Minneapolis, Minnesota, Question 2, Replace Police Department with Department of Public Safety Initiative (November 2021)

Minneapolis Question 2
Election date November 2, 2021
Topic Local law enforcement
Status d Defeated
Type Initiative	Origin Citizens

Minneapolis Question 2, the Replace Police Department with Department of Public Safety Initiative, was on the ballot as an initiative in Minneapolis on November 2, 2021. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported this charter amendment to: * replace the Minneapolis Police Department with a Department of Public Safety (DPS); * have the mayor nominate, and the city council approve, a person to serve as DPS commissioner; and * remove language from the Minneapolis City Charter on the police department, including minimum police funding requirements and the mayor's control of the police department.

A "no" vote opposed this charter amendment, thus maintaining the existing structure of the Minneapolis Police Department in the Minneapolis Charter.

A 51% vote was required for the approval of Question 2.

Election results

Minneapolis Question 2
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		62,813	43.83%
No		80,506	56.17%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What would the ballot measure have changed in Minneapolis?

Question 2 would have replaced the Minneapolis Police Department with a new Department of Public Safety (DPS). The DPS would have been responsible for "a comprehensive public health approach to safety," including the employment of licensed police officers if needed to fulfill the department's responsibilities. A Commissioner of Public Safety would have led the DPS and would have been nominated by the mayor and approved by the city council. The ballot initiative would have also provided for the fire police to be housed with the DPS. Question 2 would have removed the minimum funding requirement for police (0.0017 per resident) from the Minneapolis Charter.

Who was behind the campaigns surrounding Quesiton 2?

See also: Campaign finance

The campaign Yes 4 Minneapolis proposed the ballot initiative. Kandace Montgomery, director of Black Visions Collective, was the board chairperson of Yes 4 Minneapolis, and JaNaé Bates, a theologian and communications director of ISAIAH, was the campaign's communications director. Yes 4 Minneapolis had received $4.85 million, including $750,000 from Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, $650,000 from Open Society Policy Center, and $625,000 from Reclaim the Block. Officials that supported the measure included U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-5) and Attorney General Keith Ellison (D).

All of Mpls, a political action committee, opposed Question 2. All of Mpls had received $1.59 million, with $585,000 from Plan for Progress, a nonprofit associated with All of Mpls, and $210,000 from James Lawrence, non-executive chairman at Lake Harriet Capital, LLC. Officials that opposed the measure included U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D), Gov. Tim Walz (D), and Mayor Jacob Frey (D).

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Question 2 was as follows:

“

Department of Public Safety Shall the Minneapolis City Charter be amended to remove the Police Department and replace it with a Department of Public Safety that employs a comprehensive public health approach to the delivery of functions by the Department of Public Safety, with those specific functions to be determined by the Mayor and City Council by ordinance; which will not be subject to exclusive mayoral power over its establishment, maintenance, and command; and which could include licensed peace officers (police officers), if necessary, to fulfill its responsibilities for public safety, with the general nature of the amendments being briefly indicated in the explanatory note below, which is made a part of this ballot?

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

This amendment would create a Department of Public Safety combining public safety functions through a comprehensive public health approach to be determined by the Mayor and Council. The department would be led by a Commissioner nominated by the Mayor and appointed by the Council. The Police Department, and its chief, would be removed from the City Charter. The Public Safety Department could include police officers, but the minimum funding requirement would be eliminated.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Changes to Minneapolis City Charter

Question 2 would have rewrote Section 7.3, Section 7.4, and Section 8.2 of the Minneapolis City Charter and amended two other sections (7.4 and 8.2). The following underlined text would have been added and struck-through text would have been deleted:

Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

Section 7.3

§ 7.3. - Police.

(a) Police department. The Mayor has complete power over the establishment, maintenance, and command of the police department. The Mayor may make all rules and regulations and may promulgate and enforce general and special orders necessary to operating the police department. Except where the law vests an appointment in the department itself, the Mayor appoints and may discipline or discharge any employee in the department (subject to the Civil Service Commission's rules, in the case of an employee in the classified service).

(1) Police chief.

(A) Appointment. The Mayor nominates and the City Council appoints a police chief under section 8.4(b).

(B) Term. The chief's term is three years.

