Minnesota Electronic Data Protection Amendment (2016)

Minnesota Electronic Data Protection Amendment

Election date
November 8, 2016
Topic
Constitutional rights
Status
Not on the ballot
Type
| Origin

* * *

## Contents

* 1 Text of measure
* 1.1 Ballot title
* 1.2 Constitutional changes
* 2 Support
* 2.1 Supporters
* 2.1.1 Officials
* 2.1.2 Organizations
* 2.2 Arguments
* 3 Path to the ballot
* 4 Similar measures
* 5 See also
* 6 External links
* 7 Additional reading
* 8 Footnotes

The Minnesota Electronic Data Protection Amendment was not on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Minnesota as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment. The measure would have added "electronic communications and data" to the Minnesota Constitution's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.[1]

## Text of measure[edit]

### Ballot title[edit]

The proposed ballot title was:[1]

“  |

Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended so that the people are secure in their electronic communications and data from unreasonable searches and seizures as they are now likewise secure in their persons, homes, papers, and effects?
Yes.....
No.....[2]

| ”

|
|

### Constitutional changes[edit]

See also: Article I, Minnesota Constitution

The proposed amendment would have amended Section 10 of Article I of the Minnesota Constitution. The following ~~struck-through~~ text would have been deleted and the underlined text would have been added by the proposed measure's approval:[1]

Sec. 10. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, and in their electronic communications and data, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched ~~and~~ , the person or things to be seized, and the electronic communications or data to be accessed.[2]

## Support[edit]

The amendment drew supporters from across the political spectrum, with Sen. Petersen (R-35) noting, "There won’t be many opportunities for you to see a group this ideologically diverse and bipartisan."[3]

### Supporters[edit]

#### Officials[edit]

The following state legislators sponsored the amendment:[4][5]

* Rep. Peggy Scott (R-35B)
* Rep. John Lesch (D-66B)
* Rep. Tony Albright (R-55B)
* Rep. Cindy Pugh (R-33B)
* Rep. Eric Lucero (R-30B)
* Rep. David Bly (D-20B)
* Sen. Branden Petersen (R-35)
* Sen. Dave Thompson (D-58)
* Sen. D. Scott Dibble (D-61)
* Sen. David M. Brown (D-15)
* Sen. John Marty (D-66))

#### Organizations[edit]

* Minnesota Coalition on Government Information[6]
* American Civil Liberties Union
* Occupy Minnesota
* Minnesota Tea Party Alliance
* Liberty Minnesota

### Arguments[edit]

Howard Bass, former president of the Minnesota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, argued the state constitution should be amended in order to adapt the document to the changing circumstances related to citizens' civil liberties. He elaborated:

“  | American constitutions fulfill two principal roles: establishing a governmental structure and preserving citizens’ civil liberties. They also provide an amendment process to adapt to changing circumstances over time. A proposed constitutional amendment, pending before the Minnesota Legislature, provides a much-needed 21st century update for our state’s Constitution...

As we have entered the digital age over the past quarter century, technology has advanced at a staggering pace. Our law has failed to keep pace with these technological advances, however, at the expense of our privacy and civil liberties...

Generally, I agree with Sen. Latz that legislating by amendment is a bad idea because legislation that neither establishes a governmental structure nor preserves citizens’ civil liberties does not belong in a constitution. Yet the proposed data privacy amendment is not mere legislation; it belongs in our Constitution because it preserves our civil liberties by preventing the government from accessing electronic communications and data without a search warrant...

The only way to ensure that the government does not have access to our digital information without a warrant is to amend our Constitution to add “electronic communications and data” to the right of the people to be secure in their “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” as Missouri did last year, when a similar measure passed with 75 percent of voter support. Were the framers of our Constitution alive today they would undoubtedly support the data privacy amendment.[2]

| ”

|
|

—Howard Bass[7]

## Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: Amending the Minnesota Constitution

A simple majority vote in both chambers of the Minnesota State Legislature was required to refer this amendment to the ballot.

## Similar measures[edit]

* Missouri Electronic Data Protection, Amendment 9 (August 2014) a

## See also[edit]

| Suggest a link

|

* Minnesota 2016 ballot measures
* 2016 ballot measures
* Minnesota Legislature

## External links[edit]

* HF 327
* SF 32

## Additional reading[edit]

* Minneapolis Star Tribune, "Lawmakers split over putting data privacy in the Minnesota Constitution," February 3, 2015

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Minnesota Legislature, "HF 327," accessed February 3, 2015
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content
3. ↑ St. Paul Pioneer Press, "Data privacy amendment forges odd coalitions," February 16, 2015
4. ↑ Minnesota Legislature, "HF 327 Status," accessed February 3, 2015
5. ↑ Minnesota Legislature, "SF 32 Status," accessed February 16, 2015
6. ↑ Minneapolis Star Tribune, "Coalition of lawmakers, advocates push for amendment protecting electronic data," February 16, 2015
7. ↑ Minneapolis Star Tribune, "State Constitution must protect electronic data of its residents," March 12, 2015

v • e

2016 ballot measures

I&R States|

Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Wyoming

Non I&R States|

Alabama • Georgia • Hawaii • Indiana • Kentucky • Maryland • Minnesota • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New York • North Carolina • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • Texas • Vermont • Virginia • West Virginia • Wisconsin

Political topics|

Adult entertainment • Alcohol • Assisted death • Banking • Bond issues • Business regulation • Campaign finance • Civil and criminal trials • Civil rights • Constitutional language • County and municipal governance • Death penalty • Definition of a corporation • Education • Elections and campaigns • Energy • English language • Environment • Firearms • Food and agriculture • Forests and parks • Gambling • Government accountability • Healthcare • Hunting and fishing • Labor and unions • Law enforcement • Lottery • Marijuana • Minimum wage • Prisons • Property • Redistricting • Religion • Salaries of government officials • School choice • State and local government budgets, spending and finance • State executive officials • State judiciary • State legislature • Suffrage • Taxes • Tort law • Transportation • Treatment of animals • Veterans • Wages and pay

Other|

Scorecard • Petition drive deadlines and requirements • Polls • Lawsuits • Potential measures • Ballot Measure Monthly • Changes in 2016 to laws governing the initiative process • Not on the ballot • Signature costs • Cost per required signatures analysis • Campaigns • Campaign contributions • Campaign finance • Endorsements • Voter guides

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

* * *

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond
External Relations:  Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

* * *

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams, Managing Editor of Events • Joseph Greaney, Managing Editor of Policy • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Victoria Edwards • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Brandon McCauley • Andrew McNair • Ellie Mikus • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Heather Yates

v • e

State of Minnesota
St. Paul (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2026 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government |

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy