Watch Livestream Video from MN Supreme Court on Voter Photo ID, Gay Marriage Amendments

Starting at 9 a.m. Tuesday, justices hear arguments on the titles of Minnesota ballot amendments on voting requirements and same-sex marriage.

Watch live here, starting at 9 a.m. Tuesday, as the Minnesota Supreme Court hears oral arguments on competing versions of the titles of the two proposed constitutional amendments set to appear on the ballot in November.

Here are the titles for the two amendments, in versions proposed by the state Legislature and composed by Secretary of State Mark Ritchie.

Marriage amendment:

  • Legislature: "Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman."
  • Secretary of State: "Limiting the Status of Marriage to Opposite Sex Couples."

Voter Photo ID:

  • Legislature: "Photo Identification Required for Voting."
  • Secretary of State: "Changes to In-person & Absentee Voting & Voter Registration; Provisional Ballots."

Chief Justice Lorie Gildea consolidated two separate cases filed by Republican legislators against Ritchie, a DFLer, for the purposes of Tuesday's hearing.

She denied a petition Friday from lawyers for the Republican-led Legislature for more time to make their oral arguments, the St. Paul Pioneer Press reported.

"Titles are important because they give people a mind-set about what is in the amendment," University of Minnesota Law School constitutional law professor Fred Morrison told the Star Tribune. Morrison filed a brief in support of Ritchie's position, along with other law professors.

Click on the PDF thumbnails above to read briefs filed in the two cases online:

For other documents filed in the two cases click on the case names above.

Livestream video comes by way of The UpTake.

ABSG July 31, 2012 at 03:31 PM
Ritchie's titles/wording are/is simply confusing - whether or not he is trying to confuse the voter or not - the question on the ballot needs to be simplified. The original questions (wording) were straight forward and understandable. Further more a single person (Ritchie) should not the authority to be able to make such a change, just because he doesn't like it. The wording should be set in stone as it comes out of the legistlature. I find it ridiculous that Ritchie has this type of authority - that needs to change!
dsgdfhgf November 10, 2012 at 07:38 AM
roughly a month http://www.coachoutletonlineoe.com Coach Factory Outlet after the http://www.louisvuittonoutletam.net Louis Vuitton Outlet she received http://www.coachfactoryoutlethn.org Coach Factory Store a letter http://www.guccibeltsoutletds.net Gucci Belt reverse mortgage http://www.coachfactoryonlinefn.net Coach Factory Online Store informing her http://www.coachfactorystorecd.com Coach Factory Outlet that unless http://www.coachoutletb1.com Coach Factory Online she paid http://www.coachoutlethcs.com Coach Outlet Online she would http://www.coachoutletonlinegc.com Coach Online Outlet lose her home http://www.coachoutletuso.net Coach Factory Outlet Online in San Bernardino http://www.coachbagsoutletel.com Coach Bags Outlet the reverse http://www.coachoutletonlineef.org Coach Outlet Online mortgage deed http://www.coachfactoryonlineen.com Coach Factory Online she would http://www.coachfactoryoutletion.com Coach Factory Outlet have virtually http://www.hemesbelscq.com Hermes Belt no right http://www.coachoutletmls.com Coach Factory Outlet Online


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »