Minn. Marriage amendment language now set

Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Charlie Butts (OneNewsNow.com)

The controversy over the ballot language for Minnesota's marriage amendment has been settled by that state's highest court.

The state legislature approved a ballot title reflecting marriage to be between one man and one woman, but Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie chose different language that could have confused voters. The language approved by legislators read: "Recognition of marriage solely between one man and one woman." Ritchie wanted to change the language to read: "Limiting the status of marriage to opposite-sex couples."

Jordan Lorence of Alliance Defending Freedom tells OneNewsNow that the majority on the State Supreme Court ruled in favor of the legislature's language.

Lorence, Jordan (ADF)"And they basically rejected the unilateral efforts by [Ritchie] and the Minnesota attorney general [Lori Swanson] to insert a title that was more negative and would discourage people from voting in favor of the marriage amendment," the attorney explains.

The proposed constitutional amendment now will appear on the ballot as intended by the legislature.

"This is a great victory for accuracy," says Lorence, "and I also think for the people, because the best way to guarantee an accurate title is one that is a consensus of the state lawmakers and not just [that of] one or two elected officials."

In order to get a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot in Minnesota, the legislature must first pass it -- and that is where ballot title language is decided. The state high court ruled the constitution must be followed.

We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the article. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved.
Time for Voting Rights Act to go, says attorney

A conservative attorney says it's time for the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out the archaic Voting Rights Act, which has been used by the Obama administration as a battering ram against certain states trying to pass voter ID laws.