(C) Civil service. The chief serves in the unclassified service, but with the same employee benefits (except as to hiring and removal) as an officer in the classified service. If a chief is appointed from the classified service, then he or she is treated as taking a leave of absence while serving as chief, after which he or she is entitled to return to his or her permanent grade in the classified service. If no vacancy is available in that grade, then the least senior employee so classified returns to his or her grade before being so classified.

(D) Public health. The chief must execute the City Council's orders relating to the preservation of health.

(2) Police officers. Each peace officer appointed in the police department must be licensed as required by law. Each such licensed officer may exercise any lawful power that a peace officer enjoys at common law or by general or special law, and may execute a warrant anywhere in the county.

(b) Temporary police. The Mayor may, in case of riot or other emergency, appoint any necessary temporary police officer for up to one week. Each such officer must be a licensed peace officer.

(c) Funding. The City Council must fund a police force of at least 0.0017 employees per resident, and provide for those employees' compensation, for which purpose it may tax the taxable property in the City up to 0.3 percent of its value annually. This tax is in addition to any other tax, and not subject to the maximum set under section 9.3(a)(4).

7.3. Public Safety.

(a) Department of Public Safety.

(1) Function: The Department of Public Safety is responsible for integrating its public safety functions into a comprehensive public health approach to safety, including licensed peace officers if necessary to fulfill the responsibilities of the department.

(2) Commissioner of Public Safety Department.

(A) The Mayor nominates and the City Council appoints a commissioner of the department of public safety under section 8.4.

Section 7.4

(c) Fire police. The City Council may provide for fire police within either the fire department or the police department department of public safety.

Section 8.2

(d)

(5) in the case of the police chief, on the first weekday in January that is not a holiday in the year the appointment starts;

(6) (5) and in the case of any other office, as any applicable ordinance provides, otherwise upon election or appointment.

Support

Yes 4 Minneapolis led the Yes on Question 2 campaign in support of the ballot measure.

Supporters

Officials

• U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D)
• Attorney General Keith Ellison (D)

Unions

• Minneapolis Federation of Teachers and Educational Support Professionals
• SEIU Local 26
• UNITE HERE Local 17

Organizations

• ACLU of Minnesota
• American Civil Liberties Union
• Black Visions Collective
• MoveOn
• Open Society Policy Center
• Reclaim the Block
• Twin Cities Democratic Socialists of America
• WDN Action

Arguments

• Yes 4 Minneapolis: "Our movement demands our city leaders move away from violent policing to create a department that addresses community safety holistically and with a public health approach. Our movement believes that the community should decide what safety looks like. ... Voting 'Yes' means we will have more options for community safety than the current “police-only” model. That model will be replaced so that police can perform the duties they are trained and disciplined to do for specific situations that the community, local leaders, experts and professionals decide together, while many other roles can be filled by those better suited for certain interventions and prevention of harm."
• U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D): "We’ve had a very incompetent and brutal police department for a really long time. And, you know, to the rest of the country and the world, they saw what happened with George Floyd and might have thought this is a one-off situation. I remember witnessing my first police shooting as a teenager, where they put nearly 38 bullets into the body of a mentally ill man who was just released from an institution, who didn’t speak a word of English, who couldn’t respond to their commands, who was not of any imminent threat to have had his life taken in such a brutal and a shameful way. And so many of us have experienced those kind of killings in front of civilians far too often than we would like to have seen. So, the fact that the Minneapolis Police Department can no longer exist the way it is is one that is understood by the majority of us."
• Corenia Smith, campaign manager for Yes 4 Minneapolis, and Miski Noor, co-director of Black Visions Collective: "Current leaders have been thinking small when it comes to safety. A vote for public safety will provide a range of options to address our growing public health and safety needs. Question 2 allows qualified professionals like social workers, mental health providers, substance abuse experts, and crisis de-escalation experts to proactively respond to situations that match their expertise and even coordinate with police when necessary."

