Laserfiche WebLink
00 <br />L,EAGUE oF <br />MINNESOTA <br />CITIES <br />CONNECTING & INNOVATING <br />SINCE 1913 <br />Common Questions on City Advocacy <br />For or Against Constitutional Amendments <br />May 2012 <br />Two proposed state constitutional amendments will be on the 2012 state general election ballot this <br />November, and some city councils have already passed resolutions expressing their positions on <br />one or both of the amendments. Other cities may have concerns about whether, and to what extent, <br />a city or its officials may express opinions or seek to influence the outcome of votes cast for or <br />against such ballot questions. <br />In order to assist cities the League has drafted answers to some frequently asked questions. This is <br />not intended to provide legal advice. Cities should consult with the city attorney for advice <br />concerning specific situations. <br />1. Can a city council adopt a resolution in support or opposition to a constitutional <br />amendment? <br />Yes. As elected officials, city councilmembers and mayors are free to express opinions, <br />individually or collectively, on matters of public interest. In a 2006 o�inion letter, the attorney <br />general stated the following: <br />`Public officials a�e gene�ally free, individually and collectively, to announce their views <br />on matters of public interest. Furthermore, it is not likely that local governments o� <br />associations can be precluded from taking and publicizing positions on such matters, even <br />in those circumstances where the matters are not within the jurisdiction of the gove�^ning <br />bodies. " <br />2. Can a city expend public funds to advocate support or opposition to a constitutional <br />amendment? <br />It depends. It has generally been held that, with limited exceptions, a city may not eXpend public <br />funds to seek to influence voters in an election. In a 2006 opinion, the attorney general stressed <br />that the use of taxpayer money to support one political position was improper because taxpayers <br />have differing opinions about almost any question. The public funds in question belong equally to <br />proponents and opponents of any ballot question. <br />The Minnesota Court of Appeals in Abrahamson v. St. Louis County School District, 802 N.W.2"a <br />393 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011) recently confirmed this view, stating, "We therefore hold that, although <br />a school district may expend a reasonable amount of funds for the purpose of educating the public <br />about school district needs and disseminating facts and data, a school district may not expend <br />145 UNiVERSiTY AVE. WEST [�tt�N�: fG5I1 �81-12dQ �.�x: f6Sli 281-129� <br />ST. PAL]L, MN 55103-2fl44 TC7LL FREE: ($Od) 925-11�2 WEB:lNWWLMC.�JRG <br />