Judge hears new arguments over ballot language for Minneapolis policing, public safety proposal

The fight over how to phrase a ballot question for a proposal that will determine the fate of the Minneapolis Police Department continued Thursday, with one attorney urging a judge to toss the current language and two others encouraging her to keep it.

"What I was struck by was how many hurdles an average voter would have to go through to figure out what was going to happen if they voted in favor of that ballot question," argued attorney Joseph Anthony.

He's representing three people — Bruce Dachis, Sondra Samuels and former City Council Member Don Samuels — who sued the city, claiming the current ballot language doesn't tell voters enough about the measure that would clear the way for officials to swap the Minneapolis Police Department with a new public safety agency.

Terrance W. Moore, an attorney for Yes 4 Minneapolis, the political committee that wrote the proposal, urged the judge to keep the current question in place. He argued that the language provides enough information to tell people they are voting on a public safety proposal — as opposed to another one on the ballot — and that the ballot question is "not a place" to "explain the effects of the amendment."

"The place to explain those effects is the campaign," he said. "That's what campaigns are for."

The proposal is drawing national attention and money as Minneapolis residents prepare to vote on policing for the first time since George Floyd's murder by an officer — and as the issue becomes a wedge in next year's state and federal races.

Hennepin County Judge Jamie Anderson, who is hearing the case, faces a tight timeline. Early voting is set to begin Sept. 17.

The county's elections manager, Ginny Gelms, said in a court filing that they need final ballot language by noon Tuesday to meet the printer's deadlines.

"If the County is unable to mail absentee ballots by September 17, 2021, we risk disenfranching overseas voters, including members of the military," she wrote.

This is the second time in a month that Minneapolis officials have faced a lawsuit over how they chose to word the question that will appear on the ballot. The legal fights don't impact the contents of the proposal, only the wording that voters will see when they head to the polls.

At the center of the legal fight is a question of how much detail is needed to ensure people understand what they're voting on, and how much could be construed as a campaign statement intended to sway them.

The proposal deletes 406 words from the city's charter, which serves as its constitution, and adds 80 words. City officials have said that state law prohibits them from posting the text of the proposal in polling places and bars poll workers from answering voters' questions.

The measure would remove language in the charter that requires Minneapolis to keep a police department with a minimum number of officers based on population. The city would then be required to create a new agency responsible for "integrating" public safety functions "into a comprehensive public health approach to safety." The new agency could have police "if necessary to fulfill the responsibilities of the department."

The proposal also would strike language from the charter that gives the mayor "complete power" over police operations, a move that likely would grant council members more sway over officers. The mayor and council would decide how to design the new department and whether — and how — to employ police.

In court documents and during oral arguments on Thursday, attorneys argued intensely over how to interpret those charter changes and what that means for the fight over how to construct neutral ballot language.

Anthony said the current question didn't provide enough information to inform voters about the proposal, at times quoting arguments city attorneys made in a lawsuit brought over an earlier version of the ballot question.

He said the current question doesn't tell voters that a "yes" vote would be "dismantling and eliminating the police department," nixing minimum funding requirements for police and removing the police chief.

In court papers, he painted a dire picture of what would happen if city officials fail to write ordinances defining the new department within 30 days of the election — saying "city residents will be left to fend for themselves" — and argued voters should be informed of that deadline.

Ivan Ludmer, an assistant city attorney for Minneapolis, argued some of those provisions were covered in the current question. If you "strike the police department," as the question currently states, that indicates that "the police department command structure" and the lines about funding will be eliminated as well, he said.

Other provisions the group asked for are "not changes to the law, but predictions of how those changes will be implemented," Ludmer wrote. "Predictions are not required under the statutory standard, and do not appear to comport with the likely effect of the law."

Ludmer said the police department would not cease to exist the moment the proposal passes. While it would be removed from the charter, the city can have departments that aren't enshrined in the charter, and the police department and chief would continue to be listed in city ordinances. Charter changes require votes from residents. Most ordinances do not, and can be written or removed by the mayor and council.

The deadline for finalizing ballot language was Aug. 20, but Hennepin County officials, who coordinate ballot printing for the city, have said they would "make every effort" to comply if a judge orders them to accept new ballot language after that date.

Anderson, the judge, did not say when she would issue a decision but promised she would "make every attempt to get the order out as soon as possible."

If she doesn't issue a decision by Tuesday, Hennepin County officials asked her to outline new dates for finalizing the language and printing ballots.

If Anderson were to grant the request to block officials from using the current ballot language, it could trigger another series of fast-paced negotiations among city officials, who are deeply divided on the proposal.

When she heard a separate lawsuit, brought by Yes 4 Minneapolis when the group challenged an earlier version of the ballot language, Anderson declined to select the new wording. She said the city had that authority, not the courts.

Current ballot language for Minneapolis policing, public safety proposal

Department of Public Safety

Shall the Minneapolis City Charter be amended to strike and replace the Police Department with a Department of Public Safety which could include licensed peace officers (police officers) if necessary, with administrative authority to be consistent with other city departments to fulfill its responsibilities for public safety?

Liz Navratil • 612-673-4994