Opposition

Opponents

Officials

• U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D)
• U.S. Sen. Tina Smith (D)
• U.S. Rep. Angie Craig (D)
• Gov. Tim Walz (D)
• Mayor Jacob Frey (Nonpartisan)

Individuals

• Medaria Arradondo - Police Chief
• Gregory Hestness - Former Deputy Police Chief

Arguments

• Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey (D): "It would have the city council control the police department. It would have the chief of police or the head of public safety report to 14 different people — thirteen council members and the mayor — and it substantially reduces accountability."
• Former Minneapolis Deputy Police Chief Gregory Hestness: "This amendment to the city charter would diminish the Minneapolis Police Department, remove a requirement for it from the charter and have it answer to 15 bosses. It lacks the normal check and balance on government. Other city departments that currently report to both the mayor and council find it to be ineffective and inefficient."
• Steve Cramer, CEO of Minneapolis Downtown Council: "[A] vote for the Yes 4 Minneapolis amendment would make Minneapolis less safe. We can't successfully build MPD into the department our chief envisions with him gone. Reform efforts will be stalled by creating a bureaucracy from scratch with no guiding plan, and too many people with conflicting views in charge."
• Bill Rodriguez, co-founder of Operation Safety Now: "The amendment doesn’t say there will be a police force — it says there could be, maybe, if necessary. That’s the most important thing that needs to be understood about this amendment."
• Gov. Tim Walz (D): "We see this both here and across the country, increasing crime coming out of COVID. We need to recognize that the police force is going to be part of that solution. We can ask for that to be reformed, but I just think that the debate appears to be too simplified and I think it's fraught with peril to just use a slogan like 'defund the police.'"
• Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo: "The leadership reporting structure for a major city chief is critically important. The department's operational readiness, effectiveness along with decisionmaking ability and approval process requires clarity and timeliness. If the current city charter amendment to the reporting structure passes and results in bringing 14 different people into Minneapolis' daily reporting structure, it would not just be confusing — it would be a wholly unbearable position for any law enforcement leader or police chief."

2021 mayoral candidate positions

See also: Mayoral election in Minneapolis, Minnesota (2021)

Positions of Minneapolis 2021 mayoral candidates on Question 2
Candidate	Position	Statement
Jacob Frey		Frey: "I don’t support shifting the reporting structure so that the head of public safety would have 14 bosses—13 council members and a mayor. When everybody is in charge, nobody is in charge.”
AJ Awed		Awed: "We need to get racism out of the system, and we need to obviously have a new department of public safety. This is not the way forward, though. It has to be done through a very thoughtful approach where communities of color are leading on the issue.”
Katherine Knuth		Knuth: "I support charter amendment no. 2 to create a new Department of Public Safety because I think, and I think Minneapolis residents believe, the status quo on public safety and policing is not acceptable. And it's not acceptable for kids to get shot in our community. And it is not acceptable for police to kill people in our community. And I think charter amendment no. 2 gives us the best framework to make the most effective safety system in the city."
Sheila Nezhad		Nezhad: "I helped write the Yes4Minneapolis Amendment, and have a strong plan for its implementation. As Mayor, I will budget to keep fully funded 911 & 311 dispatch and response. I think 888 public safety staff is a great number, and under my leadership we’re going to diversity staff to fit the needs of calls: more mental health workers, more harm reduction providers, more youth outreach works, more gun violence prevention specialists, and survivor-led, survivor-designed services for those who have experienced sexual and domestic violence."

Campaign finance

The Yes 4 Minneapolis PAC was registered to support the ballot initiative. Yes 4 Minneapolis received $4.85 million, including $750,000 from Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors.

The All of Mpls PAC was registered to oppose the ballot initiative. All of Mpls received $1.59 million, including $585,000 from Plan for Progress.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$3,702,056.41	$1,144,278.96	$4,846,335.37	$3,507,215.91	$4,651,494.87
Oppose	$1,588,657.00	$2,500.00	$1,591,157.00	$1,398,734.89	$1,401,234.89
Total	$5,290,713.41	$1,146,778.96	$6,437,492.37	$4,905,950.80	$6,052,729.76

Support

The contribution and expenditure totals for the committees supporting the ballot measure were as follows:

Committees in support of Question 2
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Yes 4 Minneapolis	$3,702,056.41	$1,144,278.96	$4,846,335.37	$3,507,215.91	$4,651,494.87
Total	$3,702,056.41	$1,144,278.96	$4,846,335.37	$3,507,215.91	$4,651,494.87

