stating that one objective of separate vote requirement is to “prevent imposition upon or deceit of the public by the presentation of a proposal which is misleading or the effect of which is concealed or not readily understandable”
How later courts described this case
- stating that one objective of separate vote requirement is to “prevent imposition upon or deceit of the public by the presentation of a proposal which is misleading or the effect of which is concealed or not readily understandable”
- explaining that the separate vote requirement in the state constitution requires courts to assess whether there is a "rational relationship in purpose, plan, or subject of two or more propositions"
- upholding a constitutional amendment, submitted as a single measure, permitting the state legislature to extend legislative terms and allowing legislators to serve as notaries and seek election to other offices, because the provisions were rationally related to a single subject; court rejected a strict functional relationship test under which "propositions that may be separately submitted without being incomplete shall be submitted separately"
- noting, that in close cases, “the controlling consideration is the deference due the legislative judgment that this is a proper proposal to amend the constitution”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Knutson, Justice
(concurring specially).
In deference to the opinions of a majority of my colleagues I reluctantly concur in the result. I can see no rational relationship between the two sections that would be amended by the adoption of this proposal. Obviously the people should have a right to express their opinions on each separately. I fear that what we are doing is to nullify Minn. Const, art. 14, § 1. However, amendments of whole articles of our constitution 7 have gone unchallenged in the past and rather than jeopardize what the people have heretofore approved it seems the lesser of two evils to uphold what is here proposed.
See, for instance, amendment of art. 6, proposed by L. 1955, c. 881, and adopted on November 6, 1956, which deals with the judiciary.