The Minnesota track record for amendments restricting individual rights — like the assault weapons ban the governor has floated — is not good.
Gov. Tim Walz has suggested a constitutional amendment to ban assault weapons in Minnesota. Odds of it passing in the Legislature, getting to the voters, passing and then withstanding Second Amendment challenges are slim. Yet what do we know about the history of constitutional amendments in the state?
While the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library states that there have been 213 proposed constitutional amendments to the state constitution since 1858, 217 were proposed to the voters, with 122 adopted. Until 1898, constitutional amendments required a majority of both houses in the Legislature to propose them to the voters, with a simple majority of those voting on the amendments to approve them.
In 1898 the amending process was changed, thereafter requiring a qualified majority of all who voted in a specific election to vote in favor of the amendment. Voting in the election but not voting on the amendment counted as a no vote. Amending the constitution was made more difficult because critics claimed special interests and groups were using the process to further their politics. Over time, interesting patterns have developed regarding when amendments have been offered and adopted.
During the 19th century, 73% of the 66 proposed amendments were adopted. After changes in the amendment process, in the Progressive Era — a period supposedly notable for significant social and economic reform in Minnesota and across the country — only 11 of 47, or 23%, of the amendments were adopted. Many amendments were offered during this time but few were accepted by the voters. Conversely, since WWII, and especially since the constitution was reorganized in 1974, 71% of all proposed amendments were adopted.
Constitutional amendments come in bunches. Many times in Minnesota history three, four or more amendments have been on the ballot at the same time. (The record came in 1914, with 13 amendments proposed and two adopted). Because of frequent amending, no definitive pattern emerges regarding whether they encouraged voter turnout, but there is no doubt that in their day proposals to let women vote or authorize gambling drove excitement and turnout.
Moreover, in years when more than one amendment appeared on the ballot, usually one dominated the public’s attention, sometimes damaging the prospects of the other amendments from passing.
The types of amendments proposed fall into four groups. There are structural amendments addressing the organization of government, such as the length of the legislative session, giving the governor the veto and regulating the size of the judiciary. Financial amendments include authorizing the state to impose taxes, bond, give special bonuses to military veterans and otherwise to spend money. Rights amendments deal with matters of individual rights, such as franchise and jury trials. Finally, regulatory amendments dealt with various aspects of regulating private corporations, such as the liability of their officers.
What do we learn about the content of the amendments proposed and passed? Clearly many addressed contentious issues of the time. No, they did not address abortion or guns and surprisingly none sought to ban alcohol sales. These are today’s hot button issues, or ones that we might consider contentious. But controversial is relative to the times, and amendments dealing with regulation of railroads during the robber baron era or giving women or Black people the right to vote were the headlines of the day.
Resorting to constitutional amendments as a populist political strategy has been a part of Minnesota politics from the beginning. But looking at the content of the amendments adopted, some interesting patterns emerge.
Among the 12 adopted amendments addressing individual rights, five of them expanded voting rights. In the entire history of the state, only one constitutional amendment, in 1896, restricted voting rights. Here it limited the practice in place until then that allowed aliens or non-citizens to vote in Minnesota. This practice encouraged and welcomed Scandinavians to Minnesota. Three other amendments also limited rights, addressing issues surrounding use of juries in civil and misdemeanors. The message is clear: Amendments to the constitution have generally expanded rights, especially voting, and not contracted them.
What does all of this suggest for Walz’s proposed assault weapons ban?
First, he needs a majority of both houses of the Legislature to pass the amendment. This is unlikely given the partisan divide and polarization in the House. No party has 68 votes on a straight party-line vote there to pass an amendment let alone move any legislation.
The same problem exists in the Senate with vacancies. Maybe now Walz and the DFL have buyers’ remorse resulting from them arguing and winning in the Minnesota Supreme Court earlier this year that a majority in either chamber was based on the total number of seats not the total number of currently occupied seats. This was the decision that prevented the GOP from securing quorum earlier this year when the House DFL did their walkout.
Second, think of the ban on assault weapons as an amendment addressing individual rights. Even if somehow the amendment did clear both chambers and went to the voters, the track record for amendments restricting individual rights is not good. For example, in 2012 Republicans placed on the ballot two amendments — one banning same-sex marriages and the other imposing an identification requirement when voting — and both failed when they went to the voters.
Third, even if this amendment were to pass, it would face clear constitutional challenges as a violation of the Second Amendment. While a federal ban once was enacted into law, the Supreme Court has become more protective of gun rights since then, questioning whether such a law would withstand constitutional scrutiny now.
But none of this may matter to Walz. At his best the assault weapons amendment might be a genuine and serious proposal to address gun violence. However, more death and destruction occur everyday with handguns compared to assault weapons. Moreover, by proposing this amendment, Walz leaves it up to the Legislature to act (since Minnesota governors do not have to sign off on amendments).
Walz gets to call for the amendment, and even if it fails he takes credit for calling for something that he has no responsibility for and which is likely to fail. In effect, he is calling for a policy change that is at best symbolic, perhaps helping his 2026 gubernatorial and potential 2028 presidential campaigns.
David Schultz is a distinguished professor of political science at Hamline University. He teaches in political science, legal studies and environmental studies.
This article first appeared on MinnPost and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License
