ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — A November ballot measure that would write Minnesota's same-sex marriage ban into the state constitution landed in court Monday, as backers moved to block two state officials from changing its title in a way they say casts the measure in a negative light.
More than a dozen Republican lawmakers joined the pro-amendment group, Minnesota for Marriage, in filing a petition with the Minnesota Supreme Court seeking to restore an original title that will appear above the question voters will decide. The case is expected to be swiftly considered.
Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie announced last month that he had revised the amendment title from "Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman" to "Limiting the Status of Marriage to Opposite Sex Couples." Attorney General Lori Swanson, also a Democrat, validated the change.
Amendment supporters said the officials lacked authority to rewrite the title that lawmakers approved in 2011. Republican Sen. Warren Limmer said the old wording was crafted to be neutral whereas the word "limiting" could give people pause immediately before they vote.
"Those words are definitely considered negative and misleading, and I believe they're created to sway the voter," said Limmer, who sponsored the bill placing the issue before voters.
Limmer said the new language is faulty because state law already defines marriage as between one man and one woman. The substitute title, he said, creates the impression that the state's posture toward marriage is changing.
Those behind the amendment push preferred wording that focuses on the traditional definition of marriage. They circulated video clips of a Senate floor debate where the title was written. In the debate, Democratic Sen. Scott Dibble, who is openly gay, offered the language as it appeared in the final legislation.
Ritchie hasn't been made available for questions since announcing the title switch. Pat Turgeon, a spokeswoman for Ritchie, said Monday the office won't comment now that litigation is pending. Ben Wogsland, a spokesman for Swanson, said the attorney general would respond through court filings and withhold public comment until then.
Letters exchanged in June between the offices of Ritchie and Swanson point to a state law under which "the secretary of state shall provide an appropriate title for each question."
Ritchie has yet to formally declare a title for a second ballot question for an amendment to require that voters show a government-issued photo ID at polling places. That measure is also before the Supreme Court because opponents say the question is vague and misleading.
A group aiming to defeat the marriage amendment has said the new title is acceptable from its vantage point. An official with Minnesotans United for All Families noted that nothing in the actual question has changed.
It will read: "Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.
Comments (38)
Add commentTrying to be a
Little sneaky there mark & lori ehh??
Can't Republicans read
And interpret what they read?
Don't worry, they will be informed by their party to vote "yes, yes" while we get to be the party for once of "no, no".
interpret what they read?
Hmmm,
"We won't know what's in the bill until we pass it"
Nancy Pelosi
Obviously both parties have a little trouble with that!!
Yep, agree.
No excuse for not reading a bill before you vote, is there?
Can't liberals understand
that revising the title of the ammendment to make it misleading was an illegal act by two Democrats? They should be criminally charged if they didn't have the authority to change it. Ritchie is the person in charge of the elections in this state. No wonder we are worried about what's been happening with illegal voters.
Boo hoo to you!
A taste of your own medicine. What is misleading about the revised title?
No no in November
We must all remember
wow
at 3:33 pm you condone criminal behavior by the Secretary of State.
word change for clarity is legal under the law
Letters exchanged in June between the offices of Ritchie and Swanson point to a state law under which "the secretary of state shall provide an appropriate title for each question."
And that title wasn't
appropriate as it clearly was meant to cause confusion.
I say let's get rid of all titles
and use pictures instead. We can have a picture of 2 guys, say Barney Frank and his boyfriend! And on top of that we can put a slash throught the picture. On the other side of the ballot, we can put a picture of a normal couple getting married. That should solve any misleading thoughts.
Not surprising Ritchie "hasn't been made available for questions", since it seems that Dems like to run away from controversy--A LOT!
Which state law, snow?
I looked and couldn't find one.
The bill had an appropriate...
...and far more accurate title before the partisan SoS got a hold of it and twisted its meaning. The obvious response to this feeble attempts to sway the voters with loaded language is to vote Yes-Yes. This devious act also makes a dandy argument against re-electing the current SoS.
Mark Ritchie and Lori Swanson - following the law
2011 Minnesota Statutes 204D.15 Subdivision 1.Titles for constitutional amendments.
The secretary of state shall provide an appropriate title for each question printed on the pink ballot. The title shall be approved by the attorney general, and shall consist of not more than one printed line above the question to which it refers. At the top of the ballot just below the heading, a conspicuous notice shall be printed stating that a voter's failure to vote on a constitutional amendment has the effect of a negative vote.
Fair n balanced:
Be a nice gentleman and thank minnesnowda for her excellent research.
Thank you, minnesnowda!
Thank you snow
for showing that law to us all.
Now show the link/site for it because it's not there this is what is:
2011 Minnesota Statutes
Resources
Topics
Attorney General
Ballots
Secretary of State
Recent History
1997 Subd. 2 Repealed 1997 c 147 s 79
204D.15 PINK BALLOT; FORM; DISTRIBUTION; SAMPLE BALLOT.
Subdivision 1.Titles for constitutional amendments.
The secretary of state shall provide an appropriate title for each question printed on the pink ballot. The title shall be approved by the attorney general, and shall consist of not more than one printed line above the question to which it refers. At the top of the ballot just below the heading, a conspicuous notice shall be printed stating that a voter's failure to vote on a constitutional amendment has the effect of a negative vote.
Subd. 2.
[Repealed, 1997 c 147 s 79]
Subd. 3.Sample pink ballot.