Donors

The following were the top five donors to the support committee:

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors	$750,000.00	$0.00	$750,000.00
Open Society Policy Center	$650,000.00	$0.00	$650,000.00
Reclaim the Block	$625,000.00	$0.00	$625,000.00
TakeAction Minnesota	$205,000.00	$290,513.95	$495,513.95
MoveOn	$0.00	$436,758.88	$436,758.88

Opposition

The contribution and expenditure totals for the committees opposing the ballot measure were as follows:

Committees in opposition to Question 2
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
All of Mpls	$1,588,657.00	$2,500.00	$1,591,157.00	$1,398,734.89	$1,401,234.89
Total	$1,588,657.00	$2,500.00	$1,591,157.00	$1,398,734.89	$1,401,234.89

Donors

The following were the top five donors to the opposition committee:

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Plan for Progress	$585,000.00	$0.00	$585,000.00
James Lawrence	$210,000.00	$0.00	$210,000.00
Kelly Doran	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00
Karen Sternal	$50,000.00	$0.00	$50,000.00
Minnesota Twins	$35,000.00	$0.00	$35,000.00

Media editorials

Support

Ballotpedia had not identified media editorial board endorsements of Question 2.

Opposition

The following media editorial boards published an editorial opposing the ballot measure:

• Star Tribune Editorial Board: "Beyond that, there simply is no plan for public safety in Minnesota's largest city and economic engine if the ballot measure is approved. Instead, there are grandiose interpretations by supporters who claim transformational changes would be unleashed if only the amendment passes. But there is no road map on how to get there. ... We urge Minneapolis residents to vote no on City Question 2, and instead to demand genuine reforms that include input by the community and all the hard discussions needed to determine how to reimagine law enforcement."

Polls

See also: 2021 ballot measure polls

Minneapolis Question 2
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Star Tribune/MPR News/KARE 11/FRONTLINE Minnesota Poll (likely voters) 9/3/2021 - 9/13/2021	49.0%	41.0%	10.0%	+/-3.50	800
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

Notable local police-related ballot measures (2021)

See also: Notable local police-related ballot measures (2021)

In 2021, Ballotpedia covered a selection of local police-related measures concerning police oversight, the powers and structure of oversight commissions, police practices, law enforcement department structure and administration, law enforcement budgets, law enforcement training requirements, law enforcement staffing requirements, and body and dashboard camera footage.

State	Jurisdiction	Title	Election date	Description	Result
New York	Albany	Proposal 7	November 2	Increases the authority of the Community Police Review Board over investigations and oversight of complains against police	a
Texas	Austin	Proposition A	November 2	Requires a minimum number of police officers and certain police training and sets demographically representative hiring practice guidelines	d
Washington	Bellingham	Initiative 2	November 2	Prohibits facial recognition and predictive policing technology	a
Colorado	Denver	Referred Question 2G	November 2	Transfers the power to appoint the Independent Monitor to the Office of the Independent Monitor, which is responsible for disciplinary investigations concerning the Denver police and sheriff’s departments, from the mayor to the Citizen Oversight Board	a
Minnesota	Minneapolis	Question 2	November 2	Replaces the police department with a department of public safety in the city charter	d
Ohio	Cleveland	Issue 24	November 2	Changes the oversight structure of the Cleveland Police Department	a
Michigan	Detroit	Proposition P	August 3	Revises the Detroit City Charter, with multiple changes to the Detroit Police Department included	d
Texas	Austin	Proposition C	May 1	Establishes the position of the Director of Police Oversight in the city charter	a
Texas	San Antonio	Proposition B	May 1	Repeals provisions allowing police officers to collectively bargain with the city	d
Pennsylvania	Pittsburgh	Ban No-Knock Warrants Initiative	May 18	Requires police to knock on a door, announce their presence, and wait at least 15 seconds before entering a residence to execute a warrant	a
Pennsylvania	Allegheny County	Prohibit Solitary Confinement Initiative	May 18	Prohibits the solitary confinement of persons held in the Allegheny County Jail	a
Illinois	Oak Park	Police Defunding Advisory Question	April 6	Advises the city to defund the police department	d

In 2020, Ballotpedia identified 20 police-related measures in 10 cities and four counties within seven states that appeared on local ballots. All 20 of the ballot measure were approved.

