Critics of Voter ID amendment to court: Legislature is misleading voters

Groups that are challenging the proposed Constitutional amendment that would require an ID to vote filed paperwork with the Minnesota Supreme Court in advance of the hearing later this month. They say if the court approves the ballot question as is, it will send the message that the Legislature is free to mislead or deceive voters.
Author:
Publish date:

Groups that are challenging the proposed Constitutional amendment that would require an ID to vote filed paperwork with the Minnesota Supreme Court in advance of the hearing later this month. They say if the court approves the ballot question as is, it will send the message that the Legislature is free to mislead or deceive voters.

Next Up

Related

Supreme Court sets date to hear Voter ID arguments

Critics of the Voter ID question on Minnesota's fall ballot will have their day in court on July 17th. The state Supreme Court will hear arguments then on a petition to have the question removed from the ballot. Four groups argue the question does not accurately describe the amendment.

Secretary of State: MN needs final word on Voter ID language by late August

Secretary of State Mark Ritchie tells the Minnesota Supreme Court that election officials need to know by August 27th whether the voter ID question will be on the November ballot. The Legislature voted to put the Constitutional amendment before voters. But a lawsuit claims the question is misleading and should be changed or left off the ballot. Justices will hear arguments in the case on July 17th.

ACLU leads challenge to voter ID amendment

The Minnesota Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday afternoon in a lawsuit aimed at keeping the voter ID constitutional amendment off of the statewide ballot. The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, League of Women Voters Minnesota and other anti-amendment groups are asking the court to strike down the ballot question. They claim its wording is too vague and misleading.

Backers of voter ID hope to intervene in lawsuit

Opponents of proposed Constitutional amendment requiring that voters show a photo ID have filed a lawsuit asking the Minnesota Supreme Court to take the question off the November ballot. Now a group supporting voter ID wants to intervene in the suit. Members of Minnesota Majority are not confident state officials will vigorously defend the amendment question at next month's hearing.

Supreme Court won't extend time limits as lawyers argue amendment titles

Minnesota Supreme Court justices will hear arguments Tuesday about the titles of the Constitutional amendments that will appear on the fall ballot. Backers of the marriage and voter ID amendments want the court to get rid of the titles supplied by Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and restore the original titles the Legislature wrote. The court refused to extend the time limits for attorneys to make their arguments.

Justices hear lawyers for administration, Legislature spar over amendment titles

The Dayton administration argues a 1919 law gives the Secretary of State the power to write the titles of Constitutional amendments that appear on the ballot. Lawyers for the Legislature say the Constitution gives lawmakers that authority. Supreme Court justices will need to decide who's right before the end of August, so this fall's ballots can be prepared.

Voter ID amendment advances at Capitol

Proposals for a constitutional amendment requiring photo IDs at polls are just a step away from reaching the House and Senate floors, MinnPost reports. Constitutional amendments, if approved by the Legislature, go straight to voters. They do not require Gov. Dayton's signature, so he cannot veto them.

Ritchie's critics urge court to reverse amendment title change

Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie's changes to the title that will appear over the marriage amendment on the fall ballot came under attack in papers filed with the state Supreme Court. Lawyers for Republican lawmakers and other backers of the amendment say Ritchie's changes will make voters less likely to approve the Constitutional amendment. They also argue that it's up to the Legislature - not the Secretary of State - to write the title. A hearing before the court is coming up later this month.