Court Will Examine Amendment Language

Dear Neighbor,

I urge Secretary of State Mark Ritchie to withdraw the confusing, misleading changes he proposes for two constitutional amendment questions Minnesotans will receive this November.

The ballot questions have been decided and passed by the state Legislature. The office of the Secretary of State should not play any part in rewording these questions. 

The Legislature originally entitled a question pertaining to making photo ID a requirement at the polls “Photo identification required for voting.”

Ritchie reworded it to read: “Changes to in-person & absentee voting & voter registration; provisional ballots.”

Ritchie's proposed language conspicuously omits the photo ID component. Eliminating the crux of the proposal will only confuse voters. How can you, in good faith, fail to mention the resulting change would make photo ID a requirement at the polls?

The second amendment question would define marriage in our state. The Legislature entitled the amendment question “Recognition of marriage solely between one man and one woman.”

Ritchie changed the title to “Limiting the status of marriage to opposite sex couples.”

The glaring error in Ritchie’s language change is it indicates same-sex marriage currently is permitted by law but will be revoked if the measure were to pass. This is not the case and, again, Ritchie's choice of words could confuse voters.

This is the first time in modern history a Minnesota Secretary of State has changed a ballot title. Where we really needed Ritchie to provide edits for a constitutional amendment was in 2008, regarding the Legacy Amendment. The Legislature's title for that amendment question was “Clean Water, Wildlife, Cultural Heritage, and Natural Areas.” There was no mention of the fact the amendment contained a sales-tax increase, a funding formula different for each of four main sources and specific criteria for allocation of funding. Ritchie placed that title on the ballot unaltered.  

Ritchie has gone on the record to state his opposition to the amendment questions voters will receive this year. It appears he is misusing his influence in what is supposed to be an impartial office.

The Minnesota Supreme Court is scheduled to begin hearing testimony on this issue tomorrow (Tuesday). Let's trust that the courts will uphold the wording passed by the Legislature.

Sincerely,

Kirk Stensrud

MN House of Representatives 42A