A Hennepin County judge will hear arguments Monday on a request to block officials from using the latest wording for a ballot question determining the future of the Minneapolis Police Department.
Judge Jamie Anderson scheduled an online hearing at 9 a.m. Monday in the case that raises concerns about whether the proposal could be blocked from the November ballot altogether.
Minneapolis officials have been embroiled in political and legal fights for more than a month over how to phrase a question on a proposal that has become the central issue in the first municipal races since George Floyd was killed by police.
"Something has to change, and it won't be a new chief, or new training, or getting rid of a few bad apples," said Kieran Knutson, president of the Communications Workers of America local 7250, at a union rally supporting the measure outside City Hall on Friday.
The hearing will happen four days before early voting is set to begin and as dueling campaigns are ramping up their work. Groups organizing against the amendment also are planning events in the coming days and weeks.
The measure, written by a political committee called Yes 4 Minneapolis, would clear the way for city officials to replace the Police Department with a new public safety agency. It removes the requirement for Minneapolis to keep a police department with a minimum number of officers and requires the city to create a new agency providing "a comprehensive public health approach to safety."
Attorneys have fiercely debated how to interpret those changes to the city charter and how to present a neutral question to voters. Groups on both sides have accused the other of spreading misinformation.
Three Minneapolis residents — businessman Bruce Dachis, nonprofit CEO Sondra Samuels and former City Council Member Don Samuels — who sued the city over a prior version of the ballot question, asked the judge on Wednesday to block it again.
They argue that the latest version, approved by city officials on Tuesday, is too similar to one the judge struck down that day.
Their attorney, Norm Pentelovitch, also asked the judge to prohibit city officials "from approving any ballot language … until a plan exists to implement the new department of public safety."
"The new ballot language glosses over the lack of a plan by telling voters that the 'specific functions [of the new department will] be determined by the Mayor and City Council by ordinance,' " he wrote. "That does not reveal to voters that there is no plan for such an ordinance — one of the reasons the Court held the prior ballot question could not be implemented."
Both Yes 4 Minneapolis and the city are fighting that request. Terrance W. Moore, an attorney for Yes 4 Minneapolis, argued that the request "is not supported by the law in Minnesota" and that it would be an "error" to require the city to create plans for the new department before a charter amendment passes.
"In fact, what Petitioners' claim to be a fatal error is in reality precisely what is supposed to happen when a proposed charter amendment is voted on; if approved, the City Charter is amended, meaning the City Council will then need to institute the correlating changes to the City Ordinance," Moore wrote in a court filing.
The city characterized the request as "a political effort to prevent this choice from being presented to voters during this election cycle."
In legal filings, attorneys presented conflicting arguments about whether state law requires the measure to be placed on the November ballot or whether it would permit the question to be pushed to a future election. They also debated whether the request had been made using the proper legal procedures.
Anderson could issue a decision during the Monday hearing, or she could choose to hand one down in writing at a later time. The side that loses could appeal.
The legal fights are unfolding at a time when campaigns urging people to vote for or against the proposal are ramping up their efforts.
On Friday, more than three dozen union members stood shoulder to shoulder outside City Hall to urge voters to support a measure they say would dismantle a system that has long oppressed Black people and replace it with a department that keeps people and families safe.
Longtime North Side resident Frank McCrary said he will work hard to remove a system that has left him and many others from his community with painful trauma and fear. McCrary said he grew up fond of the police. He ran to their squad cars when they showed up in the neighborhood passing out basketball and football cards. But by the age of 12, his attitude toward police changed drastically.
"All I knew from them was beating my friends and family and then it became me," said McCrary, 42, who works in hospitality and security in downtown Minneapolis. "Right now our whole system is based around harm response. We can and we must fix this."
Staff writer Faiza Mahamud contributed to this report.
Liz Navratil • 612-673-4994
