Conflicting statutes were argued, one specific on the Secretary of State's duty and authority; one on the legislature proposing amendments. [UPDATE: Actually the amendment procedure is constitutional, and in Art. IX, a separate article from the general legislative provisions of Art. IV. The statute dates back to 1919. Art. IV, Sect. 17, expressly mentions legislative authority to title regular bills, "No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title," while in contrast, Art. IX says nothing about the legislature titling amendments, but the 1919 statute from then onward required the Secretary of State with Approval of the Attorney General to give an appropriate ballot title for proposed amendments, so there are vagaries it issue. And the Constitution specifies no judiciary role in the process where amendments originate in the legislature and the Secretary prepares ballots. Minnesota's Constitution is not without at least one other minor but obvious inconsistency that needs correction. Art. 4, Sect. 5, states in part, "No senator or representative shall hold any other office under the authority of the United States or the state of Minnesota, except that of postmaster or of notary public." Then, Art. VI, Sect. 6, in turn states, "A judge of the supreme court, the court of appeals or the district court shall not hold any office under the United States except a commission in a reserve component of the military forces of the United States and shall not hold any other office under this state." So -- what about legislators in the reserves? Go figure. End of update.]
Read the reports, and the opinion online here. It was issued per curiam, so no Justice claimed authorship credit for the prevailing bloc of four.
While I dislike the pack of plaintiffs in the consolidated pair of cases, the opinion stands as precedent apart from the present aspects in dispute. Viewing this collective pack of plaintiffs as nothing less than willful troublemakers where trouble was never needed, and viewing them as proposing amendments to the Constitution as if it is not intended to be a durable document but instead the equivalent of a newspaper changing to report and reflect the meandering pattern of excesses of a majority of legislators who dislike a governor of the opposite party having a veto of things processed as bills normally are; and viewing that in the context of the same pack's recent history of loving it when they had a governor of their own party having a veto over bills while the DFL held legislative majorities but refused to be so crass as to bypass standard procedure for divisive short sighted political purposes; viewing all that, the opinion now stands as the law.
These plaintiffs would transform our Constitution to a thing that mutates with the political weather, wind blowing one way or the other, just wipe your muddy wet boots on the Minnesota Constitution - it is their mentality, it is what they are doing. However -
 |
| Photo credit, this link. |
That said, the decision probably is for the best. I can imagine in the days of Mary Kiffmeyer as Secretary of State the abuse in ballot naming that miserable woman would gleefully have interjected into lawful processes had the DFL been so crass as to do anything such as this Republican pack is doing presently to try to pack the vote for their being a morally and fiscally bankrupt party.
At least if/when the pendulum swings the other way as to the party holding the Secretary of State's position, the present opinion will be there to curb GOP mischief-making and wretched excess.
The unfortunate thing: Ritchie aimed to neutrally phrase ballot wording in an informative way. The Republicans opposed neutral wording; and did not want their mischief presented in an informative manner; bias being their favored flavor to feed to voters.
It's a closed chapter now. Minnesota's Supreme Court had to decide one way or the other; and they chose the other. Which, again, may prove best long-term as the political weather changes.