Abstract
I. Introduction In a 2005 voting rights case, Kahn v. Griffin, 2 the Minnesota Supreme Court in essence developed a decision-tree 3 approach to decide issues of individual rights. This Article will examine Minnesota's approach to individual rights when those rights are protected under both the federal and state constitutions. It is timely that we examine this approach in 2007, the sesquicentennial of the adoption of the Minnesota Constitution. Minnesotans have traditionally prided themselves on being progressive, but practical and predictable. 4 Minnesota's decision-tree approach directs litigants to ask several questions, and follow the path dictated by the answers. More particularly, Minnesota's approach requires litigants and the court to ask a number of questions, each of which leads to a particular path dictated by either a "yes" or "no" answer. The path taken will determine if the Minnesota Supreme Court will (1) interpret its state constitution to be in conformity with the Federal Constitution and federal precedent; or (2) interpret its state constitution in a manner independent of federal precedent. The diagram below illustrates Minnesota's approach: [SEE DIAGRAM IN ORIGINAL] In essence, the Minnesota Supreme Court will independently interpret and apply the state constitution if either: (1) the state constitution protects a right that does not have an identical or substantially similar federal counterpart; or (2) there is an identical or substantially similar federal counterpart, but either the United States Supreme Court has made a sharp and radical departure from its precedent or federal precedent provides insufficient ...