I'm confused, if its an amendment to constituion, how can it be unconstitutional, at unconstitional to the MN State constitution? Federally maybe, but if state constitution is so amended, isnt that then the constitution?

I'm from MN and I have this process. WE have no means of forwarding a referendum, like say California does, to get some legislation passed when legislature and governor cant deliver, but we have an easy way to get constituional amendment on ballot, legislator passes, governor has no veto and simple majority in ballot enshrines it as a part of our constitution...when really most of our recent amendment have nothing to do with basic rights (other than taking them away)these issues should generall be referendums..

Karen,

If a state constitution is amended in such a way that the amendment violates the voter's or citizens' rights, then that amendment, although passed by the voters, would be properly challenged in court. The court would rightly rule the amendment unconstitutional and it would be stricken from the state constitution.

Karen: The legal theory I've advanced here is that if a state has created a fundamental right, the people can not then deprive citizens of that fundamental right.

That was the basis for the 9th Circuit's decision in Perry. The right to marry is considered a fundamental right. However, there is no obligation on the part of a state to grant same sex couples the right to marry where it was never previously recognized the right.

In California, however, the right of same sex couples had been established before voters went to the polls and extinguished that right. That, the 9th Circuit ruled, was unconstitutional.

In MN, all citizens possess the right to cast a ballot without having to present a government-issued, Photo ID. That right is fundamental.

The question presented is whether a majority of MN citizens can extinguish the right to vote for the minority of citizens for whom the obtaining of the requisite Photo ID may be unduly burdensome, or, in some cases, virtually impossible.

I believe Karen's question stems from the issues of state constitutionality versus U.S. constitutionality. If we were not clear on those points above, perhaps we should review it to clarify where possible.

If a state amends its constitution to say, for example, that only white people can vote. That would be "constitutional" according to the state constitution, but unconstitutional as a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Good point, Brad. The problem with attorneys is that too often they write as if their audience was the judiciary or other attorneys, instead of the public at large.

Mea culpa!

Sorry this is off topic but I can't find anything in search regarding my question...
"Two USB keys missing from Elections Ontario contain the names, sex, voting histories and addresses of up to 2.4 million people."
Some news outlets say they were encrypted some say not so.
What could be done as far as the next Federal or provincial election if someone has the info?

http://news.ca.msn.com/o...may-affect-region-voters

But this is the state supreme court, so they can't overturn a state amendment anymore than the SCOTUS can overturn US 14th amendment (other than by narrow interpretation).

MN judge refers to federal standard which would be fine as precedent of reviewing legislation, implementation of law, but isnt it sort of powerless in regards to MN's court ruling, CA supreme court couldn't over turn gay marriage amendment, Fedreal courts may. Isn't Anderson's statement just meant to influence federal courts?

Also, I have little to no faith in MN court to do anything special or advancing civil rights...these guys are not like the IA court that ruled against ban on gay marriage

Karen @7 wrote:

But this is the state supreme court, so they can't overturn a state amendment anymore than the SCOTUS can overturn US 14th amendment (other than by narrow interpretation).

The U.S. Constitution, and especially the 14th amendment, limit the scope of a state's power. No state can deprive its citizens of a right which is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

The issue as to whether either legislation or a ballot measure violates the U.S. Constitution can be raised in state courts. As it pertains to federal questions, the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

State court rulings must comport to the limitations imposed on a state's power by the U.S. Constitution. State judges are not only empowered but legally obligated to ensure that neither a state's statutes nor the amendments to its state constitution violate the U.S. Constitution. However, because a state supreme court decision on a federal question can be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, that state supreme court decision is not necessarily the last word on the subject.

The intriguing feature here is that, per Crawford, the right to vote is not treated as a fundamental right under federal law. Likewise, the right for same sex couples to marry has not been treated as a fundamental right which all states must provide for.

However, in Perry, because the right of same sex couples to marry had been construed as a fundamental right by the California Supreme Court under the CA constitution before voters went to the polls, the U.S. 9th Circuit determined that Prop H8 violated the U.S. Constitution. CA voters did not have the right to strip same sex couples of a right that had theretofore been considered "fundamental."

Here, all parties are in agreement that the right to vote is fundamental under the MN constitution. Thus, the argument could be made, either in state or federal court, that the proposed Photo I.D. amendment to the MN constitution would violate a right of those citizens who lacked the requisite Government-issued, Photo I.D. Under the Perry rationale, a majority of MN voters should not be able to strip the minority of a voting right which had heretofore been considered as fundamental.

Thanks Ernest, great explanation, that clears it up....

This is an interesting discussion (above, on state vs. federal courts). However, I'm not sure Earnest's last post (#8) fully clarifies it.

My understanding is that the federal Constitution does NOT guarantee us a right to vote. This lawsuit is possible because the Minnesota STATE Constitution guarantees its citizens that right.

If I understand correctly, the federal right to equal protection says that if a state grants a right, it can't do so in discriminatory fashion.

So its the interplay of the state and federal constitutions that are important here. If the MN state constitution didn't have a right to vote provision to begin with, the equal protection clause of the federal constitution would not come into play (or at least the burden of proof would be different).

If I have this wrong, please explain.

Randy: The U.S. Supreme Court in Crawford did not treat voting as a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution. Many state constitutions treat voting as a fundamental right.

Likewise, there are no cases, as yet, that establish that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry. If they have never extended the right to marry to same-sex couples, a state is not obligated to do so.

What occurred in Perry, however, is that the CA Supreme Court ruled that under The Golden State's constitution established that same sex couples have a fundamental right to marry. What the 9th Circuit determined was that, once a state extended the fundamental right to marry to same-sex couples, the effort by voters to strip them of that right violated the U.S. Constitution.

What I am suggesting here is that if voting is regarded as a "fundamental right" in MN, then an effort by a majority of voters to strip a minority of voters of that fundamental right would, under the Perry rationale, violate the U.S. Constitution.