A21-1170

1
STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN SUPREME COURT

A21-1169
A21-1170

Hennepin County Gildea, C.J.
Took no part, Chutich, J.
Don Samuels, et al.,

Respondents,

vs. Filed: November 10, 2021
Office of Appellate Courts
City of Minneapolis, et al.,

Appellants,

Mark V. Chapin,

Respondent,

Yes 4 Minneapolis,

Appellant.
________________________

Joseph W. Anthony, Norman H. Pentelovitch, Cory D. Olson, Anthony Ostlund Baer &
Louwagie P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondents Don Samuels, et al.

James R. Rowader, Jr., Minneapolis City Attorney, Ivan Ludmer, Assistant City Attorney,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellants City of Minneapolis, et al.

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Rebecca L.S. Holschuh, Jeffrey M.
Wojciechowski, Assistant County Attorneys, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondent
Mark V. Chapin.

Terrance W. Moore, Thomas H. Priebe, Hel lmuth & Johnson, Edina, Minnesota, for
appellant Yes 4 Minneapolis.

Christy L. Hall, Gender Justice, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Naomi Kritzer.
________________________
2
S Y L L A B U S
The essential purpose of a proposed amendment to the Minneapolis City Charter is
communicated by the ballot question, and the language of the ballot q uestion is not so
vague and misleading as to constitute a palpable evasion of the requirement to submit the
proposed amendment to voters. The district court therefore erred in granting a petition to
correct the ballot under Minn. Stat. § 204B.44 (2020).
Reversed.
Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.

O P I N I O N

GILDEA, Chief Justice.
Respondents Don Samuels, Sondra Samuels, and Bruce Dachis (collectively,
Samuels) filed a petition in Hennepin County District Court under Minn. S tat. § 204B.44
(2020), to correct the language the Minneapolis City Council had approved for a question
that is on the ballot for the 2021 city election. The question asks voters whether to remove
the Police Department from the City Charter and replace it with a Department of Public
Safety that would be responsible for public safety functions.
The district court granted the petition under section 204B.44 on September 7, 2021,
enjoining the City of Minneapolis from putting the question on the ballot as then framed.
The City Council approved revised ballot language that same day. Samuels then moved to
amend the district court’s judgment and injunction to encompass the revised ballot
language and the next day filed a new petition under section 204B.44, asking the district
3
court to strike the revised question from the ballot. The district court granted th is motion
and the petition in an order filed on September 14, 2021, concluding that the revised ballot
language was complex , unreasonable, and misleading such that voters c ould not be
expected to understand the meaning or essential purpose of the proposed charter
amendment.
We granted the petitions for accelerated review filed by the City of Minneapolis 1
and Yes 4 Minneapolis. Given the impending start of early voting in Minneapolis, see
Minn. Stat. § 204B.35, subd. 4 (2020), we ordered the parties to file informal memoranda
on an expedited schedule, addressing the issues presented in the petitions for accelerated
review. On September 16, 2021, we filed an order that reversed the decision of the district
court. This opinion explains the reasons for our decision.
FACTS
Minneapolis is a home-rule charter city. See Minn. Stat. § 410.04 (2020) (allowing
a city to “frame a city charter for its own government”). Residents of a home -rule charter
city may seek to amend the charter by submitting a petition that complies with statutory
requirements. Minn. Stat. § 410.12 (2020) (explaining the requirements); see Jennissen v.
City of Bloomington , 938 N.W.2d 808, 813 (Minn. 2020) (explaining that residents of a
home-rule charter city can “change their form of city government” by amending the city
charter). If the petition i s sufficient, the “form of the ballot” is “fixed by the governing

1 The City appellants include the City Clerk , Casey Joe Carl , and the Minneapolis
City Council. Unless otherwise indicated, we refer to these appellants collectively as the
City. The Hennepin County Auditor, Mark Chapin, was a party in the district court
proceedings and is a respondent in this appeal.
4
body,” and the proposed amendment is “submitted to the qualified voters at a general or
special election.” Minn. Stat. § 410.12, subd. 4; see Minn. Const. art. XII, § 5 (stating that
proposed amendments to a city charter “ shall not become effective until approved by the
voters”).
The proposed amendment is presented to the voters in the form of a ballot question.
The ballot question must “be sufficient to identify the amendment clearly and to distinguish
the question from every other question on the ballot at the same time.” Minn. Stat.
§ 410.12, subd. 4; see also Minn. Stat. § 204B.36, subd. 3 (2020) (requiring a “concise
statement of the nature of the question” on a ballot).2
Appellant Yes 4 Minneapolis filed a petition with the City of Minneapolis in April
2021, which met the technical requirements to propose an amendment to the Minneapolis
City Charter: the petition had the required number of signatures, included necessary
identifying information, had the “text of the proposed amendment in full,” and included a
summary of th e proposed “new scheme or frame work of government.” Minn. Stat.
§ 410.12, subd. 1. The petition proposes to amend the Minneapolis City Charter by
removing “language that requires a police department” and funding for “a police force,”
and then “establish a new department of public safety responsible for integrating its public
safety functions into a comprehensive public health approach to safety, including licensed
peace officers if necessary to fulfill the responsibilities of the department.”

