UPDATE: Latest Strib post - the policing ballot question will stay on the ballot. That is what the Minnesota Supreme Court has decided. Early in the post -
The decision came down in a three-page order issued shortly before 6 p.m., just hours before early voting is set to begin in the first municipal races since George Floyd was killed by police.
"So as not to impair the orderly process of voting, this order is issued with an opinion to follow at a later date," wrote Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea.
Yes 4 Minneapolis, the political committee that wrote the proposal, welcomed the ruling.
UPDATE: The Minnesota Supreme Court will have an expedited hearing. Strib publishes, here. It states in part -
"The district court … said the question failed to identify the essential purpose of the amendment, without stating what the court perceived to be the essential purpose or what was missing," wrote [ Minneapolis Assistant City Attorney Ivan] Ludmer.
And still, Strib declines to post and link to what the judge wrote. Presuming Ludmer is correct, the judge's opinion/order was defective. This not a game of hide and seek. Or should not be. WHAT IS THE ESSENTIAL PURPOSE? It is to change the city's charter to allow the council to reform police force size and policing practices to focus on public safety, an effort which, under current charter wording, cannot be done. The essential purpose is to fix straitjacketing language in the charter. Whatever the politics of the day was when that wording was created, it is now a burden on reform and needs to go.
Can you say SNAFU, or alternatively the harder to pronounce SNFUBAHC (. . . Beyond Any Human Comprehension)?
------------------------
Strib, this link. Always try to give the original source, which Strib's writer did for the ballot question text itself. But saying there will be an appeal without linking to what will be appealed from is, at best, quaint.
Post a pdf of the order, (not on Scribd which is a Facebook thing with many hating Facebook), but post a generally accessible item. This is one of two statewide newspapers, with resources enough to post pdf documents.
As for the judge, if feeling voters cannot make sense out of a text which many have worked on over much time - the link to the text was properly given - and the text says enough that anybody with a fourth grade education can read and understand that the cop question is at issue and provisions are being revised within the charter; who appointed that judge?
Or do I judge too harshly? Consider, from Strib's report -
The case hinges on how to write a neutral ballot question for a proposal that could clear the way for city officials to replace the Minneapolis Police Department with a new public safety agency.
Judge Jamie L. Anderson 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."
For more than a month now, city leaders have been embroiled in political and legal fights over how to interpret those charter changes — and what that means for constructing a neutral ballot question.
The latest challenge was brought by three Minneapolis residents — businessman Bruce Dachis, nonprofit CEO Sondra Samuels and former City Council Member Don Samuels — who argued the current version of the ballot question 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.
The entire thing is a joke. The first two paragraphs quoted above, written by a busy Strib reporter, do exactly what is at issue - they neutrally and tightly describe what the ballot proposal is about. Why all the other yin and yang among involved people has resulted in a longer but lesser description is politics, not logic nor reasoning. The politics is that most want to fix a dysfunctional police setup with something that works for citizens and does not weigh more heavily against black citizens than it does against white citizens. Some want to keep the dysfunctional junk or keep the charter unchanged until a plan is detailed that they like.
Trust those elected and tasked to produce ordinances and resolutions to handle what they were elected to do once the charter's impediment is junked. If not trustworthy to handle it, how were they elected, and who's better at it?
_______UPDATE_______
In a largely parallel Strib item -
Push to replace MPD
Long before Floyd's death, Minneapolis officials and activists were already debating how much money to give to the Police Department and which elected officials should have ultimate oversight of officers.
On the heels of his killing, some council members pursued a plan to replace the Police Department with a new public safety agency. After that stalled before the Charter Commission, Yes 4 Minneapolis collected signatures to get its own version on the ballot this fall.
Bates, the group's spokesperson, said the change would allow the city "to embrace a holistic model of public safety."
Opponents say they believe the city could do that without replacing the Police Department.
Yes 4 Minneapolis' proposal removes the requirement for Minneapolis to keep a police department with a minimum number of officers and requires the city to create a new agency providing "a comprehensive public health approach to safety."
For more than a month now, attorneys have fiercely debated how to interpret those changes and how to present a neutral question to voters.
Groups on both sides have accused each other of putting out misinformation. If the proposal passes, the mayor and council will decide many details of the new department.
[italics added] If your aim is obfuscation and not clarity, get lawyers involved. Their main skill set is delay and meandering, billable hours, and advocacy rather than clarity. Some are skilled mediators, but clearly they are not the ones in play.
If Strib's reporter can write the issue up clearly, and tightly; and lawyers are mucking around in the absence of such clarity, then somebody's lawyers are sitting on a three legged stool milking their cash cow for all it is worth. And they should stop.
Now, the State's top Court will have to mop up. Whether they produce something making sense, or something less, it will be the definitive word on things. Should we expect an opinion stating the ballot issue in language chosen by the Court, a neutral body skilled in writing, or should we expect a remand with instructions? We wait to see. "Judicial restraint" would have a remand. "Judicial activism" would have the Court write language (remember the Warren Court wrote the wording of the Miranda Warning, so it is neither unreasonable nor unprecedented to expect reliable court- mandated language).
_______KEY UPDATE______
Strib reports the Minnesota Supreme Court will review the district court decision on an apparent expedited basis. It still boggles the mind that a busy Strib reporter wrote a perfectly fine explanation of the issue. Change the charter to allow police reform, via creation of a public safety approach. A plan will be formed. By the people trusted to budget, spend and raise public funds. You trust them with the money, you should trust them fixing the police problem. Setting rules is their business. They will evolve a plan, but for now the cruft in the charter needs removal. So they CAN form a plan which then can evolve over time. Why the charter ever had the challenged wording is a question of history that so far has been unanswered in the press. The question - isn't it time to remove that stuff?
______FURTHER______
Ultimately, police should be barred from using toxic or irritating chemical weapons against citizens. Automatic dismissal if any camera video is produced showing tape over badge numbers or other obscuring of ability to identify an officer/perp who uses excessive or otherwise wrongful force. Body cams always on anytime a cop is on foot, not in a patrol car, where dashboard cams are to always be on; failure to have cameras so operated can and should lead to dismissal, absent a compelling explanation. All discipline to be on record, accessible as public data in the normal course of governing. Citizen oversight of things, ultimately, as with the federal military, top control is to be by a civilian. Not a uniformed "chief." Dismissal of bad cops needs to be made easier.
All the reforms can be part of an integrated plan passed by the council once the charter is fixed. There will be debate and media coverage, and the councilmembers were elected to do the job of setting the rules, else, why have them?
Another ballot question - strong mayor? Look at Frey and the mess he's created, so, would it have been better if he had more power to screw up more comprehensively? Councilmembers are elected for a reason, and there needs to be a proper balance between executive power and legislative power.
Would Frey with more power, but under the present cop contract and practices such as a blue wall around discipline procedures, have been better at keeping the peace than he was? If he had even greater control over the police chief would that have made a difference, without a better way of contracting with the cop union, and stronger council laying down the law for those who are allowed, and well paid, to enforce the law?
Frey seemed satisfied with Bob Kroll. Stronger mayor? It is a question on the November ballot.