MINNEAPOLIS — The Minneapolis City Council on Friday voted to set ballot language on a proposal that will determine the future of the city's Police Department — but the fight might not be done yet.
Mayor Jacob Frey quickly vetoed the council's proposed wording, saying it failed to inform voters about key aspects of the proposal, such as the removal of a minimum staffing requirement for police and a provision that could change oversight for officers.
"Minneapolis voters deserve essential information regarding the consequences of their decisions at the ballot box," the mayor wrote in his veto letter, stamped 12:03 p.m. Central time. "Denying our residents this basic measure of transparency is an affront to good governance. Regardless of where you stand on the substance of this proposal, these statements should not be controversial."
The council was set to return later Friday afternoon to discuss the veto. Council members could overturn the mayor's veto or leave it in place. If they uphold it, they'll need to quickly craft new language that receives support from seven council members and the mayor, or nine council members overall.
Under state law, city officials have until 11:59 p.m. Friday to finalize the wording and submit it to Hennepin County. If they miss the deadline, they risk being held in contempt of court.
Hennepin County elections officials said they do not recall any instances when a city missed the deadline.
The proposal has become a central issue in the November elections and is drawing national money and attention as people wait to see whether and how Minneapolis will fulfill a promise to transform public safety after George Floyd's murder.
The proposal was written by a new political committee called Yes 4 Minneapolis, but city officials are tasked with writing the precise question that will appear on the ballot.
At the center of the debate — and litigated in court this week — is a question of how much detail they should provide on the ballot.
Late last month, city officials approved a plan to ask voters if they want to change the charter "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."
Below that question, the ballot would have included a 198-word explanatory note that listed additional parts of the proposal, including some Frey said he wants mentioned.
Yes 4 Minneapolis filed a lawsuit challenging the city's use of the explanatory note, and last week, Hennepin County Judge Jamie Anderson ordered the city to remove it from the proposed ballot language. She said the city had the power to write such notes, but the language it chose was "problematic." She noted that the explanation was longer than the question itself.
The judge said "a voter could very well construe such a lengthy and detailed explanation as either an endorsement or a warning," but declined to speculate on whether the note would help or hurt the proposal's chances of success.
Council members voted 9-3 Friday morning to use the original question, without the note attached. Council Members Lisa Goodman, Linea Palmisano and Kevin Reich voted against. Council Member Alondra Cano was absent.
The council members who voted against using that language voted in favor of using another version the mayor pitched Thursday as a potential compromise.
That version would have asked voters if they want to amend the charter "to remove the Police Department, remove the funding requirement for a minimum police force and remove the position of Chief of Police, and replace it with a Department of Public Safety that employs a comprehensive public health approach to be determined by the Mayor and City Council, including licensed peace officers (police officers) if necessary, to fulfill its responsibilities for public safety."
During their public meeting Friday morning, some council members said they feared that language could be construed as the kind of warning the judge had told them to avoid.
We "do not have the right to include a cautionary note," Council President Lisa Bender said.
Goodman countered that the city attorney's office had told them that version wasn't "sufficient" and that they needed to clearly identify all the key pieces that would be added or removed from the charter.
"You should expect litigation on the other side of it, if we put forward language that does not admit all of the things that would happen as a result," she said.
Council Member Cam Gordon said he believed the wording was "absolutely adequate" to "clarify for everybody, 'Oh, this is the public safety charter amendment that they are voting for.' "
"It will be our responsibilities, no matter how we feel about that charter amendment, to help educate one another," he said.
Bender noted that Frey's proposed language only received votes from three council members, and they need more to approve the wording.
Some council members, in their public remarks, said they hoped leaders would work to reach a compromise Friday afternoon.
"I think that we're playing a ball (game) here that is very confusing as a new council member," Council Member Jamal Osman said. "I think we should be honest, and straightforward to voters. We should take the politics out of this. This is an important question."
———