George Floyd

Responses and reactions to the death of George Floyd

• Events following the death of George Floyd

• Derek Chauvin trial, 2021

• Changes to policing policy in the states and 100 largest cities, 2020

• Local police-related ballot measures

• Largest cities in the United States by population

• List of current mayors of the top 100 cities in the United States

• Federal policy on crime and justice, 2017-2020

• Federal politics

• State politics

See also: Changes to policing policy in the states and 100 largest cities, 2020

On May 25, 2020, Minneapolis, Minnesota, police officers arrested George Floyd, a Black man, after receiving a call that he had made a purchase with a counterfeit $20 bill. Floyd died after one officer, Derek Chauvin, arrived at the scene and pressed his knee onto Floyd's neck as Floyd laid face-down on the street in handcuffs. Both the Hennepin County Medical Examiner and an independent autopsy conducted by Floyd's family ruled Floyd's death as a homicide stemming from the incident. The medical examiner's report, prepared by Dr. Michael Baden and Dr. Allecia Wilson, said that it was "not a legal determination of culpability or intent, and should not be used to usurp the judicial process."

In the weeks after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis, Minnesota, police officer Derek Chauvin on May 25, 2020, nationwide events were held calling for changes to policing. Officials responded by issuing executive orders and passing legislation to eliminate certain policing tactics, such as chokeholds, and implement new community policing strategies.

On April 20, 2021, the jury in the trial of police officer Derek Chauvin found him guilty of second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter in the killing of George Floyd. On June 25, 2021, Judge Peter Cahill sentenced Chauvin to 22 and a half years in prison.

2020 proposed ballot measure

See also: Minneapolis, Minnesota, Replace Police Department with the Department of Community Safety and Violence Prevention Charter Amendment (November 2020)

In 2020, the Minneapolis City Council approved legislation for a ballot measure to replace the police department with a Community Safety and Violence Prevention Department. Councilmember Lisa Bender said, "Our commitment is to end policing as we know it and to recreate systems of public safety that actually keep us safe." On August 5, 2020, the Minneapolis Charter Commission voted 10-5 to take an additional 90 days to evaluate the proposal and not send the proposal back to the City Council, blocking the measure from appearing on the ballot in 2020.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in Minnesota

Yes 4 Minneapolis filed this initiative petition according to the process set in state law for citizen-initiated charter amendments. On April 30, 2021, the group filed over 20,000 signatures with city officials. A total of 11,906 valid signatures—5% of votes cast in Minneapolis in the last statewide general election—were required to put the initiative on the ballot for the election on November 2, 2021. The city clerk had 10 days to verify signatures after the city's charter review commission received the measure at its May 5 meeting.

On May 14, 2021, the city clerk announced that more than the required 11,906 signatures were found to be valid. Yes 4 Minneapolis submitted a total of 25,530 signatures. Of the total submitted, the city clerk found that 14,101 signatures were valid.

The Minneapolis City Council approved a ballot question and explanatory statement for the ballot initiative. In Yes 4 Minneapolis v. Minneapolis, the Hennepin County District Court struck down the explanatory statement as misleading. On August 20, 2021, the Minneapolis City Council adjusted the ballot question but did not add a new explanatory statement to the ballot.

On September 7, 2021, the Hennepin County District Court struck down the ballot question as vague and misleading in Samuels v. Minneapolis. The deadline to certify language for the ballot was 3 p.m. on September 7. The Minneapolis City Council held an emergency meeting, approving new language in a vote of 12-1.

Lawsuits over ballot language

Yes 4 Minneapolis v. Minneapolis

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Does Minneapolis City Council have the authority to add an explanatory statement to the ballot question?
Court: Hennepin County District Court
Ruling: Ruled that the Minneapolis City Council has the power to add an explanatory note, but that the explanatory note, as it existed, could mislead voters and had to be removed from the ballot language
Plaintiff(s): Yes 4 Minneapolis	Defendant(s): City of Minneapolis
Plaintiff argument: The city of Minneapolis does not have the authority to add an explanatory statement to the ballot question and it could mislead voters.	Defendant argument: The city of Minneapolis needs to add an explanatory statement to the ballot question to make sure that voters know what they are voting for.

