News Release

News Release: Wanted: Alternative Constitutional Amendment

No New Texas!

Wanted: Alternative Constitutional Amendment

Contact: Robert S. Carney Jr., bob@RepublicanContract.com

(612) 824-4479 News groups: Daily; Law/Politics, College, Neighborhood

For immediate release

Minneapolis, MN, April 5, 2006 – An internet, ad and media campaign is promoting an alternative constitutional amendment. Rather than defining marriage in the state Constitution, the alternative amendment, published at RepublicanContract.com, provides a process to prevent judicial activism. The campaign is not sponsored by the state or national Republican party.

The amendment specifies a three-part process:

First, automatically stay, or delay, for one complete Legislative session and one General Election, any state court order that holds a Minnesota law unconstitutional.

Second, allow either the Legislature, or a petition of 50,000 voters, to place a clarifying amendment on the ballot.

Third, if the amendment is adopted, require the court to rehear the case using the new amendment as a guide.

“This approach doesn't single out any group,” said Carney. “Instead, it allows the people of Minnesota to give guidance to courts as to their Constitutional intent, whenever there is a question over what that intent might be.” If neither the Legislature nor a petition of voters challenged a court's ruling, it would become effective after the General Election was completed. Except for this built-in delay, the current process would be unchanged.

This constitutional approach is consistent with the RepublicanContract.com 'No New Texas,' theme. Recent court orders have allowed Minnesota judges more freedom to express views about legal issues. “This new freedom is good, but there is a danger that the Minnesota Judiciary may be caught in a political crossfire, and may become partisan, as the Texas judiciary already is,” Carney said. “If voters have the final say, there is less danger of people feeling that judges are interpreting the Constitution to force into law something that most people don't agree with,” Carney added.

The amendment text, and an article, are online at RepublicanContract.com

<End>

Note: the amendment text and article are also reprinted below:

A “Stop, Look, Listen” Amendment for Minnesota's Constitution

Some people have attacked the current effort to amend the Minnesota Constitution to protect marriage, saying it's unnecessary, or it would unfairly single out one group.

Others disagree, and say something like this: “Look at the history of 'activist court rulings.' It's too easy for judges to claim to discover constitutional rights that most or all people didn't have in mind, and wouldn't have accepted, when the constitution was agreed to. We need to make sure marriage doesn't fall victim to this process.”

Let's consider a possible “Stop, Look, Listen” amendment that might be agreeable to both groups. Here it is:

Whenever a state court holds a Minnesota law unconstitutional, the court's order shall be stayed until the completion of one full Legislative session, and one general election. During this time, in addition to the Legislative process for amending the Constitution, an amendment shall also be placed on the ballot if a petition for the amendment signed by 50,000 Minnesota voters is received by the Secretary of State no later than the first Monday after the first day of October prior to the general election. If any such amendment is approved, the court's order shall be vacated, and the case shall be heard again, with the approved amendment to be taken as the most relevant rule of construction for the case.

The Legislature shall implement this amendment through appropriate legislation, and may by law provide a process for consolidating multiple amendments if they are substantially consistent in effect.

To see how this would work, let's consider the hypothetical case of a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling that our current marriage law is unconstitutional. Here's what would happen:

First, the court's ruling would be frozen – it would have no effect until a complete Legislative session and a general election have been held.

Second, either the Legislature, or the people directly by petition, could put a clarifying amendment on the ballot.

Third, if an amendment passed, the court would rehear the case, with the explicit instruction that the court must take the new amendment as the most relevant rule for deciding the case.

If no amendment was brought forward, the court's order would take effect after the general election. Except for the delay, the process would work exactly as it works today.

Let's consider why this approach should be agreeable to supporters and opponents of the current proposed amendment to protect marriage.

For supporters of a proposed marriage amendment, “Stop, Look, Listen” would let them put an amendment on the ballot if necessary, but only if necessary, to ensure Minnesota's current marriage law isn't “overruled” by an activist court. Beyond this, “Stop, Look, Listen” would give all Minnesotans protection against any and all “activist court” rulings. Isn't this better than trying to pass “pre-emptive amendments” against a list of things a court might do?

Here's a question for opponents of the proposed marriage amendment: If you think the “marriage amendment” is unnecessary, why not agree to “Stop, Look, Listen?” It doesn't single out anyone. “Stop, Look, Listen” simply provides a way for Minnesotans to be sure they don't wake up some morning to be told that their Minnesota Constitution says something that most people never intended it to say.

Like all constitutions, the Minnesota Constitution is a contract. When a court is uncertain about the meaning of a contract, there are standard, accepted ways to consider what the parties to the contract intended. The “Stop, Look, Listen” amendment is simply a way for the people of Minnesota to state our constitutional intentions more clearly, whenever necessary, to help the courts carry out their constitutional duty of interpretation.