Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1


Ratings: (0)|Views: 33|Likes:
Published by jchristianadams

More info:

Published by: jchristianadams on Aug 27, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





1STATE OF MINNESOTAIN SUPREME COURTA12-0920Original JurisdictionLeague of Women Voters Minnesota;Common Cause, a District of Columbianonprofit corporation; JewishCommunity Action; Gabriel Herbers;Shannon Doty; Gretchen Nickence;John Harper Ritten; Kathryn Ibur,Petitioners,vs.Mark Ritchie, in his capacity asSecretary of State of the State of Minnesota, and not in his individualcapacity,Respondent.Per CuriamDissenting, Page, Anderson, Paul H., JJ.Dissenting, Anderson, Paul H., J.Filed: August 27, 2012Office of Appellate Courts
William Z. Pentelovitch, Richard G. Wilson, Justin H. Perl, Wayne S. Moskowitz,Alain M. Baudry, Catherine Ahlin-Halverson, Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand, LLP,Minneapolis, Minnesota;Teresa Nelson, American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota; andLaughlin McDonald (pro hac vice), American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Inc.,Atlanta, Georgia, for petitioners.Mark Ritchie, Secretary of State, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for respondent.Robert R. Weinstine, Thomas H. Boyd, Kristopher D. Lee, Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A.,Minneapolis, Minnesota, for intervenors-respondents.
2Timothy P. Griffin, Liz Kramer, Leonard, Street and Deinard Professional Association,Minneapolis, Minnesota; andDaniel B. Kohrman, AARP Foundation Litigation, Michael Schuster, AARP,Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae AARP.Sara R. Grewing, City Attorney, Gerald T. Hendrickson, Deputy City Attorney, SaintPaul, Minnesota, for amicus curiae City of Saint Paul.Mark A. Jacobson, Paul A. Banker, Kelly G. Laudon, Carrie Ryan Gallia, Lindquist &Vennum P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Citizens for ElectionIntegrity
Minnesota.Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, David C. Brown, Senior AssistantCounty Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Hennepin County
Attorney’s Office.
 Nathan J. Marcusen, Bowman and Brooke LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota;Zachary S. Kester (pro hac vice), Kaylan L. Phillips (pro hac vice), Noel H. Johnson (prohac vice), ActRight Legal Foundation, Washington, D.C.; andJ. Christian Adams (pro hac vice), Election Law Center, PLLC, Alexandria, Virginia, foramicus curiae Minnesota Majority.Erick G. Kaardal, William F. Mohrman, Mohrman & Kaardal, P.A., Minneapolis,Minnesota, for amici curiae State Senator Scott J. Newman and State RepresentativeMary Kiffmeyer.________________________S Y L L A B U S1. Permissive intervention of the Minnesota House and Senate is appropriatewhen the intervenors present common questions of law and fact with the present action.Intervention of a nonprofit organization is inappropriate, however, when
the entity’s only
interest in the proposed constitutional amendment at issue is lobbying for passage and the
entity’s interests will be adequately represented by the House and Senate intervenors.
32. Minnesota Statutes § 204B.44 (2010), provides this court with subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim that a ballot question is so misleading that it violates theMinnesota Constitution because it deprives voters of the constitutional right to cast a votefor or against the proposed constitutional amendment.3. The ballot question on a proposed constitutional amendment implementinga photographic identification requirement for Minnesota voters is not so unreasonableand misleading as to be a palpable evasion of the constitutional requirement in Minn.Const. art. IX, § 1, that constitutional amendments shall be submitted to a popular vote.Petition denied.O P I N I O NPER CURIAM.This action was brought under Minn. Stat. § 204B.44 (2010), seeking to correct analleged error in the preparation of the ballot for the general election. Specifically,petitioners seek to prevent the people of Minnesota from voting on the question of whether photographic identification should be required to vote in Minnesota. The courtis unanimous in concluding that petitioners are not entitled to this unprecedented relief.
 We express no opinion in this case as to the merits of changing Minnesota law to require
Where we part company with the dissenters is over the remedy and the scope of our review. Going well beyond the limited nature of the question presented here, thedissenters engage in fact-finding and go on at length about the alleged negative impactthe change, if approved, may have on voting in Minnesota. Because the merits of theconstitutional amendment are not before us, we take no opportunity to comment further
on the dissents’ factual conclusions and negative commentary on the merits and impact of 
the proposed constitutional amendment.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->