The ballot text in question:

"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 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 amendment being briefly indicated in the explanatory note below, which is made part of this ballot? Yes__ No__ "

Explanatory Note:

"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."

the old ballot text that was also struck down:

Shall the Minneapolis City Charter be amended to strike and replace the Police Department with a Department of Public Safety which could include licensed peace officers (police officers) if necessary, with administrative authority to be consistent with other city departments to fulfill its responsibilities for public safety?

To me, this doesn't seem complicated at all. The judge is going to block the ballot question regardless of the language, as they simply don't want this to come to a vote at all.

  • CthulhusIntern [he/him]
    ·
    3 years ago

    Ballots have no problem with complicated, confusingly-worded questions when it's stuff they want.

  • LibsEatPoop3 [he/him]
    ·
    3 years ago

    Not complicated at all. They’re just gonna use these excuses. Maybe a step by step approach could work? Such as first bring the PD under the City Council (if it isn’t already, idk), then remove the minimum funding etc.

    • Orannis62 [ze/hir]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Maybe a step by step approach could work? Such as first bring the PD under the City Council (if it isn’t already, idk)

      It's not. It's solely under the Mayor atm. And Frey, despite running on such things as ending homelessness, has turned out to be a neoliberal ghoul, who could ever have expected this?

      We have an abolitionist candidate for mayor though, Sheila Nezhad, and she's looking like she has a pretty decent shot.

  • HamManBad [he/him]
    ·
    3 years ago

    I love it. I wish it would be called the committee of public safety. Real Jacobin hours