Minnesota Same-Sex Marriage Amendment, Amendment 1 (2012)

This Ballotpedia article needs to be updated.
This Ballotpedia article is currently under review by Ballotpedia staff as it may contain out-of-date information. Please email us if you would like to suggest an update.

---

Amendment 1
Type	Constitutional amendment
Origin	Minnesota State Legislature
Topic	Marriage
Status	d

A Minnesota Same-Sex Marriage Amendment, Amendment 1, was on the November 6, 2012 ballot in Minnesota as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, where it was defeated. The measure would have defined marriage in the Minnesota Constitution as between one man and one woman in the state.

Unlike previous, unsuccessful attempts to place a marriage amendment on the ballot, the 2012 measure may leave open the possibility of same-sex civil unions.

Aftermath

Following the public's defeat of the amendment, the legislature renewed a push to repeal the state's existing statutory ban on same-sex marriage. On May 14, 2013, Gov. Mark Dayton signed into law a bill that allows same-sex couples to officially marry beginning in August. The governor's signature came just one day after it was passed by the Senate, and about a week after the House's approval. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Karen Clark (D-62A) and Sen. Scott Dibble (D-61).

Election results

See also: 2012 ballot measure election results

Minnesota Amendment 1
Result		Votes	Percentage
d No		1,510,434	52.56%
Yes		1,399,916	47.44%

Results via Minnesota Secretary of State (dead link)

Text of measure

The question, along with the measure's ballot title, was presented to voters as follows:

Limiting the status of marriage to opposite sex couples.

"Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman."

• YES
• NO

Constitutional changes

The proposed amendment would add a section to Article XIII of the Minnesota Constitution. The section is as follows:

Section 13. Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota.

Background

The proposed measure was supported by Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer, Rep. Sondra Erickson and Sen. Paul Gazelka. According to reports, in 2005 Erickson and Gazelka joined other legislators in drafting a marriage amendment. The measure was approved in the House but stalled in the Senate.

Support

Although same-sex marriage was already illegal in the state, supporters stated that they hoped to reinforce this with the proposed measure. Pointing to the state of Iowa in which a similar ban was overturned by the Iowa Supreme Court in 2009, Sen. Paul Gazelka said, "I want to give the people of Minnesota the opportunity to protect the definition of marriage from activist judges."

Supporters

• Sen. Paul Gazelka
• Minnesota Catholic Conference
• 2012 presidential candidate & Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R)
• Minnesota Family Council
• Minnesota for Marriage
• Rep. Steve Drazkowski

Arguments

• The Minnesota Catholic Conference announced its support for the marriage amendment. A statement on the organization's website read, "This is our time to stand up and defend marriage as a unique institution that, from the beginning of human history and in every culture, is the union of one man and one woman for the propagation of the human family and the upbringing of children." Archbishop John Nienstedt reiterated the group's support, stating, "The Minnesota Catholic Conference, made up of the seven Catholic bishops from the state, supports this amendment not for prejudicial or political reasons, but rather for reasons that are theological, biological and pastoral." Archbishop Nienstedt's column in favor of the measure can be found here.

Minnesota Marriage Minute: Episode 1, 1-3-12

• Republican presidential candidate and Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann declared her support for the measure.

• State Rep. Steve Drazkowski said, "Without the marriage amendment in our constitution, activist judges can substitute their values for those of the people of Minnesota. In fact, a lawsuit to legalize same-sex marriage was heard recently in the Minnesota Court of Appeals. This is exactly what happened in Iowa, Massachusetts and California. Similarly, legislators can redefine marriage without the permission of the people, as several legislators have pledged to do...I strongly supported this legislation during the 2011 session, and when it comes time to cast your ballot a year from now, I’m hopeful you will do the same."

Campaign advertisements

See also: Minnesota Same-Sex Marriage Amendment (2012), supporters, TV ads

In early January 2012, Kalley King Yanta, a former anchor for a Minneapolis-based television station, joined the Minnesota for Marriage group to launch a series of videos - called the "Minnesota Marriage Minute" videos - regarding the proposed constitutional amendment. According to Episode 1, released on January 3, 2012, a new episode would be published every week. "The Minnesota Marriage Minute videos are an exciting opportunity to promote a respectful dialogue about the future of marriage in Minnesota," said John Helmberger, chairman of Minnesota for Marriage.

