# Declarative switch *A term in the Minnesota wiki's research masters for an enacted sentence that switches off an accountability control.* A **declarative switch** is a term used in the research masters of this record. It names an enacted sentence whose operative content is the switching-off of an ordinary accountability control, where the declaration itself then becomes the official record.[^1] One master states that [[Minnesota]] made this move into a recurring statutory form, and that this master is where the name comes from.[^2] The masters give three example sentences: "The rules of the league are exempt from chapter 14." "A lottery fund outside the state treasury." "A public infrastructure project is not a business subsidy."[^1][^2] The first master reports that all three were confirmed verbatim against the live statutes during its validation.[^1] The term is the project's own analytical label, not a term defined in a statute, session law or court filing. What follows sets out the masters' description of the form. It does not give an official definition.[^2] ## In the Minnesota record ### What - The masters say a declarative switch does not describe something that could be true or false. They call such sentences "performances complete upon enactment."[^1] - The second master calls the declarative switch a recurring statutory form that Minnesota enacted.[^2] ### Why - The first master says the exemption does not come from any property of the rule itself. The rule "becomes exempt because the sentence says so, and the sentence is law."[^1] ### How - The second master says a declarative switch has to be written down in order to operate. Because of this, the sentence that, in the master's words, immunizes the State is also the phrase that can be quoted back and attached as a federal exhibit.[^2][^3] - As its example, the master cites the DHS Hiring/Pre-Hire Justification policy (see [[Pre-Hire Justification policy]]). The master states that this policy was filed as Exhibit B in [[United States v. State of Minnesota (0:26-cv-00273)|*United States v. State of Minnesota*]], 0:26-cv-00273.[^3] - The master's own note labels this a "structural reading." The same note says the exhibit was confirmed against the primary record. This article carries no primary filing for the exhibit.[^3] ## See also - [[Pre-Hire Justification policy]] - [[United States v. State of Minnesota (0:26-cv-00273)]] ## Notes [^1]: Minnesota wiki project, *How Minnesota Got Here* (merged master, footnoted; date not given), §4 — defines the declarative switch, gives the three example sentences and says they were confirmed verbatim against live statutes in validation, calls them "performances complete upon enactment," and states the rule "becomes exempt because the sentence says so, and the sentence is law." Validated internal master; no URL. [^2]: Minnesota wiki project, *The Instrument No One Will Name* (densified, 2026-06-18) — says Minnesota enacted the move "into a recurring statutory form the master calls the declarative switch," repeats the three example sentences, and states that the same sentence is the entry point of the federal challenge. Validated internal master; no URL. [^3]: Minnesota wiki project, *The Instrument No One Will Name* (densified, 2026-06-18), note [5] — states the write-to-operate point and cites the DHS Hiring/Pre-Hire Justification policy as Exhibit B in *United States v. State of Minnesota*, 0:26-cv-00273; marked "structural reading; exhibit primary-confirmed." Validated internal master; no URL.