In court hearing, attorneys argue over ballot language for Minneapolis policing proposal

The attorney for a political committee pushing a proposal to replace the Minneapolis Police Department on Monday urged a judge to scrap part of the language set to appear on the ballot — while a lawyer for the city urged her to keep it.

In a 40-minute virtual hearing, Terrance Moore, an attorney for Yes 4 Minneapolis, argued that the city doesn't have the authority to add an explanation of the proposal to the November ballot, and that some of the wording city officials chose was "misleading."

Sarah McLaren, an attorney for the city, pushed back, saying "there is no daylight" between the wording that city officials planned to put on the ballot and the public safety proposal written by Yes 4 Minneapolis.

Hennepin County Judge Jamie Anderson provided little insight into which way she might be leaning in the case that is drawing national attention.

The future of the Minneapolis Police Department has become a central issue in November races, and national and local organizations have begun contributing money to new political committees seeking to sway the outcome.

Depending on when and how she rules, Anderson's decision in the case could have implications for other initiatives set to appear on the ballot — proposals that would change the power dynamics in City Hall and clear the way for Minneapolis to enact rent control measures.

The city has 10 days to submit language to the county for printing on the ballot, and early voting kicks off Sept. 17.

Earlier this year, Yes 4 Minneapolis circulated petitions gathering signatures to place a policing and public safety proposal before voters this fall. Then the mayor and City Council were to determine the wording that will appear on the ballot. They are required to present the question in an accurate and neutral way and often consult with city attorneys and the clerk's office.

The proposal written by Yes 4 Minneapolis would remove language in the city charter that requires Minneapolis to keep a police department with a minimum number of officers based on population.

The city then would be required to create an agency responsible for "integrating" public safety functions "into a comprehensive public health approach to safety." The new agency could have police "if necessary to fulfill the responsibilities of the department."

The proposal also would strike language from the charter that gives the mayor "complete power" over police operations, a move that likely would grant council members more sway over officers.

The mayor and council would decide how to design the new department and whether — and how — to employ police.

For the first time in city memory, officials also included an explanatory note providing more detail.

On Monday, Moore, the attorney for Yes 4 Minneapolis, asked the judge to strike that explanatory note but leave the rest of the question intact.

"This lawsuit is not one about the merits of the ballot question, your honor. This is about whether cities in Minnesota have powers beyond those expressly granted by the Legislature. Of course, they do not," Moore said.

Drawing comparisons to multiple court cases, including one that said cities don't have the ability to enforce traffic rules using cameras, Moore argued that the city couldn't include an explanatory note because the state hadn't expressly given cities that power.

Moore also took issue with two specific portions of the proposed explanatory note, including one that says the proposal would "remove from the Charter a Police Department, which includes the removal of its Police Chief" and another that says the plan removes the council's authority to impose additional taxes to fund police.

Of the line on taxing authority, Moore said, "what the city doesn't say here is that the city has many other means of funding its police function."

McLaren, the attorney for the city, said Moore's arguments don't take into account the fact that Yes 4 Minneapolis' proposal deletes language about the police chief's role from the city charter.

"It is in no way inaccurate for us to state what the actual linguistic changes to the charter would be," she said.

McLaren continued: "I believe he also took issue with the fact that we did not put in the note that there would be other funding mechanisms available to City Council. It's simply not in the language of the proposed amendment, these other funding mechanisms."

McLaren encouraged the judge to keep the explanatory note. She argued that state law gives the council "the sole authority to fix the form of the ballot" and that the explanatory note was necessary to ensure voters had "sufficient information" required under law.

If the judge decides to strike the explanatory note, McLaren asked her to send the issue back to city officials rather than setting the language herself.