Minnesota Electronic Data Protection Amendment (2016)
From Ballotpedia - Reading time: 5 min
| Minnesota Electronic Data Protection Amendment | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 8, 2016 | |
| Topic Constitutional rights | |
| Status Not on the ballot | |
| Type | Origin |
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? |
” |
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 |
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]
See also[edit]
External links[edit]
Additional reading[edit]
Footnotes[edit]
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Minnesota Legislature, "HF 327," accessed February 3, 2015
- ↑ 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 - ↑ St. Paul Pioneer Press, "Data privacy amendment forges odd coalitions," February 16, 2015
- ↑ Minnesota Legislature, "HF 327 Status," accessed February 3, 2015
- ↑ Minnesota Legislature, "SF 32 Status," accessed February 16, 2015
- ↑ Minneapolis Star Tribune, "Coalition of lawmakers, advocates push for amendment protecting electronic data," February 16, 2015
- ↑ Minneapolis Star Tribune, "State Constitution must protect electronic data of its residents," March 12, 2015
| |||||||||||
 |
State of Minnesota St. Paul (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | 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 |
EncycloReader
is supported by the 
KSF