 | |||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
Minnesota Marriage Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||
| Results | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||
  
| |||||||||||||||||||
| Sources: [1] [2] | |||||||||||||||||||
| Elections in Minnesota |
|---|
 |
Minnesota Amendment 1 (also called Minnesota Marriage Amendment [3] or Minnesota Gay Marriage Amendment [4] ) was a legislatively referred constitutional amendment proposed to ban marriage between same-sex couples in the state of Minnesota, that appeared on the ballot on November 6, 2012. It was rejected by 51.19% of voters. [5]
On May 11, 2011, the Minnesota Senate passed a bill to place a proposed amendment to the state constitution on the ballot that would ban same-sex marriage. The vote was 37–27, with all Republicans and one Democrat voting for the amendment. An identical bill was passed by the House on May 21; the vote was 70–62 with two Democrats and all but four Republicans voting for the amendment. [6] The proposed amendment was on the ballot on November 6, 2012. [7] The proposed amendment read: "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota." It did not refer to civil unions or domestic partnerships. [8] The question being presented to voters on the ballot read: "Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?" [8]
 | This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (October 2012) |
In March 2012, Minnesota's Roman Catholic bishops had an audience with Pope Benedict XVI, who told them that preserving the traditional definition of marriage was a priority. Roman Catholic Archbishop John Nienstedt of St. Paul and Minneapolis organized leaders of different religious denominations in support of the amendment and committed his own church to spend $650,000 on behalf of its passage. In September he joined other religious leaders in a demonstration in support of the amendment at the State Capitol. [9] The Minnesota Catholic Conference Marriage Defense Fund contributed more than half the $1.2 million raised by Minnesota for Marriage, the principal organization supporting the amendment, including $130,000 from the Knights of Columbus, a national Catholic organization. [10]
Immediately after the Minnesota legislature voted to put Amendment 1 on the ballot, Outfront Minnesota and Project 515, two groups working for LGBT rights in the state, formed Minnesotans United for All Families – the main campaign organization that would work to defeat the amendment. Over the course of a year and a half, Minnesotans United would raise and spend over $12 million, more than double the pro-amendment side. [11] More importantly, the Minnesotans United campaign formed a coalition group of allies with almost 700 member organizations that included political parties, labor unions, veterans, civic groups and businesses like General Mills. [12] [13] The board and staff of the campaign reflected the same kind of diversity as its coalition partners and even included prominent Republicans. [11] Drawing on lessons learned from past campaigns in other states, Minnesotans United did not cede the religious ground – it hired a faith director to reach out to communities of faith, and more than 100 of its coalition members were churches and other faith groups from around the state. [14]
The centerpiece of the Minnesotans United for All Families campaign became its huge grassroots effort to have conversations with the voters about marriage. Rather than focus on equal rights and fairness, as was done in previous campaigns, Minnesotans United and its thousands of volunteers, had personal conversations over the phones and face to face about how marriage had the same importance and meaning for both straight and same-sex couples. [14] This messaging strategy, which was also used in the campaign's ad campaign, helped move conflicted voters and resulted in Minnesota being the first state, after 30 attempts, to defeat a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. [11] Minnesotans United is likely the biggest grassroots campaign in the state's history, having had 27,000 volunteers knock on over 400,000 doors and make over 900,000 phone calls in the final eight days of the campaign [15]
The Minnesota arm of President Obama's presidential re-election campaign announced his opposition to this proposed constitutional amendment in April. [16] Advertisements in opposition to the amendment also featured Minnesota Vikings football player Chris Kluwe. [17]
Various public opinion surveys of Minnesota residents have asked questions regarding same-sex marriage. The questions vary, with some surveys referring directly to proposed Amendment and others asking more general questions.