Four weeks before the state general election the secretary of state shall file sample copies of the pink ballot in the Secretary of State's Office for public inspection. Three weeks before the state general election the secretary of state shall mail sample copies of the pink ballot to each county auditor. Each auditor shall post the sample ballot in a conspicuous place in the auditor's office.
History:
1981 c 29 art 6 s 15; 1981 c 217 s 9; 1983 c 303 s 20; 1986 c 444
Note the repealed dates.
So, to recap Fair and Snow...
These are the links I found...Thanks Ya Google...
2011 Minnesota Statutes 204D.15 Subdivision 1.Titles for constitutional amendments:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=204D.15
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=204D.15&year=1997
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?id=147&doctype=Chapter&year=1997&type=0
Okay, I have a question...
...leftists have been telling us that the current law already limits same sex couples from marrying. So explain to me how "Limiting the Status of Marriage to Opposite Sex Couples" is a better title for the amendment than "Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman". Even by your own claims, the original title was far superior than the propagandized title Richie and Co. invented.
quit whining
the GOP pushed the Voter ID and Marriage ballots through, be happy that you're going to have the potential to limit personal freedoms with those two awful amendments..hopefully people will research them before they vote
Ahh, but, the whining
is a wail from the left that just got caught cheating again, Madam Chairperson. I love it when you sheep bleat.
It is the Jesus thing to do in our time...
This is some research on the overall topic...
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/09/12642039-episcopal-bishops-...
Related item to the lawsuit...
Paul Gazelka is one of a handful of Republican lawmakers as a petitioner of the lawsuit...
As one of the chief authors and champion of the proposed Minnesota Constitutional amendment, not a huge surprise...
to end the argument kids...
I think in this case...we need to pass both to find out what is in it. And after the vote, declare the winner and burn all the ballots.:)s
Typical "Democrat" maneuvering...
...get one person strategically placed to try to screw up the workings of Democracy. There's no ethical excuse for this blatant attempt to confuse the voting population. I hope they make Ritchie change the titles (because he changed both of the amendment titles) back to the vastly superior originals.
confused?
people are already confused, especially on the marriage amendment, that's confusing to people
and then there is the simplistic Voter ID amendment that does not talk about provisional ballots, absentee balloting and reminding people if they move a few weeks before election day they will be subject to scrutiny...
in this country ALL LEGAL CITIZENS have a right to vote, Voter ID will stop some of them. Did you hear the story about the WW2 Veteran who is suing because he was denied the right to vote? you want more of that?
The lawyers are making out
just fine nowadays. Unlimited clients, financed by super pacs of every ilk.
Maybe holding the Nov election @ GOP MN HQ is the solution
Oh , thats right the MN GOP party of NO is Bankrupt, furniture. most likely gone back to rental company. Dick Cheneys solution would be , lets outsource the ballot creation and counting of votes to Halliburton. . Its fairly unbelievable a cult like group on individuals are trying to manipulate the ballot format as well as who can vote. Ballot box control does not seem to be consistant with all that freedom and liberty talk some are so proud to haul out when convienent. Maybe you Neo Cons could ask Big Lake Mary K (R) Marks former inspiration ,and Gop State Leader of national ID Amendment campaign , what exactly his duties and responsibilities are.. I saw the local Yahoo Gazelka standing in the group of MN GOP lawmakers who have their underwear in a bundle. Another good reason to send him packing.... Lets continue to let the league of women voters keep our elections open to our resident citizens, and elect some political leaders who can focus on jobs and the economy ,instead of abortion . The GOP Congress today is voting the 33rd time , so they are on the record against the Affordable Care Act , Thanks Chip for nothing. .....
Minnesota Supreme Court decision...
Final decisions on the 2 amendment titles wording, correct?
1 - Marriage Amendment
2 - Voter Id Amendment
Once the Minnesota Supreme Court rules, that's it...
Ritchie's version, or Gazelka's version, correct?
No escalation to the United States Supreme Court and Justice Roberts...
I would like
I would like a cost benefit analysis done on this and determine what benefit is gained by rewording a simplistic statements. Remember it’s OUR money that’s fueling this dysfunctional machine. Taking party politics out of it, the rewording on both ballot measures appear somewhat confusing compared to the original proposals. I base my "confusion assumption" on posters above; some can't even respond to a comment without a party line insult typically involving GWB, Clinton or baseless educational claim. I'm crawling back to my rock so the left-tards can hurl long range insults my way letting me know my pecking order in the hierarchy of Crow Wing society.
This must be the democranks way of job creation
because the lawyers are sure going to have a field day. Whether this is legal or not, the question is what is Rithcie doing with his time in office? Obviously not much. And why would you reword something that is straightforward with a confusing title? I beleive that Ritchie, like those in his party are running scared, and like cowards, will do what ever they can to defeat the measure. But I also think he does a great disservice to the voters by not giving them enough credit to vote on the own.
Scary
Thanks for playing, you failed to make any point....Typical of your posting quality. I UNDERSTAND what the law states regarding the naming. What I fail to understand is taking a clear statement and making it slightly confusing for those less educated, completely confusing for those who post insults in the BDD comments section and completely worthless for those who cannot take care of themselves. Try posting that link again, I didn't see it the first fifteen times it was posted. Great assumption on my political affiliation, you missed that one as well. For all you know I'm a devout card carrying DFL'er that has a union job and visits the local walmart.
Well, sharedtroll,
At least if you have a job, that's one thing you wouldn't have in common with it/him/her!