2 Under the Minneapolis City Charter, “the Minnesota election law applies to each
municipal election” unless it is inconsistent with charter provisions. Minneapolis City
Charter § 3.1(a); see Minn. Stat. § 200.01 (2020) (defining Minnesota Statutes chapters
200–206 and 208–211C as “the Minnesota Election Law”).
5
In July 2021, the Minneapolis City Council approved language to put the question
on the proposed amendment to the City Charter on the ballot for the November 2021
election in the city, including an explanatory note to accompany the question. Asserting
that the Cit y Council does not have the authority to include an explanatory note with a
ballot question, Yes 4 Minneapolis filed a petition in district court under Minn. Stat.
§ 204B.44 to correct the ballot by striking the explanatory note. The district court granted
this petition in part, concluding that the City has the authority to include an explanatory
note with a ballot question, but the language the City Council had adopted in that note was
“problematic.” Following this ruling, the City Council approved a revised ballot question
and explanatory note.
Samuels then filed a petition under section 204B.44 and a motion for a temporary
restraining order. Samuels asserted that the ballot language as revised was incomplete,
misleading, and failed to identify the essential purpose and effects of the proposed
amendment to the City Charter. Yes 4 Minneapolis and the City opposed Samuels’s
requested relief. After holding a hearing, the district court concluded that the revised ballot
language was vague, ambiguous, insufficient to identify the proposed amendment clearly,
and misleading. The district court therefore enjoined local election officials from placing
that language on the ballot.
The district court’s decision was filed on September 7, 2021. Later that day, the
City Council met and approved a different version of the ballot language, as follows:
Shall the Minneapolis City Charter be amended to remove the Police
Department and replace it with a Department of Public Safety that employs
a comprehensive public health approach to the delivery of functions by the
6
Department of Public Safety, with those specific functions to be determined
by the Mayor and City Council by ordinance; which will not be subject to
exclusive mayoral power over its establishment, maintenance, and
command; and which could include licensed peace officers (police officers),
if necessary, to fulfill its responsibilities for public safety, with the general
nature of the amendments being briefly indicated in the explanatory note
below, which is made a part of this ballot?

We refer to this ballot question as the current ballot language.3

The next day, September 8, 2021, Samuels filed a motion for relief under Minn. R.
Civ. P. 60.02, asserting that the current ballot language failed to address the numerous
ambiguities the district court had identified when concluding that the earlier revised ballot
language was vague and misleading. Samuels asked the district court to modify the
injunction and judgment entered on September 7 by encompassing the current ballot
language. On September 9, 2021, Samuels filed a new petition under sec tion 204B.44,
asserting that the ballot requires correction because the current ballot language failed to
clearly identify the essential purpose of the proposed charter amendment.
The district court held a hearing on Samuels’ s motions and petition on
September 13, 2021. In an order filed on September 14, 2021, the court concluded that the
current ballot language is misleading and thus failed to ensure that voters would understand
the essential purpose of the proposed amendment. The district court therefor e granted the

3 The current ballot language includes an explanatory note, which was not challenged
in the district court proceedings held after September 7, 2021, and the note is not at issue
in this appeal.
7
petition under section 204B.44 and enjoined local election officials from tallying, counting,
or considering votes cast on the ballot question.4
Appellants Yes 4 Minneapolis and the City of Minneapolis each appealed from the
district court’s September 14 order, and then filed petitions for accelerated review, which
we granted. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 118 (allowing a party to request accelerated review
of an appeal pending in the court of appeals).
ANALYSIS
There is no dispute that the petition to amend the Minneapolis City Charter met the
requirements set out in Minn. Stat. § 410.12, subd. 1 (regarding timing, required number
of signatures and eligibility of voters, required text for the proposed amendment, and a
summary of “the objects and purposes of the amendment proposed”), and therefore was
properly submitted to the City’s Charter Commission. Thus, t he question presented is
whether the current ballot language is “ ‘so unreasonable and misleading as to be a palpable
evasion of the constitutional requirement to submit the law to a popular vote. ’ ” Breza v.
Kiffmeyer, 723 N.W.2d 633, 636 (Minn. 2006) (quoting State ex rel. Marr v. Stearns ,
75 N.W. 210, 214 (Minn. 1898), rev’d on other grounds, 179 U.S. 223 (1900)). This is a