In November 2011, Minnesota for Marriage launched two videos.

Tactics and strategies

• The Minnesota Family Council has a project called "Minnesota Worldview Leadership Project" which sought "thousands of other Minnesotans who believe in God's design for marriage."
• Supporters of the proposed amendment operated a booth outside the Minnesota State Fairgrounds but in early September 2011 announced that they had secured a booth inside the Fair.

Campaign contributions

Supporters of the proposed measure Minnesota for Marriage have thus far raised $1.4 million.

Opposition

Minnesota Democrats had been vocal in opposing the proposed amendment, and a Change.org petition was made to encourage the party to fight the measure that could be placed on the ballot. According to the petition: "Please be clear about where the DFL Party stands on LGBT equality. Please express your concerns about the looming dangers to LGBT equality in Minnesota. Please call all DFLer’s in MN to become concerned and active for the equal rights of LGBT Minnesotan’s.”

The principal group in opposition of the amendment was Minnesotans United for All Families. According to Richard Carlbom, the campaign manager, the group's steering committee includes four legislators: Sen. Scott Dibble and Reps. Karen Clark, Tim Kelly, and John Kriesel.

Opponents

• Minnesotans United for All Families
• Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party
• Gov. Mark Dayton (D)
• Sen. Scott Dibble
• Rep. Karen Clark
• Rep. Tim Kelly
• Rep. John Kriesel
• President Barack Obama
• Bishop Peter Rogness of the St. Paul Area Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
• Mayflower Community Congregational UCC
• Minnesota AIDS Project
• Minnesota Conference of the United Church of Christ
• Minneapolis Area Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
• The Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
• Mayflower United Church in Christ
• Open Circle Church
• Shir Tikvah Synagogue
• Mt. Zion Temple
• Jewish Community Action
• Minnesota Atheists
• Duluth City Council
• St. Paul City Council
• Macalester College faculty and staff
• CEO of General Mills
• Minnesota Vikings player Chris Kluwe
• Thomson Reuters
• St. Jude Medical
• Minnesota Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics

The following are various collections of individuals or organizations that have made collectives statements about the measure:

• Thirty-five rabbis from the Minnesota Rabbinical Association signed a statement opposing the amendment in February, 2012.

• Fifty-three art organizations in Minnesota have come out endorsing the Minnesotans United for All Families campaign

Arguments

• Governor Mark Dayton (D) opposed the proposed amendment. Speaking at a gay rights rally, Gov. Dayton stated, "I'm here to support those Minnesotans and Americans who want the same rights, freedoms, opportunity, respect, dignity and legal protections and legal opportunities as every other one of their fellow citizens... which is the founding principle of this country!" On May 25, Dayton symbolically vetoed the measure, but since amendments do not require the Gov.'s signature, it will still appear on the ballot.

• President Barack Obama issued a statement opposing passage of the measure, but affirming that the issue should be dealt with at the state level.

• The Minnesota Independent Party announced is opposition to the same sex marriage amendment.

• On August 8, 2011, the Minnesota AFL-CIO voted unanimously to oppose the proposed amendment. Minnesota AFL-CIO President Shar Knutson said, "The labor movement is, and has always been about protecting and advancing the rights of all people. We will not stand by and allow discrimination to become part of Minnesota’s constitution."

• The Independence Party of Minnesota announced on August 23, 2011, that they are joining the campaign against the proposed amendment. Chair Mark Jenkins said, "Our platform declares that ‘We oppose having the government impose state-sponsored morality or values on people of good conscience with differing views. This is a perfect example."

• The Minnesota Association of Professional Employees (MAPE) board of directors voted unanimously on August 19, 2011, to oppose the proposed measure.

• On September 14, 2011, Duluth United For All Families (DUFAF) launched their efforts to defeat the proposed amendment. "We're also sort of in the early stages of this campaign so we really just calling out to get the choir together, if you will... the people who are going to come together and do the volunteer work with us," said Gary Anderson, a volunteer organizer with Minnesota United For All Families (MUFAF).

