Constitution of the state; technical changes made to certain terms in Article I to be consistent with language in Minnesota Statutes, and constitutional amendment proposed.
HF2694 proposes a constitutional amendment to update the Minnesota Constitution with technical, non-substantive wording changes intended to align older constitutional language with current statutory terminology. The bill replaces gendered pronouns and archaic terms such as “his,” “he,” and “man” with gender-neutral references like “the person,” “the member,” “the accused,” and “the governor,” while leaving the underlying legal rules unchanged. The amendment would revise numerous provisions across Article I and several other articles, including sections on criminal procedure, religious liberty, legislative procedure, executive powers, judicial qualifications, voting rights, impeachment, state funds, and agricultural licensing.
The bill also includes a severability clause stating that if any proposed change is found unconstitutional or otherwise more than inconsequential, that change is severed without affecting the rest of the amendment. The proposed constitutional question would be submitted to voters at the 2026 general election, asking whether the Minnesota Constitution should be amended to replace certain terms without changing legal effect.
If adopted, HF2694 would amend the Minnesota Constitution itself rather than ordinary statutes, modernizing the text across multiple articles without changing substantive rights, duties, or procedures. The practical legal effect would be limited to updating constitutional language to be more consistent with Minnesota Statutes and contemporary drafting conventions, while preserving existing constitutional standards on voting, criminal justice, executive authority, judicial administration, legislative process, and other topics. Because it is a constitutional amendment, the change would be binding statewide only if approved by voters in 2026.
The available record suggests the bill is largely technical and noncontroversial in purpose, since it is framed as a cleanup measure that makes the constitution’s language more consistent and inclusive without altering legal meaning. No committee transcripts or votes are provided, so there is no documented debate or recorded opposition in the supplied materials. The overall sentiment inferred from the bill text is neutral to favorable, with the proposal presented as a drafting modernization rather than a policy change.
The main potential point of contention is not the policy substance, but whether all of the wording changes are truly “inconsequential” and therefore appropriate for a single constitutional amendment. The bill anticipates that possibility by including severability language, indicating concern that a court or other challenge could find one or more changes to have legal significance. Another possible issue is the breadth of the amendment: although described as technical, it touches many constitutional provisions, which could prompt scrutiny over whether voters are being asked to approve a large package of revisions at once.