4 By this time, ballots had already been printed with the current ballot language and
were soon to be made available to voters who had requested an absentee ballot or w anted
to vote early. See Minn. Stat. § 204B.35, subd. 4 (requiring absentee ballots to be delivered
starting 46 days before the election). Under the district court’s injunction, the question
would remain on the ballot, but election officials would provide voters with a notice of
ballot change that instructed voters not to vote on the question and indicated that any votes
cast would not be counted or reported. At the request of the Hennepin County Auditor and
the City of Minneapolis, we relieved election officials of the requirement to provide the
notice of ballot change instruction to voters. Samuels v. City of Minneapolis ,
Nos. A21-1169, A21-1170, Order (Minn. filed Sept. 16, 2021).
8
legal question, subject to de novo review. See Clark v. City of Saint Paul , 934 N.W.2d
334, 339 (Minn. 2019).
The petition filed with the City proposes to “amend the Minneapolis City Charter to
remove language that requires a police department,” remove other language regarding the
police department, and “establish a new department of public safety” with the
responsibilities stated in the petition. The proposed amendments to the City Charter are
presented to the voters in the form of a ballot question. The current ballot language poses
the question to voters in this form:
Shall the Minneapolis City Charter be amended to remove the Police
Department and replace it with a Department of Public Safety that employs
a comprehensive public health approach to the delive ry of functions by the
Department of Public Safety, with those specific functions to be determined
by the Mayor and City Council by ordinance; which will not be subject to
exclusive mayoral power over its establishment, maintenance, and
command; and which could include licensed peace officers (police officers),
if necessary, to fulfill its responsibilities for public safety, with the general
nature of the amendments being briefly indicated in the explan atory note
below, which is made a part of this ballot?

The City argues that the district court erred in granting Samuels’s petition and
injunction motion because the City Council, which holds legislative power, Minneapolis
City Charter § 4.1(a), sets the “form” of the ballot question according to Minn. Stat.
§ 410.12, subd. 4. The City asserts that the current ballot language is sufficient to identify
the proposed amendment because voters are asked to decide whether to remove the Police
Department from the City Charter and replace it with a Department of Public Safety. The
“details” in the current ballot language, according to the City, are sufficient to identify the
proposed changes to the City Charter. The City argues that the district court’s concerns
9
were not about the language of the ballot question but about implementation issues if the
proposed amendment passes. Because it “faithfully executed its duty” to identify for voters
the changes to the City Charter sought by the amendment, the City argues the district
court’s decision must be reversed.
Similarly, Yes 4 Minneapolis asserts that the current ballot language identifies the
amendment clearly, distinguishes the question from other questions on the ballot, and
communicates the essential purpose of the proposed amendment. Even if the current ballot
language does not use the same words as the proposed amendment, Yes 4 Minneapolis
asserts that the language is not subject to correction because it is not so unreasonable and
misleading as to be a palp able evasion of the requirement to submit the proposed
amendment to voters.5
Samuels asserts that the district court correctly recognized that the current ballot
language is so vague and misleading as to rob voters “of their agency to make meaningful
decisions” about city governance. He contends that the “essential purpose” of the proposed
amendment, as stated in the petition submitted by Yes 4 Minneapolis, is to take away one
thing—the Police Department—and create another —a Department of Public Safety.
Nothing in the proposed amendments to the City Charter that are shown in the petition,