• Rep. John Kriesel said, "I'm a Republican baceause I believe in individual liberty and freedom. I think that this is an attack on that. I also think that this is an attack on a small minority of people in Minnesota."

• John Taft, CEO of RBC Wealth Management U.S., said he opposes the amendment he believes it would be bad for business. He said, "I truly do believe that keeping Minnesota competitive depends a great deal on attracting and retaining the best talent the world has to offer."

• On December 19, 2011, the Duluth City Council passed a resolution in opposition of the proposed state constitutional amendment.

• In a statement, media company Thomson Reuters expressed its opposition to the amendment on business grounds, saying, "We believe the Minnesota Marriage Amendment, if passed, would limit our ability to recruit and retain top talent,” several Minnesota-based company executives wrote in an email to employees."

Tactics and strategies

• "It’s Personal to Me Campaign" - according to reports is a campaign to persuade voters with personal stories about gays and lesbians in Minnesota who oppose the marriage amendment.
• Minnesotans United for All Families announced that they are holding training sessions on how to fight the ban. The group said they invite people to "unite with Minnesota's spiritual and religious communities in a campaign kickoff training to enhance voices of faith for marriage equality."
• On October 30, 2011 a rally was held in Minneapolis.
• On December 7, 2011 a rally was held at the University of Minnesota, Duluth. The rally was organized by the on-campus Minnesota Public Interest Research Group (MPIRG). Duluth Mayor Don Ness was there to support the efforts.

• Though it is legally ineffective, Gov. Mark Dayton vetoed the amendment when it arrived at his desk on April 9, 2012, as a form of protest against the measure. In a letter to the speaker of the House, Gov. Dayton said, "Although I do not have the power to prevent this unwise and unnecessary constitutional amendment from appearing on the Minnesota ballot in November, the Legislature has sent it to me in the form of a bill. Thus, I am exercising my legal responsibility to either sign or veto the amendment. I am vetoing the amendment and its title; I urge Minnesotans to reject it in November."

Campaign contributions

It was reported that Minnesotans United for All Families, leading opponents of the measure, had raised an estimated $4.6 million by June 2012. As of January 28 Marriage Equality Minnesota had contributed to the campaign with a donation of $85,000.

Campaign advertisements

On Tuesday, September 18, Minnesotans United for All Families aired its first ad against the amendment. The ad debuted on the internet, but was also shown later in the day on TV in Twin Cities and Duluth. The group says it plans to run the ad until election day.

Polls

See also: Polls, 2012 ballot measures

• A May 2-5, 2011 Star Tribune poll found that 39% of respondents supported the measure while 55% opposed it. The poll surveyed 806 Minnesota adults with a sampling error of +/- 4.7 percent.

• A May 23-24 SurveyUSA poll of 552 registered voters has found that 51% of respondents favored the marriage amendment. 40% of respondents opposed the measure. 8% reported that they would not vote on the measure and 2% were undecided.

• A New York Times projection of trends in same-sex marriage polling data has revealed mixed prospects for the Minnesota Amendment. Under the more conservative model, the amendment passes with 54% of the vote. Under a more accelerated model, the measure would fail, receiving only 49 percent of the vote.

• A November 2-3, 2011 Star Tribune poll found that 48% support an amendment, while 43% oppose and 9% are undecided. A total of 807 registered voters were polled. The survey had a margin of error of +/- 4.4 percentage points.

• A January 21-22, 2012, Public Policy Poll revealed that 48% support the amendment, while 44% are opposed and 8% are undecided. A total of 1,236 registered voters were included in the poll. The margin of error was +/- 2.8 percentage points.

• On February 9 results from a SurveyUSA poll conducted between January 31 and February 2 were released. Of the 542 polled, 10% said they were not going to vote on the amendment. The poll's margin of error is +/-4.3 percent.

• A May 31 - June 3, 2012, Public Policy Poll revealed that 43% support the amendment, while 49% are opposed and 8% are undecided. A total of 973 registered voters were included in the poll. The margin of error was +/-3.1 percentage points.

• On July 22, 2012, results from a SurveyUSA poll conducted between July 17 and July 19 were released. Of the 552 polled, 52% said they approved of the measure, 37% opposed it, 6% were undecided, and 5% said they were not going to vote on the amendment. The poll's margin of error is +/-4.3 percent.