  Source: Star Tribune

On July 30, 2021, attorneys for Yes 4 Minneapolis sued the city of Minneapolis in response to the ballot question language that was approved by the City Clerk. Yes 4 Minneapolis's lawyers argue that the addition of the explanatory note is misleading to voters and outside of the city's authority. Including the note, the lawsuit argues, will allow city officials to promote their own beliefs and opinions. However, city attorneys argue that adding the note is needed to ensure that voters are well-informed when casting their votes.

On August 13, 2021, the court rejected the argument that the city council did not have the power to include an explanatory note. However, the court also found the explanatory note to be "beyond the black-and-white of clarifying what is on the ballot and wades into a grey area of explanation that is not allowed." It ordered that the explanatory note be removed from the ballot language.

The text of Yes 4 Minneapolis's original ballot language and that of the City Attorney's Office (approved by the City Council) can be found below.

Text written by Yes 4 Minneapolis

“

Department of Public Safety Shall the Minneapolis City Charter be amended to strike and replace the Police Department with a Department of Public Safety that employs a comprehensive public health approach, and which would include licensed peace officers (police officers) if necessary, to fulfill its responsibilities for public safety?

”

Text written by Minneapolis City Attorney's office

“

Department of Public Safety Shall the Minneapolis City Charter be amended to strike and replace the Police Department with a Department of Public Safety that employs a comprehensive public health approach, and which would include licensed peace officers (police officers) if necessary, to fulfill its responsibilities for public safety, with the general nature of the amendments being briefly indicated in the explanatory note below, which is made a part of this ballot? Explanatory Note: This amendment would create a new Department of Public Safety, which would: (1) Combine public safety functions of the City of Minneapolis into a comprehensive public health approach to safety, with the specific public safety functions to be determined. (2) Include licensed peace officers (police officers) if necessary to fulfill the responsibilities of the Department of Public Safety. (3) Be led by a Commissioner of Public Safety. The appointment process for the Commissioner would include a Mayor nomination and a City Council appointment. The Mayor would not have complete power over the establishment, maintenance, and command of the Department of Public Safety. This amendment would also do the following: (1) Remove from the Charter a Police Department, which includes the removal of its Police Chief, and the removal of the Mayor's complete power over the establishment, maintenance, and command of the Police Department. 2) Remove the City Council requirement to fund a police force of at least 1.7 employees per 1,000 residents. (3) Remove City Council authorization to impose additional taxation on taxable property in the City of Minneapolis of up to 0.3 percent of its value annually to fund the compensation of employees of the police force.

”

Samuels v. Minneapolis I

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Was the ballot question misleading?
Court: Hennepin County District Court
Ruling: On September 7, 2021, Judge Jamie L. Anderson struck down the ballot question as unreasonable and misleading.
Plaintiff(s): Don Samuels and Sondra Samuels	Defendant(s): City of Minneapolis
Plaintiff argument: The ballot question excluded several effects and was, therefore, misleading and vague.	Defendant argument: The ballot question did not need to include information on each individual effect and was faithful to the measure's substance.

  Source: Hennepin County District Court

On August 30, 2021, Don Samuels, a former member of the Minneapolis City Council, and Sondra Samuels filed a lawsuit stating that the ballot question, as written, was vague and misleading. Joe Anthony, a lawyer representing Samuels, said, "If those future effects can’t be included in this ballot — the future effects of no police chief, no police department, no funding to be ensured — that’s why the question fails to meet Minnesota standards."

Yes4Minneapolis filed to intervene in the case. Terry Moore, an attorney for Yes4Minneapolis, responded, "Mr. Anthony says the ballot question should explain exactly what the ballot question would do. That is absolutely not the law. If someone wants to vote on the reorganization of the police department there's no question that a reasonable person will look at this ballot question and say, 'Yes I'm voting on a police department public safety department amendment.'"

