News from Minnesota: “The high court tossed out a lawsuit from left-leaning groups who argued that lawmakers had failed to give voters the full scope of the changes that would result from the amendment.  In a separate decision, the court also threw out ballot titles written by Secretary of State Mark Ritchie for the photo ID amendment and another amendment to ban gay marriage. Republicans had argued that Ritchie, a Democrat, overstepped his authority and was trying to influence voters to reject both amendments.”

The dissent in the first case begins:

PAGE, Justice (dissenting).

Bait and Switch: the ploy of offering a person something desirable to gain favor (as political support) then thwarting expectations with something less desirable.

Bait and Switch, Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com (last visited July 27, 2012). What we are dealing with here is a classic bait and switch.

From the court’s website:

SPECIAL RELEASE OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT

FILED AUGUST 27, 2012

A12-0920        League of Women Voters Minnesota; Common Cause, a District of
Columbia nonprofit corporation; Jewish Community Action; Gabriel
Herbers; Shannon Doty; Gretchen Nickence; John Harper Ritten;
Kathryn Ibur, Petitioners, vs. Mark Ritchie, in his capacity as Secretary
of State of the State of Minnesota, and not in his individual capacity,
Respondent.
Supreme Court.
1.   Permissive intervention of the Minnesota House and Senate is appropriate when the intervenors present common questions of law and fact with the present action.  Intervention of a nonprofit organization is inappropriate, however, when the entity’s only interest in the proposed constitutional amendment at issue is lobbying for passage and the entity’s interests will be adequately represented by the House and Senate intervenors.
2.   Minnesota Statutes § 204B.44 (2010), provides this court with subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim that a ballot question is so misleading that it violates the Minnesota Constitution because it deprives voters of the constitutional right to cast a vote for or against the proposed constitutional amendment.
3.   The ballot question on a proposed constitutional amendment implementing a photographic identification requirement for Minnesota voters is not so unreasonable and misleading as to be a palpable evasion of the constitutional requirement in Minn. Const. art. IX, § 1, that constitutional amendments shall be submitted to a popular vote.
            Petition denied. Per Curiam.
            Dissenting, Justices Alan C. Page and Paul H. Anderson.
            Dissenting, Justice Paul H. Anderson.

A12-1149        Warren Limmer, et al., Petitioners (A12-1149), vs. Mark Ritchie, in his
A12-1258        official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Minnesota, et al,
Respondents (A12-1149), and Mary Kiffmeyer, et al., Petitioners
(A12-1258), vs. Mark Richtie, in his official capacity as Secretary of
State of the State of Minnesota, et al., Respondents (A12-1258).
Supreme Court.
When the Legislature has included a title for a ballot question in the bill proposing a constitutional amendment, the “appropriate title” the Secretary of State must provide for that ballot question, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 204D.15, subd. 1 (2010), is the title designated by the Legislature.
            Per Curiam.
            Dissenting, Justices Alan C. Page and Paul H. Anderson.
            Dissenting, Justice Paul H. Anderson.