| Date of opinion poll | Conducted by | Sample size | For amendment | Against amendment | Undecided/Other | Margin of error | Question |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 2–5, 2011 [18] | Star Tribune | 806 adults | 39% | 55% | 7% (Don't know/refused to answer) | ±4.7% | "Please tell me if you would favor or oppose amending the Minnesota constitution to ban same-sex marriage." |
| May 23–24, 2011 [19] | SurveyUSA | 552 RV | 51% | 40% | 2% not sure 8% not vote | ±4.3% | "If an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution were on the ballot, that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, would you vote FOR the amendment? Against the amendment? Or not vote on the measure?" |
| May 27–30, 2011 [20] | Public Policy Polling | 1,179 voters | 46% | 47% | 7% not sure | ±2.9% | "Should the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?" |
| October 17–26, 2011 [21] | St. Cloud State University Survey | 626 LV | 43.6% | 47.4% | 9% | ±5% | "Should the Minnesota constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?" |
| November 2–3, 2011 [22] | Princeton Survey Research Associates International | 807 adults | 48% | 43% | 8% (Don't know/refused to answer) | ±4.4% | "Would you favor or oppose amending the Minnesota constitution to allow marriage only between a man and a woman?" |
| November 2–7, 2011 [23] | SurveyUSA | 543 RV | 46% | 40% | 4% not sure 10% not vote | ±4.3% | "If an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution were on the ballot, that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, would you vote FOR the amendment? Against the amendment? Or not vote on the measure?" |
| January 21–22, 2012 [24] | Public Policy Polling | 1,236 voters | 48% | 44% | 8% not sure | ±2.8% | "Should the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?" |
| January 31 – February 2, 2012 [25] | SurveyUSA | 542 RV | 47% | 39% | 4% not sure 10% not vote | ±4.3% | "An amendment to the Minnesota Constitution on the ballot defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Will you vote FOR the amendment? Against the amendment? Or not vote on the measure?" |
| May 31 – June 3, 2012 [26] | Public Policy Polling | 973 voters | 43% | 49% | 7% not sure | ±3.1% | "Should the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?" |
| July 17–19, 2012 [27] | SurveyUSA | 552 LV | 52% | 37% | 6% not sure 5% not vote | ±4.3% | "An amendment to the Minnesota Constitution on the ballot defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Will you vote FOR the amendment? Against the amendment? Or not vote on the measure?" |
| September 6–9, 2012 [28] | SurveyUSA | 551 LV | 50% | 43% | 8% | ±4.3% | "Also on the ballot is a ballot measure about marriage. It asks: Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?" |
| September 10–11, 2012 [29] | Public Policy Polling | 824 LV | 48% | 47% | 5% not sure | ±3.4% | "Should the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?" |
| September 17–19, 2012 [30] | Mason-Dixon Polling and Research, Inc. | 800 LV | 49% | 47% | 4% | ±3.5% | "Another [amendment on the November ballot] asks "Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage in Minnesota?" If the election were held today, would you vote: "YES", in favor of the amendment; "NO", against the amendment." |
| October 5–8, 2012 [31] | Public Policy Polling | 937 LV | 46% | 49% | 5% not sure 1% won't vote | ±3.2% | "Should the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?" |
| October 12–14, 2012 [32] | SurveyUSA | 550 LV | 47% | 46% | 7% | ±4.3% | "Also on the ballot is a ballot measure about marriage. It asks: Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?" |
| October 15–21, 2012 [33] [34] | St. Cloud State University Survey | 600 LV | 44% | 51% | 5% | ±5% | "The second proposed amendment to the Minnesota Constitution asks "Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman be valid or recognized as marriage in Minnesota?" If you were to vote today would you vote for the amendment, vote against the amendment, or not vote on this issue?" |
| October 23–25, 2012 [35] [36] | Mason-Dixon Polling and Research, Inc. | 800 LV | 48% | 47% | 5% | ±3.5% | "Another ballot question asks "Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage in Minnesota?" If the election were held today, would you vote: YES in favor of the amendment; NO against the amendment" |
| October 26–28, 2012 [37] | SurveyUSA | 574 LV | 48% | 47% | 5% | ±4.2% | "Also on the ballot is a ballot measure about marriage. It asks: Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?" |