On September 7, 2021, Judge Jamie L. Anderson struck down the ballot question as "vague to the point of being misleading" and said that "ambiguities risk creating a 'chaotic situation' in Minneapolis." Judge Anderson added, "the essential purpose of the proposed amendment is not clear" in the ballot question. There were three issues, in particular, that Judge Anderson said were ambiguous:

• whether the Minneapolis Police Department will cease to exist as of December 2, 2021;
• whether the position of police chief would be eliminated; and
• where a funding mechanism would exist for the new Department of Public Safety.

Prior to the ruling, the ballot question was: "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?"

Samuels v. Minneapolis II

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Is the ballot question that was certified after Samuels v. Minneapolis I misleading?
Court: Hennepin County District Court and Minnesota Supreme Court
Ruling: The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the ballot question, allowing for a vote on the ballot measure.
Plaintiff(s): Don Samuels and Sondra Samuels	Defendant(s): City of Minneapolis

  Source: Associated Press

On September 8, 2021, Don Samuels filed a lawsuit stating that the ballot question, certified after Samuels v. Minneapolis I, was also misleading. He said, "The new ballot language is designed to evade the court's order and injunction, will mislead and confuse voters, and must not be included on the November 2, 2021, general election ballot."

Judge Jamie Anderson ruled that the ballot question was "unreasonable and misleading" and "[did] not ensure that voters are able to understand the essential purpose of the proposed amendment." The ruling allowed the question to remain on the ballot, as ballots had gone to print, but prohibited election officials from counting votes on the measure. Minneapolis City Attorney Jim Rowader said his office was "focused on a speedy appellate process to ensure all voters have the opportunity to make known their positions on this critical issue as part of the municipal election this year."

On September 16, 2021, the Minnesota Supreme Court overturned the lower court's order, allowing votes on the ballot initiative to be counted. Chief Justice Lorie Gildea wrote that a full opinion would be issued at a later date and that the district court's order did not meet the high standard set in earlier cases.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Minnesota

Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in Minnesota.

How to cast a vote in Minnesota

Poll times In Minnesota, most polling places are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Central Time. However, some smaller municipalities may open their polls as late as 10:00 a.m. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote. Registration Check your voter registration status here. Voter pre-registration is available in Minnesota beginning at age 16. An individual must be 18 years old on Election Day in order to vote. To register to vote in Minnesota, an individual must be a United States citizen who has resided in the state for the 20-day period preceding the election. An individual must register to vote at least 21 days before Election Day or on Election Day at a polling place. An individual may register to vote by completing a registration application and submitting it by mail or in-person to a local election official. An individual can also register online. To register at a polling place on Election Day, an individual must present valid identification. The Minnesota voter registration application includes an option to join a permanent absentee voter list, which means the voter will automatically be sent an absentee/mail-in ballot for every election. Automatic registration Minnesota practices automatic voter registration. Automatic voter registration took effect on June 1, 2023, as a result of HF 3, which was signed into law by Governor Tim Walz (D) on May 5, 2023. Online registration See also: Online voter registration Minnesota has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website. Same-day registration Minnesota allows for same-day voter registration. Residency requirements To register to vote in Minnesota, you must be a resident of the state for at least 20 days. Verification of citizenship See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States As of October 2024, Minnesota did not require proof of citizenship for voter registration. An individual must attest that they are a U.S. citizen when registering to vote. According to the state's voter registration application, "giving false information is a felony punishable by not more than 5 years imprisonment or a fine of not more than $10,000, or both." All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment. Seven states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration, whether in effect or not. One state, Ohio, requires proof of citizenship only when registering to vote at a Bureau of Motor Vehicles facility. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allows noncitizens to vote in some local elections. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters. Verifying your registration The Minnesota Secretary of State allows residents to check their voter registration status online. Voter ID requirements Minnesota does not require registered voters to present identification while voting. If you are registering to vote at the polls or have not voted in at least four years, you will need to bring proof of residency to the polls. Click here to see what qualifies as acceptable proof of residency.

See also

Local measures

• Local measures in 2021
• Local law enforcement on the ballot
• Local charter amendments on the ballot
• Hennepin County measures

Minnesota

• Minnesota 2021 local measures
• Local ballot measures, Minnesota
• Minneapolis, Minnesota

News and analysis

• State and local preemption conflicts
• Measures advancing national agendas

External links

Suggest a link

• Search Google News for this topic
• Hennepin County Elections Office website