Minnesota ballot news
From Ballotpedia
| ||
| Propositions • | Recall | • Law |
Here you'll find a collection of ballot news stories from Minnesota.
Minnesota secretary of state proposes new absentee ballots
SAINT PAUL, Minnesota: Secretary of State Mark Ritchie proposed a redesign of the state's absentee ballots in order to help reduce voter error.[1] "While Minnesota's election system is considered one of the best in the nation, the 2008 election and recount experience yielded valuable lessons on how we can improve that system. Redesigning absentee ballot envelopes and instructions is a common-sense solution that helps to eliminate errors voters typically make that result in their ballots being rejected," said Ritchie. The recommended changes include: plain language and a clearer format, step-by-step illustrations, redundant instructions on the absentee envelopes, clear labeling and visual cues. A final decision on the ballot changes is expected in March 2010.[2]
The proposed changes can be seen here.
Judge rules Minneapolis Park Board independence measure won't appear on ballot
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota: Last week Judge Cara Lee Neville ruled that the Minneapolis Park Board Independence Amendment will not appear on the November ballot despite enough valid signatures being submitted on August 17, 2009.[3] The September court case resulted after city officials voted against placing the measure on the ballot. Shortly thereafter, attorney Brian Rice filed a lawsuit against the city on behalf of measure supporters. The city council voted 11 to 2 to block the amendment from the ballot after the city attorney stated that the city lacks the authority to create an independent government unit.[4] The park board said they plan to appeal the judge's decision.
The measure calls for greater financial independence from city hall.[5] The charter amendment was developed as a response to Minneapolis Taxation Board Amendment which proposes to eliminate the city's Board of Estimate and Taxation and to transfer the power to the City Council.[6]
Minneapolis Park Board supporters file signatures for independence
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota: This month Minneapolis Park Board supporters submitted approximately 17,086 signatures to place the Minneapolis Park Board Independence Amendment (2009) on the November ballot. The measure calls for greater financial independence from city hall.[7] The charter amendment was developed as a response to Minneapolis Taxation Board Amendment (2009) which proposes to eliminate the city's Board of Estimate and Taxation and to transfer the power to the City Council.[8] The board argues that the charter amendment is necessary because the board's finances have suffered in recent years.
In the next few weeks the submitted signatures will be validated before the measure is officially placed on the ballot. Supporters of the petition need to have a minimum of approximately 10,000 signatures, 5 percent of the turnout in last fall's election, in order to place the proposal on the November ballot.[9]
Minnesota lawmakers remove reverse referendums from state law
Minnesota: This month the Minnesota Senate decided to remove a provision in state law that permitted reverse referendums less than a year after a Becker County District Court judge ruled that petitioners could not place a question that called for the reversal of a Frazee-Vergas School District levy referendum on the November 4, 2008 ballot. Controversy about the ballot law came about specifically in 2008 during the Frazee-Vergas School District reverse referendum debate. A levy referendum passed in 2007 but in 2008 residents submitted a petition to place the measure back on the ballot.[10] Lawmakers said that it was not fair that cities and counties could raise levies without voter permission, but school districts could not. School district supporters of the reverse referendum law change had hoped to convince the legislature to change the number of required signatures to 30%, from its current 15%. The possibility of a reverse referendum taking away new tax dollars made it difficult for school districts to plan for the future, Greg Abbott, director of communications for the Minnesota Association of School Districts, said. The Senate, however, decided to eliminate the provision in its entirety. Minnesota Rep. Bud Nornes carried the bill, which included an increase in signatures to 30%, in the House of Representatives and Sen. Dan Skogen did the same. But before the bill passed in the Senate Education Committee, Sen. Claire Robling made the motion to eliminate the provision. Robling said her reasoning was that if it’s not being used, then maybe it’s not needed then. “It’s not like we took something away that was used often and now it’s gone,” said Nornes. But, Frazee petitioner Oscar Birkeland said otherwise about the lawmakers decision, "I guess maybe I’m real old-fashioned — I think citizens should have some rights. Citizens pay the bills and should have some say in it."[11]
Minneapolis Park Board circulates petition for financial independence
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota: A Minneapolis Park Board proposal for greater financial independence may become the first city charter amendment for the first time in nearly a dozen years to make it to the ballot. Specifically the proposal calls for taxing and budget authority specific to the board. The board, however, would remain subject to the mayor's review. Currently, the board's funds go to the city first, the annual property tax levy is set by the Board of Estimate and Taxation.[12]
The board started collecting signatures last weekend. Supporters of the petition must collect approximately 10,000 signatures, 5 percent of the turnout in last fall's election, by August 11, 2009 to place the proposal on the November ballot. The board argues that the charter amendment is necessary because the board's finances have suffered in recent years.[13]
Legislators in six states consider health insurance reform proposal