5 Citing to Minn. Stat. § 410.10 (2020), the City and Yes 4 Minneapolis a ssert that
the proposed charter amendment question must be submitted to voters at the
November 2021 election. The City decided to submit the question to voters at the
November election, and our decision in this appeal does not depend on that decision. We
note, however, that section 410.10 requires a vote “at the next general election” on a
“proposed charter,” id., subd. 1, while section 410.12 governs the process to vote on
amendments to an existing charter. See Minn. Stat. § 410.12, subd. 4 (requiring a proposed
amendment to a charter to be submitted to voters “at a general or special election”).
10
Samuels argues, requires a Department of Public Safety to “replace” any function or
responsibility of the existing Police Department—yet the current ballot language tell s
voters that the Police Department would be “replace[d]” with a Department of Public
Safety. Samuels asserts that telling voters the charter provisions that establish the Police
Department will be removed, without also explaining that the removed department will not
be replaced, is a “massive change,” a “misleading promise” to voters, and a failure to
accurately characterize the purpose and effect of the proposed amendment.
Our review of the language of ballot questions is highly deferential. See League of
Women Voters Minn. v. Ritchie, 819 N.W.2d 636, 646 (Minn. 2012) (referring to the “high
degree of deference” in our review); Breza, 723 N.W.2d at 636 (referring to the “high
standard set out in our precedent for finding a proposed constitutional amendment to be
misleading”). This deferential review necessarily imposes on the challenger a “rigorous”
standard. League of Women Voters Minn., 819 N.W.2d at 648. 6
Deference to legi slative judgment in this context also dictates that we avoid
substituting our judgment for word and form choices made in fixing the language of a
question that will be on a ballot. See State v. Duluth & N. Minn. Ry. Co. , 112 N.W. 897,

6 Relying on the language of Minn. Stat. § 410.12, subd. 4, which states that a ballot
question must be “sufficient to identify the amendment clearly,” the City argues that the
language of a ballot question need only allow voters to “clearly recognize which
amendment is being described.” Under this standard, the City argues, the current ballot
language is more than sufficient.
To the extent that t he City’s argument suggests that section 410.12, subdivision 4,
imposes a different standard on ballot questions for a city charter, we need not address this
argument because the City also embraces the standard set out in League of Women Voters
and Breza.
11
898 (Minn. 1907) (st ating that we will not “review the judgment and discretion of the
Legislature in prescribing the form and substance of the question to be submitted, simply
because . . . the question was not phrased in the best or fairest terms”). We do not judge
“the quality of the work” done by those charged with framing the question that will be put
before voters on a ballot, even if “badly done.” State ex rel. Andrews v. Beach, 191 N.W.
1012, 1012 (Minn. 1923); see also State ex rel. Marr v. Stearns, 75 N.W. 210, 214 (Minn.
1898) (declining to consider “whether the form of the ballot selected by the legislature is
the best and fairest that could have been framed by a trained lawyer”) , rev’d on other
grounds, 179 U.S. 223 (1900). Because the form and manner of submitting a ballot
question to voters is “left to the judgment and discretion” of the legislative body, we have
said the only “implied limitation” in the drafting process is that the question “must not be
so unreasonable and misleading as to be a palpable evasion of the constitutional
requirement to submit the law to a popular vote.” Stearns, 75 N.W. at 214. We will not
find a violation if the “clear and essential purpose” of a proposed amendment is “fairly
expressed” in the ballot question. Duluth & N. Minn. Ry. Co., 112 N.W. at 898–99.
For example, in League of Women Voters Minnesota, we acknowledged that the
language of the ballot question did not “ explicitly address” certain provisions of the
proposed constitutional amendment, did not “use the same words used in the amendment
itself,” and did not “list all of the potential effects of implementation,” which were
“failures” that could be “criticized.” 819 N.W.2d at 649, 651 (also describing the ballot
language as an “amalgamation” of various provision s). Nonetheless, these differences
between the proposed constitutional amendment and the ballot question did not make the
12
question misleading because the “essential purpose” of the proposed amendment was
communicated by the language of the question. Id. at 651 (also explaining that our “limited
role” does not encompass “second-guess[ing] the wisdom of policy decisions” made by the
Legislature); see also Breza, 723 N.W.2d at 636 (acknowledging that it was “possible that
some voters may misinterpret the language” of a ballot question but declining to conclude
that the language was unclear or misleading).
The current ballot language is longer than the question on the petition Yes 4
Minneapolis filed, and it does not track the language of the petition question precisely. For
example, the petition asks whether the City Charter should be amended “to remove
language that requires a police department,” (emphasis added), while the current ballot
language asks whether the City Charter should be amended “to remove the Police
Department.” Similarly, the petition asks whether “a new department of public safety”
should be “ establish[ed],” while the current ballot language says the Police Department
would be “replace[d] . . . with a Department of Public Safety.” (Emphasis added.) The
City Council could have chosen to mirror the language of the petition question more
closely, for example , by using “establish” rather than “repla ce” in describing the
Department of Public Safety. But we will not wordsmith the language of a ballot question,
even if “badly done.” Beach, 191 N.W. at 1012. We will defer to the judgment and
discretion exercised in drafting ballot language if the ques tion fairly communicates the
“essential purpose” of the proposed amendment, is not misleading or unreasonable, and is
not a palpable evasion of the requirement to submit the proposed amendment to voters.
Breza, 723 N.W.2d at 636.
13
We conclude that the cu rrent ballot language meets these standards. The essential
purpose of the proposed amendment to the City Charter is fairly communicated: references
to the Police Department will be removed from the City Charter and a Department of Public
Safety will be e stablished. Further, read as a whole, the current ballot language is not
misleading or vague —it states that the Department of Public Safety will use a
“comprehensive public health approach,” states that the Mayor and City Council will
decide on the “speci fic functions” of the new department, states that the new department
“will not be subject to exclusive mayoral power,” and directs voters to “the explanatory
note” that accompanies and is “part of” the ballot question. 7 These details expand on the
“remove” and “replace” clauses in the current ballot language and ar e a fair, reasonable
summary of the proposed amendments to specific sections of the City Charter that are
shown in the Yes 4 Minneapolis petition. See League of Women Voters Minn., 819 N.W.2d
at 649 (explaining that the challenged ballot question fairly captured the proposed
constitutional amendment even though it was “an amalgamation” of individual provisions
in that proposal).