| November 1–3, 2012 [38] | SurveyUSA | 556 LV | 47% | 48% | 5% | ±4.2% | "Also on the ballot is a ballot measure about marriage. It asks: Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?" |
| November 2–3, 2012 [39] | Public Policy Polling | 1,164 LV | 45% | 52% | 3% not sure 0% won't vote | ±2.9% | "Should the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?" |
| Choice | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|
 No | 1,510,366 | 51.19 |
| Yes | 1,399,675 | 47.44 |
| Invalid or blank votes | 40,398 | 1.37 |
| Total votes | 2,950,780 | 100.00 |
| Source: [40] | ||
| County | No | Votes | Yes | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aitkin | 38.2% | 3,428 | 61.8% | 5,699 |
| Anoka | 49.4% | 90,468 | 50.6% | 94,690 |
| Becker | 37.1% | 5,848 | 62.9% | 10,364 |
| Beltrami | 48.9% | 10,563 | 51.1% | 11,334 |
| Benton | 44.6% | 8,606 | 55.4% | 10,943 |
| Big Stone | 32.9% | 887 | 67.1% | 1,888 |
| Blue Earth | 54.2% | 18,291 | 45.8% | 15,796 |
| Brown | 33.6% | 4,604 | 66.4% | 9,312 |
| Carlton | 48.1% | 8,758 | 51.9% | 9,632 |
| Carver | 49.9% | 25,953 | 50.1% | 26,552 |
| Cass | 38.1% | 5,996 | 61.9% | 10,041 |
| Chippewa | 36.9% | 2,252 | 63.1% | 3,944 |
| Chisago | 43.1% | 12,459 | 56.9% | 16,815 |
| Clay | 49.5% | 13,903 | 50.5% | 14,652 |
| Clearwater | 29.1% | 1,168 | 70.9% | 3,000 |
| Cook | 60.1% | 1,978 | 39.9% | 1,334 |
| Cottonwood | 30.0% | 1,759 | 70.0% | 4,143 |
| Crow Wing | 40.2% | 13,770 | 59.8% | 20,954 |
| Dakota | 55.4% | 125,705 | 44.6% | 103,250 |
| Dodge | 41.4% | 4,199 | 58.6% | 6,096 |
| Douglas | 36.4% | 7,474 | 63.6% | 13,436 |
| Faribault | 35.1% | 2,668 | 64.9% | 5,046 |
| Fillmore | 43.4% | 4,609 | 56.6% | 6,196 |
| Freeborn | 40.0% | 6,518 | 60.0% | 10,097 |
| Goodhue | 47.6% | 12,079 | 52.4% | 13,583 |
| Grant | 36.1% | 1,226 | 63.9% | 2,241 |
| Hennepin | 65.3% | 433,803 | 34.7% | 237,084 |
| Houston | 42.3% | 4,256 | 57.7% | 6,066 |
| Hubbard | 38.1% | 4,310 | 61.9% | 7,185 |
| Isanti | 39.0% | 7,742 | 61.0% | 12,391 |
| Itasca | 44.3% | 10,412 | 55.7% | 13,392 |
| Jackson | 31.2% | 1,665 | 68.8% | 3,785 |
| Kanabec | 35.5% | 2,828 | 64.5% | 5,281 |
| Kandiyohi | 37.2% | 7,774 | 62.8% | 13,523 |
| Kittson | 33.6% | 780 | 66.4% | 1,629 |
| Koochiching | 46.2% | 2,910 | 53.8% | 3,504 |
| Lac qui Parle | 32.3% | 1,257 | 67.7% | 2,711 |
| Lake | 49.0% | 3,268 | 51.0% | 3,496 |
| Lake of the Woods | 36.1% | 769 | 63.9% | 1,436 |
| Le Sueur | 42.4% | 6,163 | 57.6% | 8,559 |
| Lincoln | 29.8% | 879 | 70.2% | 2,211 |
| Lyon | 38.0% | 4,628 | 62.0% | 7,725 |
| McLeod | 34.3% | 6,218 | 65.7% | 12,253 |
| Mahnomen | 38.6% | 807 | 61.4% | 1,350 |
| Marshall | 28.2% | 1,119 | 71.8% | 3,541 |
| Martin | 32.4% | 3,466 | 67.6% | 7,465 |
| Meeker | 35.5% | 4,264 | 64.5% | 7,937 |
| Mille Lacs | 39.3% | 5,053 | 60.7% | 8,004 |
| Morrison | 32.1% | 5,228 | 67.9% | 11,424 |
| Mower | 43.2% | 7,818 | 56.8% | 10,603 |
| Murray | 29.0% | 1,337 | 71.0% | 3,419 |
| Nicollet | 53.0% | 9,595 | 47.0% | 8,670 |
| Nobles | 25.7% | 2,035 | 74.3% | 6,393 |
| Norman | 37.0% | 1,132 | 63.0% | 2,050 |
| Olmsted | 51.0% | 39,053 | 49.0% | 38,525 |
| Otter Tail | 33.5% | 10,202 | 66.5% | 21,180 |
| Pennington | 38.6% | 2,444 | 61.4% | 4,030 |
| Pine | 37.8% | 5,216 | 62.2% | 8,756 |
| Pipestone | 24.4% | 1,092 | 75.6% | 3,539 |
| Polk | 35.4% | 4,951 | 64.6% | 9,547 |
| Pope | 36.5% | 2,242 | 63.5% | 3,991 |
| Ramsey | 63.5% | 172,197 | 36.5% | 102,069 |
| Red Lake | 32.3% | 617 | 67.7% | 1,356 |
| Redwood | 30.5% | 2,330 | 69.5% | 5,455 |
| Renville | 33.7% | 2,549 | 66.3% | 5,145 |
| Rice | 53.7% | 17,025 | 46.3% | 15,010 |
| Rock | 26.6% | 1,218 | 73.4% | 3,579 |
| Roseau | 30.1% | 2,115 | 69.9% | 5,185 |
| Scott | 51.1% | 35,951 | 48.9% | 35,212 |
| Sherburne | 43.7% | 19,953 | 56.3% | 26,306 |
| Sibley | 31.3% | 2,379 | 68.7% | 5,404 |
| St. Louis | 55.9% | 63,663 | 44.1% | 51,272 |
| Stearns | 47.0% | 36,309 | 53.0% | 41,849 |
| Steele | 44.4% | 8,339 | 55.6% | 10,685 |
| Stevens | 44.3% | 2,463 | 55.7% | 3,163 |
| Swift | 39.1% | 1,847 | 60.9% | 3,293 |
| Todd | 28.8% | 3,311 | 71.2% | 8,448 |
| Traverse | 33.8% | 602 | 66.2% | 1,238 |
| Wabasha | 40.8% | 4,698 | 59.2% | 7,011 |
| Wadena | 30.4% | 1,981 | 69.6% | 4,769 |
| Waseca | 40.2% | 3,873 | 59.8% | 5,877 |
| Washington | 55.3% | 77,108 | 44.7% | 63,767 |
| Watonwan | 36.4% | 1,828 | 63.6% | 3,295 |
| Wilkin | 31.4% | 967 | 68.6% | 2,222 |
| Winona | 53.0% | 14,132 | 47.0% | 12,884 |