• A poll conducted September 10-11, by Public Policy Polling, shows an even split in Minnesota voters. The poll found that 48% of voters currently support the ban, 47% oppose it, and the remaining 5% are undecided. The survey was given to 824 likely voters and has a margin of error of +/-3.4%. The amendment would add a ban on same-sex marriage to the state constitution.

• A poll conducted October 5-8, by Public Policy Polling, shows the amendment losing support of some Minnesota voters. The poll found that 46% of voters currently support the ban, 49% oppose it, and the remaining 5% are undecided. The survey was given to 937 likely voters and has a margin of error of +/-3.2%.

• A poll conducted November 2-3, 2012, by Public Policy Polling, shows the amendment trailing with Minnesota voters. The poll found that 45% of voters currently support the ban, 52% oppose it, and the remaining 3% are undecided. The survey was given to 1,164 likely voters and has a margin of error of +/-2.9%.

Legend      Position is ahead and at or over 50%     Position is ahead or tied, but under 50%

Date of Poll	Pollster	In favor	Opposed	Undecided	Number polled
May 2-5, 2011	Star Tribune Poll	39%	55%	7%	806
May 23-24, 2011	SurveyUSA Poll	51%	40%	10%	552
Nov. 2-3, 2011	Star Tribune Poll	48%	43%	9%	807
Jan 21-22, 2012	Public Policy Poll	48%	44%	8%	1,236
Ja. 31 - Fe. 2, 2012	SurveyUSA	47%	39%	4%	542
May 31 - June 3, 2012	Public Policy Poll	43%	49%	8%	973
July 17- July 19, 2012	SurveyUSA	52%	37%	6%	552
Sept. 10-11, 2012	Public Policy Polling	48%	47%	5%	824
Oct. 5-8, 2012	Public Policy Polling	46%	49%	5%	937
Nov. 2-3, 2012	Public Policy Polling	45%	52%	3%	1,164

Lawsuits

2012 measure lawsuits
By state
Arizona • Arkansas • Colorado • Florida • Maryland Michigan • Massachusetts • Minnesota Missouri • Montana • Nevada North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma Oregon • Rhode Island
By lawsuit type
Ballot text Campaign contributions Constitutionality Motivation of sponsors Petitioner residency Post-certification removal Single-subject rule Signature challenges Initiative process

On July 9, 2012, supporters of the amendment filed a lawsuit with the Minnesota Supreme Court suing Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie over his changing of the amendments ballot title. Supporters claim that Secretary Ritchie is illegally using his office to oppose the measure. On the subject, Sen. Scott Newman, a supporter of the amendment and prime author of the Minnesota Voter ID Amendment, said, "When I look at this, I just think it is very unfortunate that we have a secretary of state that is using his constitutional office for partisan, political purposes."

Campaign finance controversy

Under current Minnesota disclosure guidelines, corporations may donate to ballot measure campaigns without disclosing their own donors. In the case of the marriage amendment, organizations like Human Rights Campaign (against) and the National Organization for Marriage (for) are not required to reveal their donors when they contribute to ballot measure campaigns in Minnesota.

However, the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board met on June 14, 2011 to consider reversing its opinion on the policy. Notable proponents of the marriage amendment, the Minnesota Family Council and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), oppose the reversal, saying that it could open donors to intimidation and chill free speech. Counsel for the NOM, Josiah Neeley, argued that donations to ballot measures are distinct from other political contributions since, unlike politicians, they cannot be bribed or bought off.

Proponents of the change, like Common Cause Minnesota (dead link), argue that ballot initiative campaigns can affect broader political campaigns and that the public has a "right to know" the funding sources of political speech. Ultimately, the advisory opinions of the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board are not legally binding, but are seen as the Board's interpretation of existing law and do effect Board's disclosure guidelines. The Board has on several occasions asked the Legislature to clarify the statute.

Disclosure required

On June 30, 2011 the Minnesota Campaign Finance Board adopted a resolution that requires that corporations that donate to ballot measure campaigns disclose the names of large donors. According to reports, ballot measure campaigns already disclose their donors. The ruling impacts those groups that donate to the campaigns. Corporations that donate at least $5,000 to a campaign would now be required to release the names of those who contributed $1,000 or more.

