thing that, no matter what side of the issue you are on, you should be righteously upset about."
Three Minneapolis residents — businessman Bruce Dachis, nonprofit CEO Sondra Samuels and former City Council Member Don Samuels — filed the legal challenge, arguing the phrasing was misleading. Their attorneys also painted a dire picture of what would happen if officials failed to create a plan for the new agency in the 30 days before the change took effect.
In a statement, attorneys for Dachis and the Samuelses disputed the characterization that they were trying to thwart the democratic process and placed some blame on city officials.
"The Samuels would actually like the charter amendment to be on the ballot and have done everything they can to persuade the City Council to write a fair ballot question," attorney Joe Anthony wrote. "If the City Council had simply crafted a ballot question that fairly explained what the charter amendment was designed to do the charter amendment would be on the ballot."
Ludmer, the city's attorney, wrote that they believed the phrasing "faithfully and sufficiently described what changes would be made to the City charter if the voters approved the amendment."
A ruling from the state Supreme Court, he said, "would avoid future situations like this, where district court rulings on ballot language come so close to the elections that the legislature feels its best option to ensure that it reaches the voters is to scramble to find language a district court might bless, precluding final appellate review until ballots are printed and ready for distribution."
Ballots were already being printed when Anderson issued her order, so the question will still appear on them.
With that in mind, Anderson wrote that she was taking steps "to lessen the impact of this Order while the parties pursue an appeal."
If there isn't a ruling from the Supreme Court by the time early voting starts Friday, the judge instructed elections officials to "provide, with each ballot, a notice of ballot change instructing all voters that the New Ballot Question should not be voted on and will not be counted or reported pursuant to court order."
She also blocked elections officials from counting those votes.
If the Supreme Court doesn't rule by Friday, Yes 4 Minneapolis is encouraging supporters to hold off on casting their ballots in early voting and wait for the legal wrangling over the ballot question to sort out. The group is also rallying supporters at 3 p.m. Friday outside the Hennepin County Government Center.
If the high court leaves Anderson's ruling in place, the proposal could still come before voters at a future election. If that happens, Bates said Yes 4 Minneapolis will continue to push the proposal. She said it's too early to tell if the group's next steps would mean pushing for a special election, putting the proposal on the ballot in 2022 or other measures.
Star Tribune Staff writer Kelly Smith contributed to this report.
———
©2021 StarTribune.
Visit startribune.com.
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