| Wright | 44.0% | 29,259 | 56.0% | 38,157 |
| Yellow Medicine | 34.5% | 1,835 | 65.5% | 3,572 |
The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), also referred to by proponents as the Marriage Protection Amendment, was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would legally define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. The FMA would also prevent judicial extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples.
Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions of several different types passed, banning legal recognition of same-sex unions in U.S. state constitutions, referred to by proponents as "defense of marriage amendments" or "marriage protection amendments." These state amendments are different from the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which would ban same-sex marriage in every U.S. state, and Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act, more commonly known as DOMA, which allowed the states not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. The amendments define marriage as a union between one man and one woman and prevent civil unions or same-sex marriages from being legalized, though some of the amendments bar only the latter. The Obergefell decision in June 2015 invalidated these state constitutional amendments insofar as they prevented same-sex couples from marrying, even though the actual text of these amendments remain written into the state constitutions.
The 2006 Illinois gubernatorial election took place on November 7, 2006. Incumbent Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich won re-election to a second four-year term scheduled to have ended on January 10, 2011. However, Blagojevich did not complete his term, as he was impeached and removed from office in 2009. This was the first election since 1964 that a Democrat was re-elected governor.
United States gubernatorial elections were held on November 7, 2006, in 36 states and two territories. The elections coincided with the midterm elections of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.
Donald Mark Ritchie is an American politician and a former Minnesota Secretary of State. Ritchie was elected the 21st Minnesota Secretary of State on November 7, 2006. He was re-elected in 2010.
The Tennessee Marriage Protection Amendment, also known as Tennessee Amendment 1 of 2006, is a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions. The referendum was approved by 81% of voters. It specified that only a marriage between a man and a woman could be legally recognized in the state of Tennessee. This prohibited same-sex marriages within the state, reinforcing previously existing statutes to the same effect until it was overturned by the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling in June 2015.
Question 2 of 2000 and 2002 is a ballot measure that amended the Nevada Constitution by adding a definition of marriage that prevented same-sex marriages from being conducted or recognized in Nevada. The amendment was passed by voter referendum by a margin of 67%-33% on November 5, 2002. It was previously approved by 69.6% to 30.4% of voters in 2000; the Nevada Constitution requires two ballot votes for citizen-initiated constitutional amendments.
Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment intended to ban same-sex marriage; it passed in the November 2008 California state elections and was later overturned in court. The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage in advance of the California Supreme Court's May 2008 appeal ruling, In re Marriage Cases, which followed the short-lived 2004 same-sex weddings controversy and found the previous ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court in 2010, although the court decision did not go into effect until June 26, 2013, following the conclusion of proponents' appeals.
Florida Amendment 2 is an amendment made to the constitution of the U.S. state of Florida in 2008. It added Article I, Section 27 to the constitution, which defines marriage as a union only between one man and one woman, and thus bans the creation of similar unions, such as civil unions or same-sex marriage. Since 2014, the measure was litigated in court and was struck down by multiple state courts in several counties of southern Florida. Same-sex marriage became legal in Florida when the decision in the federal case Brenner v. Scott found the amendments banning same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional.
