Judge rejects ballot question to scrap Minneapolis PD
A judge has rejected the latest version of a proposed charter amendment on the future of policing in Minneapolis
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A judge on Tuesday rejected an attempt to salvage a proposed charter amendment on the future of policing in Minneapolis, ruling just days before early and absentee voting begins in the city where George Floyd died in police custody that any votes on the question won't count.
Hennepin County District Judge Jamie Anderson said the new language “does not ensure that voters are able to understand the essential purpose of the proposed amendment. It is unreasonable and misleading.”
An 11th-hour appeal is expected. The Yes 4 Minneapolis campaign, which spearheaded the pro-amendment campaign, petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court ahead of time to hear an accelerated appeal in case it lost.
The proposal has its roots in the “defund the police” movement, which gained momentum after Floyd’s death last summer sparked protests, civil unrest and a national reckoning on racial justice.
The City Council updated the language last week, just hours after Anderson ordered earlier wording off the ballot because it was “vague, ambiguous and incapable of implementation.”
The ballots are currently at the printer. Anderson's order allows ballots containing the question to be used, but prohibits election officials from counting the votes on the issue.