7 The explanatory note states:

This amendment would create a Department of Public Safety combining
public safety functions through a comprehensive public health approach to
be determined by the Mayor and Council. The department would be led by
a Commissioner nominated by the Mayor and appointed by the Council. The
Police Department, and its chief, would be removed from the City Charter.
The Public Safety Department could include police officers, but the
minimum funding requirement would be eliminated.
14
Samuels views the “replace” term in the current ballot la nguage differently. He
asserts that what voters are told —the Police Department will be replaced with a
Department of P ublic Safety—is inconsistent with reality. He contends that the new
department will be a shell that may or may not have defined functions that may or may not
include those performed by the current Police Department. The district court
acknowledged that all the effects of a proposed amendment need not be included in the
ballot language, but relying on League of Women Voters Minnesota , 819 N.W.2d at 651,
noted that we said the meaning and effect of a proposed amendment may need to be part
of a ballot question to ensure that voters understand the essential purpose of a proposed
amendment.
In League of Women Voters Minnesota , the ballot ques tion for a proposed
constitutional amendment asked whether voters should be required to present “valid photo
identification.” 819 N.W.2d at 640. The proposed constitutional amendment would have
allowed a voter who could not provide that identification to cast a provisional ballot that
would be counted only if certified as required by law. Id. The petitioners, who sought
relief from our court under Minn. Stat. § 204B.44, argued in part that the ballot question
was misleading because it omitted “an ‘effect’ ” of the proposed amendment, specifically,
language explaining the provisional ballot process. 819 N.W.2d at 650. We clarified
references made in a prior case to the “meaning and effect” of a proposed amendment as
comments “made in the context of ensu ring that voters [are] able to understand the
‘essential purpose’ of [a] proposed constitutional amendment.” Id. at 651 (quoting Breza,
723 N.W.2d at 636 ). We stated that we do not “require, as a condition of upholding [a]
15
ballot question,” that “the effects of the amendment at issue be included on the ballot.” Id.
at 650–51; see also id. at 6 50 n.9 (stating that “our precedent does not require” that the
effects of a proposed amendment “be stated in the ballot question in order for that question
to pass constitutional muster”).
The changes in city governance that could result if the proposed ame ndment to the
Minneapolis City Charter is passed may well be dramatic, massive, and extensive, as
Samuels has argued. The City may well be criticized for failing to call out these impacts
in greater detail in the ballot language. See League of Women Voters Minn., 819 N.W.2d
at 651. Minneapolis voters, however, must judge whether that criticism is fair; we do
not “second-guess the wisdom of policy decisions” committed to a legislative body. Id.;
see also Jennissen, 938 N.W.2d at 816 (“Whether the proposed charter amendment and its
consequences are desirable is for the voters . . . to decide.”); Beach, 191 N.W. at 1012
(stating that even though the drafting may be “badly done, that is no reason why the [voters]
should not be given an opportunity to approve or disapprove of it”); Minn. Const. art. XII,
§ 5 (conferring on voters the right to approve proposed amendments to a city charter). The
essential purpose of the proposed amendment to the Minneapolis City Charter is fairly
communicated in the current ballot language, and the objections to that question simply do
not meet the high standard for us to conclude that the language is misleading, unreasonable,
or a palpable evasion of the constitutional requirement to submit the question to a vote.
See, e.g., League of Women Voters Minn. , 819 N.W.2d at 650–51; Breza, 723 N.W.2d at
636.

16
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the district court erred in granting the
petition under Minn. Stat. § 204B.44, to correct the ballot, and erred in granting an
injunction. We therefore reverse.
Reversed.

CHUTICH, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.