Amendment proposal to the Minnesota Constitution by making technical changes to certain terms in Article I to be consistent with language in Minnesota Statutes
SF656 proposes a constitutional amendment to update the Minnesota Constitution with gender-neutral and otherwise modernized terminology, largely replacing words such as “his,” “him,” and “man” with “the person,” “the accused,” “the governor,” or similar neutral phrasing. The bill does not appear to change substantive rights, duties, or procedures; instead, it revises wording across multiple constitutional provisions in Articles I, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, XI, and XIII to align the constitution’s language with current statutory drafting conventions.
The amendment would be submitted to voters at the 2026 general election. The ballot question states that the changes are intended to replace certain terms “without any consequential changes in its legal effect,” and the bill includes a severability clause so that if any individual change is found invalid or more than technical, the remaining changes can still be submitted or remain in effect.
If adopted, SF656 would amend numerous sections of the Minnesota Constitution by making technical, stylistic, and gender-neutral wording changes, but it would not alter the underlying legal standards for criminal procedure, voting, executive powers, judicial administration, or other constitutional topics addressed in the text. The bill would affect the constitutional text itself rather than Minnesota Statutes, and its practical impact would be limited to modernizing terminology and improving consistency across the constitution.
The available context suggests the bill is generally noncontroversial and technical in nature. There are no committee transcripts or recorded votes indicating opposition or debate, and the bill’s stated purpose is to make language consistent with Minnesota Statutes without changing legal effect. The overall framing implies broad procedural support for a housekeeping constitutional update rather than a policy dispute.
Because the proposal is presented as a technical cleanup measure, there is little visible contention in the provided materials. The main point that could draw scrutiny is the breadth of the amendment: it touches many constitutional provisions at once, including sections on criminal rights, elections, executive authority, and judicial administration. Even so, the bill explicitly says the changes are not meant to have consequential legal effects, and the severability clause appears designed to address any challenge to an individual wording change.