On October 4, 2011 the board approved definitions and guidance in support of the June decision. The statement of guidance details how a ballot measure donation to an outside group should be disclosed and defines what constitutes a contribution, general donation and political fund.

The complete "statement of guidance" can be read here.

The first financial reports for the proposed marriage amendment are due at the end of January 2012.

Response

In response to the "statement of guidance" Minnesota for Marriage chairman John Helmberger said, "Minnesota for Marriage will disclose all donations we receive, as well as all expenditures that we make, consistent with longstanding Minnesota law. However, what [campaign finance board] bureaucrats are attempting to do goes well beyond what the law requires, substituting themselves for the Legislature in an illegal attempt to compel disclosure of information not required by law. We oppose such illegal regulations."

National organization, the National Organization for Marriage said, "The CFB cannot illegally force us to report information the law does not require."

In response to the disclosure debate The Free Press said in part, "Only with the full light of transparency can the public understand the political motivations behind the initiatives, thereby allowing the public the full arsenal of tools with which to make the most informed decisions in the voting booth."

Requirements upheld

On October 31, 2011 reports indicated that the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board may relax its policies on campaign disclosure for ballot measures. However, on November 1, 2011 the board voted to uphold the disclosure requirements. Although the request to relax the rules was defeated, the board agreed to move forward with more research on how to classify expenditures and if "expressed advocacy" should be included as an expenditure.

On December 8, 2011 the state campaign finance board amended the disclosure rules for campaign-style ads. If ads or other public communications mention the upcoming 2012 election then routine campaign finance reporting is required, however, if the ad or communication does not specifically mention the 2012 vote on a proposed amendment then less disclosure is required.

Complaint filed

On February 22, 2012, Common Cause Minnesota, an elections watchdog group, filed a complaint with the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board against the groups Minnesota for Marriage and Minnesota Family Council. The complaint accuses the two groups, both headed by John Helmberger, of violating state law by failing to properly disclose donors for their campaigns in support of the marriage amendment. According to Common Cause Minnesota's executive director, Mike Dean, "Minnesota law requires disclosure of campaign contributions because the public has a right to know what special interests are paying for political ads."

Chuck Darrell, a spokesman with Minnesota for Marriage, countered the complaints by saying that Mike Dean was "hardly an uninterested person," and was, in fact, trying to help the other side. Darrell further contested that, "Minnesota for Marriage has complied with all the guidance of the campaign finance board."

In early March, the state Campaign Finance Board agreed to investigate the complaints filed by Common Cause Minnesota.

Legislative bill to block vote

In the last week (the week of January 9, 2012) to introduce bills for consideration during the 2012 legislative session lawmakers introduced a bill regarding the November 2012 vote on same-sex marriage. The bill, if approved by lawmakers, would remove the proposed constitutional amendment from the ballot and block it from a public vote.

The bill's chief author was Rep. Karen Clark. According to reports, in the Minnesota State Senate the bill was to be represented by Sen. Scott Dibble.

The 2012 legislative session convenes on January 24, 2012.

The bill number was HF1885 and the bill text is available here.

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Minnesota Constitution

In order to refer proposed amendments to the ballot, they must be agreed on by a majority of the members of each chamber of the Minnesota State Legislature. Legislators introduced three bills proposing the ballot amendment. After winning approval in the Minnesota State Senate, Senate File 1308 was approved by the State House. Since the bill does not require the governor's approval, the proposed amendment moved directly to the 2012 ballot.

The three bills are as follows:

• Minnesota Senate File 1309
• Minnesota Senate File 1308 a
• Minnesota Senate File 1307

Timeline

The following is a timeline of events surrounding the measure:

Event	Date	Developments
SF 1308	April 27, 2011	Bill SF 1308 filed
Poll	May 23-24, 2011	A SurveyUSA poll found that 51% of respondents supported the measure while 40% opposed it.
Veto	May 25, 2001	Gov. Dayton symbolically vetoed the measure. Since amendments do not require the Gov.'s signature, it will still appear on the ballot.
Poll	May 2-5, 2011	A Star Tribune poll found that 39% of respondents supported the measure while 55% opposed it.
Approval	May 21, 2011	Measure sent to the ballot by Minnesota State Legislature.