State legislators and activists in six states are considering a proposal that would allow people in their state to opt out of any federally-mandated health insurance plans that may be enacted by the federal government. According to Christine Herrera of the American Legislative Exchange Council, their state legislator members have endorsed a resolution that opposes a Medicare-modeled federal health plan. "Our state legislatures are looking at what's going on in Washington as trampling state's rights," she said, and as a result, some state legislators are looking for ways to allow their state's residents to opt out of any coming federal mandates.[14]
In Arizona, legislators have already placed the Arizona Health Insurance Reform Amendment (2010) on their 2010 ballot. Similar measures are under consider in Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wyoming.[14]
Arizona legislator Phil Lopes, a Democrat, is opposed to this approach, saying, "The proponents of this are saying the system we have now works and we don't want any kind of reform. This flies in the face of what the public tells us they want." In a state legislative dialogue that has crossed state lines, Wisconsin Republican legislator Leah Vukmir says, "The real goal of national health insurance exchange isn't competition -- it's a federal power grab that flies in the face of the Tenth Amendment."[14]
Minnesota to vote on instant-runoff voting method
ST. PAUL, Minnesota: Following the Minnesota Supreme Court ruling that upheld the constitutionality of an instant-runoff vote, the St. Paul City Council unanimously decided yesterday to put it to a vote in November. Last year, more than 5,300 people signed a petition to hold a referendum concerning adopting instant-runoff voting, but the council refused to add it to the ballot because the city attorney felt it was probably unconstitutional. The council promised that if the method was deemed constitutional, they would put it on the ballot, and they have followed through with that promise.[15]
Instant-runoff voting is a method designed to eliminate unnecessary primaries and assure that the winner holds a majority of the vote, rather than simply a plurality. Voters rank candidates in order, and then the first palce votes are added up. If no one has a majority, the last-place candidate is dropped with their votes going to the next ranked candidate on those ballots. The process continues until someone gains a majority. Such a procedure is particularly suited for Minnesota: the last three governor's elections were won by someone who got the plurality, but not the majority, of the vote.
Proponents of the bill see this as a sign that the council is upholding voter's wishes, rather than making a partisan decision regarding more beneficial voting method for one party or another. When the State Supreme Court approved the measure, City Attorney Susan Segal said, "The court's decision means that the city can continue to move forward with implementing ranked choice voting - the method chosen overwhelmingly by Minneapolis voters in the 2006 voter referendum."[16]
Opponents say the system violates the traditional American conception of voting as "one person, one vote"; those who voted for a losing candidate will essentially get a second choice. Erick Kaardal, attorney for the opposing coalition which includes "Minnesota Voter's Alliance", has said that the court's ruling does not prevent people from filing lawsuits over an instant runoff election to contest how the votes were counted, particularly because voting machines are only designed to accept a single selection per person. After the first round of voting, the only way to continue the process is to count by hand, which worries some officials about not only corruption and easier means towards voter fraud, but even whether or not they would have the resources for such a process to go smoothly.[17]
Marijuana amendment possible for Minnesota 2010 ballot
ST. PAUL, Minnesota. After Gov. Tim Pawlenty vetoed a bill passed by the Minnesota State Legislature that would have permitted the legal sale of marijuana for some medical purposes, backers of medical marijuana said their next step is to fight to have the state legislature vote to put a constitutional amendment to the Minnesota Constitution on the November 2010 ballot.
Tom Rukavina sponsored the medical marijuana legislation in the Minnesota House of Representatives and Steve Murphy sponsored it in the Minnesota Senate. Both vowed to continue their battle.[18]
Casino for Vikings Stadium in Minnesota?
A Minnesota Casino Revenues for Vikings Stadium Amendment (2010) may appear on the 2010 ballot in Minnesota. The measure has been proposed by Tom Hackbarth, a Republican member of the Minnesota House of Representatives. His idea is to put a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot, which would allow a casino in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. The tax revenues generated through that casino would then go to pay for a new stadium for the Minnesota Vikings.[1]
Berglin proposes health care funding amendment for ballot
Sen. Linda Berglin, DFL-Minneapolis, has introduced S.F. 3835, a bill that would place on the November 2008 ballot a proposed constitutional amendment that says, "Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to dedicate the proceeds of the MinnesotaCare provider tax to increase access to affordable health care for Minnesotans?" The amendment would bar all transfers from the Health Care Access Fund (HCAF) not intended to support MinnesotaCare, the health plan that HCAF funds.[2]
Ramsey County won't vote on electing sheriffs
Members of the appointed 17-member Ramsey County Charter Commission voted on May 6 not to place a question on the November ballot in Ramsey County that would have chosen whether or not future sheriffs of the county should be elected or appointed. [3]
References
- ↑ Morris Sun Tribune, "Too bad but we all might have to get used to these words: L.A. Vikings and Go Packers", March 6, 2009
- ↑ Pawlenty reduces Health Care Access Fund request
- ↑ Pioneer Press, Sheriff post remains elected, not appointed, May 6, 2008
| |||||
