The twists and turns continue when it comes to a Minneapolis ballot question on the future of policing in the city. The Minnesota Supreme Court has now overturned a district judge's decision, and will not require the city of Minneapolis to include ballot inserts explaining what the question means.
The question asks voters if they want to replace the city's police department with an overarching department of public safety. However, the validity of the question itself is still up in the air.
Minneapolis City Clerk Casey Carl explained to WCCO what that means for the city ballots with early voting set to start Friday morning.
“The Supreme Court has issued a partial order which informs the city and county elections officials that we should not be providing the notice that was required under the District Court order to voters,” said Carl. “The notice that was required by the District Court would have informed voters that any ballots that had markings related to the second city question, which is the public safety proposal, would not be tabulated and would not be counted. So there's a multiple part to the District court's order. The only part so far that has been struck down by the Supreme Court relates to the requirement to give that notice to voters. That question number two from the city related to a proposed Public Safety Department would not be counted. They have not however indicated whether or not the question will be allowed to be referred to voters and if voters mark their ballots, if those ballots will be counted.”
In simplest terms, the question will remain on the ballot, early voters can vote on the issue, but there is still no ruling on whether or not that vote will even matter pending the ultimate ruling on the question. It leaves the voters in confusing territory which Carl says legally is in limbo.
“I think that's an accurate assessment of where we are right now legally,” Carl told WCCO’s Laura Oakes. “Legally I think we're still in a little bit of a gray territory where the ballots do have this question printed on them already. Those ballots will be issued to voters starting at 8:00a.m. tomorrow, the first day of early voting as required under state law. What's unclear is whether or not, if a voter were to mark their choice on that question, if it would be counted, if we are actually going to be allowed to have that question processed as part of this year's election or not. That piece yet to be decided by the Supreme Court.”
Related
Carl is telling voters to vote, but they’re trying to let them know ultimately they’re not sure if it will count.
“It can't hurt someone to mark their choice on the ballot,” says Carl. “We still of course have to be honest with voters that we don't know whether or not their choices will be part of the official election. And until the Supreme Court makes that determination, that question is not referred to voters, the District Court order still stands. So the question is perhaps technically on the ballot, but we are still enjoined by the district court order from counting tabulating or reporting any results.”
Carl does say it is possible the Supreme Court will still take action Thursday on the ballot question so that early voting can proceed with confidence.
Hamline University Professor of Political Science Dr. David Schultz told WCCO that the court is in a tough place because of the unclear language on the question, and without enough time to actually change that language.
Schultz also says that this makes it very difficult for voters to make an educated decision on where Minneapolis goes from here.
“The courts really stuck with a combination of really bad choices to do at this point,” Schultz says. “And at this point it's really leaving the voters in the election process up to saying that, listen, we're going to at least for now let the process potentially continue. But it may turn out that we change our mind and don't allow the voting to occur or we change something. I think it's unlikely that they're going to change the wording. I think it's really going to come down to do they allow it or not allow it?”