Same-sex marriage has been fully recognized in the U.S. state of Minnesota since August 1, 2013. Same-sex marriages have been recognized if performed in other jurisdictions since July 1, 2013, and the state began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on August 1. After 51.19% of state voters rejected a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in November 2012, the Minnesota Legislature passed a same-sex marriage bill in May 2013, which Governor Mark Dayton signed on May 14, 2013. Minnesota was the second state in the Midwest, after Iowa, to legalize marriage between same-sex couples, and the first in the region to do so by enacting legislation rather than by court order. Minnesota was the first state to reject a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, though Arizona rejected one in 2006 that banned all legal recognition and later approved one banning only marriage.
The 2009 Washington Referendum 71 (R-71) was a state referendum that legalized domestic partnership in Washington state, the first statewide referendum in the United States that extended to LGBT people the rights and responsibility of domestic partnership. The bill had passed State Legislature, and it was signed into law by the Governor in May 2009, but opponents gathered enough signatures to put the measure before the voters, who returned ballots by mail over three weeks ending on November 3, 2009, approving the measure 53% to 47%. The new law went into effect 30 days later, on December 3, 2009.
The Independence—Alliance Party, a merger of the Alliance Party and the Independence Party, formerly the Reform Party of Minnesota (1996–2000), is a political party in the U.S. state of Minnesota. It was the party of former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura when he left the Reform Party.
Maine Question 1 was a voter referendum conducted in Maine in the United States in 2009 that rejected a law legalizing same-sex marriage in the state. The measure passed 53–47% on November 3, 2009.
North Carolina Amendment 1 is a partially overturned legislatively referred constitutional amendment in North Carolina that amended the Constitution of North Carolina to add ARTICLE XIV, Section 6, which prohibit the state from recognizing or performing same-sex marriages, civil unions or civil union equivalents by defining male–female marriage as "the only domestic legal union" considered valid or recognized in the state. It did not prohibit domestic partnerships in the state and also constitutionally protected same-sex and opposite-sex prenuptial agreements, which is the only part that is still in effect today. On May 8, 2012, North Carolina voters approved the amendment, 61% to 39%, with a voter turnout of 35%. On May 23, 2012, the amendment took effect.
Maine Question 1 was a voter referendum on an initiated state statute that occurred on November 6, 2012. The referendum was held to determine whether or not to legalize same-sex marriage. The referendum passed with a 53-47% vote legalizing same-sex marriage in Maine.
Referendum 74 was a Washington state referendum to approve or reject the February 2012 bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in the state. On June 12, 2012, state officials announced that enough signatures in favor of the referendum had been submitted and scheduled the referendum to appear on the ballot in the November 6 general election. The law was upheld by voters in the November 6, 2012 election by a final margin of 7.4% and the result was certified on December 5.
Question 6 is a referendum that appeared on the general election ballot for the U.S. state of Maryland to allow voters to approve or reject the Civil Marriage Protection Act—a bill legalizing same-sex marriage passed by the General Assembly in 2012. The referendum was approved by 52.4% of voters on November 6, 2012, and thereafter went into effect on January 1, 2013.
Minnesota Amendment 2 was a proposed legislatively referred constitutional amendment that was on the ballot on November 6, 2012. If approved, it would have required a form of photographic identification before being permitted to vote in Minnesota municipal, state, and federal elections. However, it was defeated with 53.84% voting against and 46.16% for the measure.
The 2020 United States presidential election in California was held on Tuesday, November 3, 2020, as part of the 2020 United States presidential election in which all 50 states plus the District of Columbia participated. California voters chose electors to represent them in the Electoral College via a popular vote, pitting the Republican Party's nominee, incumbent President Donald Trump, and running mate Vice President Mike Pence against Democratic Party nominee, former Vice President Joe Biden, and his running mate Kamala Harris, the junior senator from California. In the 2020 election, California had 55 electoral votes in the Electoral College, the most of any state. Biden won by a wide margin, as was expected; however, California was one of six states where Trump received a larger percentage of the two-party vote than he did in 2016. This election also marked the first time since 2004 that the Republican candidate won more than one million votes in Los Angeles County due to increased turnout.
The 2020 United States presidential election in Minnesota was held on Tuesday, November 3, 2020, as part of the 2020 United States presidential election in which all 50 states plus the District of Columbia participated. Minnesota voters chose electors to represent them in the Electoral College via a popular vote, pitting the Republican Party's nominee, incumbent President Donald J. Trump, and running mate Vice President Michael R. Pence against the DFL nominee, former Vice President Joe Biden, and his running mate California Senator Kamala Harris. Minnesota has ten electoral votes in the Electoral College.
| General unions |
| ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marriage |
| ||||||||||
| Civil unions and domestic partnerships |
| ||||||||||
