Minneapolis City Council signals changes in ballot measure wording on policing, power

The Minneapolis City Council on Wednesday strongly signaled that it intends to change the language that will appear on the ballot this fall, when voters decide the fate of the city's Police Department and how to divide powers in City Hall.

Looming over the debate — and being litigated in court — is a question of how much detail officials should include on the ballot. (You can read the versions here.)

Meeting as the Policy & Government Oversight Committee, the council voted to remove an explanation attached to the ballot question that asks voters if they want to replace the Police Department with a new public safety agency.

"It is essentially exactly what we're asking for," said Terrance W. Moore, an attorney for Yes 4 Minneapolis, the political committee that wrote the proposal.

The council members also voted to change the language — and remove an explanatory note — for a proposal that has the potential to change the power dynamics in City Hall. Barry Clegg, chairman of the court-appointed Charter Commission that wrote that proposal, said they were "still absorbing" the council's changes and "are consulting with our counsel."

The council is slated to take a final vote Friday morning, setting up the potential for a fast-paced showdown with Mayor Jacob Frey, who has veto powers and raised concerns about the changes. Friday is also the deadline for submitting ballot language to county and state elections officials.

As the clock ticks, they're also awaiting guidance from a Hennepin County judge, whose order last week required the city to strike an explanation from one question, triggering the revision process.

Yes 4 Minneapolis gathered signatures this year to ask voters whether they want to replace the Police Department with a new agency. City officials are tasked with writing the question that will appear on the ballot.

On Friday, Judge Jamie Anderson ordered the city "to remove the Explanatory Note" set to appear below the ballot question. She said they had the authority to include such notes, but the wording they chose was "problematic." She declined to predict whether the language would help or hurt the proposal's chances of success but noted the explanation was longer than the question.

Staff in the city attorney's and clerk's offices worked over the weekend to draft new language. Their version again included an explanatory note that listed parts of the proposal.

Council Members Phillipe Cunningham, Steve Fletcher and Jeremy Schroeder suggested they remove the note, and keep the original ballot language. It asks if people want to amend the city charter "to strike and replace the Police Department with a Department of Public Safety that employs a comprehensive public safety approach, and which would include licensed peace officers (police officers) if necessary, to fulfill its responsibilities for public safety?"

The mayor and some of his allies on the council argued that wording failed to inform voters of key elements of the plan: that it would eliminate the requirement to have a minimum number of police officers and remove the mayor's "complete power" over police operations.

"We can't be afraid to provide as transparent a question as possible," Frey said. "People need to know what they are voting for."

Council Member Cam Gordon countered that they probably couldn't fit every detail on the ballot and needed to focus on ensuring voters could distinguish this proposal from others.

"There would be confusion if we had two or three public safety amendments on the ballot," he said, "but we don't. There's only one."

Yet when asked about the revised wording, Sarah McLaren, an attorney for the city, said, "It's my personal opinion that this proposed language does not sufficiently identify the key changes to the charter."

The committee voted 9-4 to drop the note, with Council Members Alondra Cano, Lisa Goodman, Linea Palmisano and Kevin Reich voting against. Some arguments mirrored those made in court earlier Wednesday afternoon, when Moore, the attorney for Yes 4 Minneapolis, argued the city needed to delete the explanatory note to comply with the judge's order — and McLaren countered that they had the authority to revise it. Anderson said she intended to work Wednesday night and Thursday to make "every attempt to get an order as soon as possible."

Anderson's order on Friday also prompted the city to revise the ballot language for a second proposal with a lengthy explanation.

That measure would designate the mayor as the city's "chief executive officer" with authority over many departments' daily operations and focus the council's work on writing ordinances and vetting budgets.

The original version, which the Charter Commission chair described as "fair and accurate," included a 188-word explanation along with the ballot question. The council voted 12-1 to change the wording and scrap the note, with Palmisano casting the lone "no" vote.

Read the full text of both versions.