ST. PAUL -- The state's highest court probably will decide if voters get to weigh in on the only proposed constitutional amendment in the Nov. 7 election.
Minnesota Supreme Court justices heard arguments Wednesday over a petition brought by mostly rural elected officials who want a transportation funding ballot question stripped from the election.
Attorney Doug Peine told the seven justices that the ballot question should be removed because the wording will confuse voters and it does not adequately explain the potential ramifications of the amendment. "It's not clear enough for an informed vote of the electorate," Peine said.
During the hearing, ju-stices posed sharp questions to Peine about the petitioners' intent and whether the court even has authority to block this vote.
Justice G. Barry Anderson said the ballot question is "not a model of draftsmanship," but he wondered what the petitioners find problematic.
ADVERTISEMENT
The ballot question asks whether the Minnesota Constitution should be amended to dedicate all state tax revenue from the sale of new and used vehicles to transportation. Nearly half the money currently goes to other uses.
The question says at least 40 percent of the total revenue would go to public transit and not more than 60 percent would be directed to highways.
What it doesn't explicitly tell voters, Peine argued, is that all of the money could go to transit.
"That is the hidden key here," he said.
Legislators passed the proposed amendment in 2005. Some lawmakers tried unsuccessfully earlier this year to change the wording so that highways were guaranteed 60 percent of the revenue.
The petition was filed Oct. 5. The court gave no indication when it would rule on the petition. Absentee voting already has begun in Minnesota but petition supporters say if the court rules in their favor, election judges could simply tell voters not to answer the ballot question.
Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Raschke said the petition could have been submitted long ago. Its supporters are trying to prevent a vote because they want more money for highways, he said.
Justice Alan Page seemed to allude to that in a question directed at Peine.
ADVERTISEMENT
"Isn't this just a back-door way to challenge the amendment?" Page asked of the argument that the ballot wording is confusing. "Isn't that the practical effect?"
Peine repeatedly mentioned newspaper articles and television news reports he said didn't fully explain the proposed amendment, or did so inaccurately.