Minnesota’s Defense of Marriage Act lawsuits

In July 2011 three same-sex couples - Duane Gajewski and Doug Benson, Lindzi Campbell and Jesse Dykhuis, John Rittman and Tom Trisko - filed an appeal to overturn Minnesota's Defense of Marriage Act.

The case was dismissed by a Hennepin County district court judge in March 2011 but it has since been filed with the Minnesota Court of Appeals in hopes that the case can be heard by the Minnesota Supreme Court. The Hennepin County judge argued said that first a 1971 case, Baker v. Nelson, must be overturned by the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs argue that the Baker decision does not apply because the 2011 case refers to recognizing marriages in other states.

Related measures

Voters approved ballot measures to define marriage as between one male and one female in the following 30 states. The first such measure was in 1998, and the latest one occurred in May 2012. Bans on same-sex marriage were invalidated in the 2015 United States Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges.

• 1998: Alaska
• 2000: Nebraska
• 2002: Nevada
• 2004: Arkansas
• 2004: Georgia
• 2004: Kentucky
• 2004: Louisiana
• 2004: Michigan
• 2004: Mississippi
• 2004: Missouri
• 2004: Montana
• 2004: North Dakota
• 2004: Ohio
• 2004: Oklahoma
• 2004: Oregon
• 2004: Utah
• 2005: Kansas
• 2005: Texas
• 2006: Alabama
• 2006: Colorado
• 2006: Idaho
• 2006: South Carolina
• 2006: South Dakota
• 2006: Tennessee
• 2006: Virginia
• 2006: Wisconsin
• 2008: Arizona
• 2008: California
• 2008: Florida
• 2012: North Carolina

See also

• Minnesota 2012 ballot measures
• 2012 ballot measures

Articles

• Minnesota lawmakers file bill to block vote on same-sex marriage ban
• Minnesota board releases guidelines for ballot measure donor disclosure
• Minnesota board requires donor disclosure, including marriage amendment
• Disclosure guidelines may affect marriage battle
• Minnesota marriage amendment makes 2012 ballot
• Protests against Minnesota same-sex marriage ban proposal peaking
• Recently elected Minnesota lawmakers propose a same-sex marriage amendment

External links

• Minnesota Senate File 1308

Campaign links

• "It's Personal to Me" campaign - official site and Facebook page (opposition)
• Minnesotans United for All Families (opposition)
• Why Minnesotans oppose the Same-Sex Amendment (opposition)

Additional reading

• Work Day Minnesota, "Unions mobilize to stop amendment banning same-sex marriage," January 28, 2012
• MinnPost.com, "Minnesota Chamber of Commerce to stay out of marriage amendment battle," December 13, 2011
• Minnesota Public Radio, "A year before marriage vote, both sides play defense," November 4, 2011
• SCTimes.com, "Few Fortune 500 companies in Minn. take stand on marriage amendment," October 23, 2011
• The Minnesota Independent, "Minnesota for Marriage sees momentum in NY, NH, NC wins," September 20, 2011
• The American Independent, "Many churches, religious leaders donated to Minnesota anti-gay marriage amendment effort," July 8, 2011 (dead link)
• Christian Post, "Minnesota Next Battleground for Homosexual Marriage," June 29, 2011
• The Washington Post, "More showdowns loom in gay-marriage debate, notably over 2012 Minnesota ballot measure," June 27, 2011
• Lake Minnetonka Patch, "Who Will Put Cash into Marriage Amendment?" June 24, 2011
• Minnesota Public Radio, "Dayton pushes for same-sex marriage at Capitol rally," April 14, 2011
• Minnesota Public Radio, "Same-sex marriage opponents say time is right for amendment," December 6, 2010
• MinnPost, "Memos in NOM suit reveal anti-gay-marriage strategies," April 4, 2012

Campaign disclosure

• Associated Press, "More disclosure possible for Minn.esota ballot measures," November 2, 2011
• The Minnesota Independent, "Battle beginning over campaign finance and the marriage amendment," October 19, 2011