1 STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A12-0920 Original Jurisdiction League of Women Voters Minnesota; Common Cause, a District of Columbia nonprofit corporation; Jewish Community Action; Gabriel Herbers; Shannon Doty; Gretchen Nickence; John Harper Ritten; Kathryn Ibur, Petitioners, vs. Mark Ritchie, in his capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Minnesota, and not in his individual capacity, Respondent. Per Curiam Dissenting, Page, Anderson, Paul H., JJ. Dissenting, Anderson, Paul H., J. Filed: August 27, 2012 Office 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; and Laughlin 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.

 

2 Timothy P. Griffin, Liz Kramer, Leonard, Street and Deinard Professional Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Daniel 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, Saint Paul, 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 Election Integrity

 – 

 Minnesota. Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, David C. Brown, Senior Assistant County 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 (pro hac vice), ActRight Legal Foundation, Washington, D.C.; and J. Christian Adams (pro hac vice), Election Law Center, PLLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for amicus 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 Representative Mary Kiffmeyer.  ________________________ S Y L L A B U S 1. Permissive intervention of the Minnesota House and Senate is appropriate when 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.

 

3 2. 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 the Minnesota Constitution because it deprives voters of the constitutional right to cast a vote for or against the proposed constitutional amendment. 3. The ballot question on a proposed constitutional amendment implementing a photographic identification requirement for Minnesota voters is not so unreasonable and 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 N PER CURIAM. This action was brought under Minn. Stat. § 204B.44 (2010), seeking to correct an alleged 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 court is unanimous in concluding that petitioners are not entitled to this unprecedented relief.

1

 We express no opinion in this case as to the merits of changing Minnesota law to require

1

 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, the dissenters engage in fact-finding and go on at length about the alleged negative impact the change, if approved, may have on voting in Minnesota. Because the merits of the constitutional 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.