Capitol Letter for April 12, 2024

The Capitol Letter™ is a recurring publication that provides reports from LWV Minnesota volunteer Observer Corps and Lobby Corps members on what is happening in the current legislative session.

 

LWVMN ADVOCACY

  • On Monday morning (4/8), Jane Hovland and Barb Akre from LWV Duluth and Gretchen Sabel from LWV Upper Mississippi River Region (UMRR) presented to the Legislative Subcommittee on Water Policy. They discussed the importance of limiting salt application to protect water through a proposal called Limited Liability for Certified Salt Applicators. This bill aims to balance public safety with environmental protection by increasing the efficiency of salting and decreasing the liability costs. The information shared aims to build support for future legislative sessions and can be viewed here!

Observer Reports

  • LWVMN Observer Corps Member Diane Dahl

    SF4260 - Elections Finance Omnibus. Senator Jim Carlson introduced the bill and requested approval of adding the A3 amendment. The amended bill provides resources to local election officials to meet the expenses of running elections, and to support training of campaign treasurers. The bill added 1.25M to the Voter Account last year. Thus it has been amended (A3) to reflect changes in the funding structure. The amendment and the resulting changes in the language and the funds were carefully reviewed by Andrew Erickson, State Fiscal Analyst. (The Voting Equipment Grant Account and the Drop Box Grant were eliminated, and those funds transferred to the Voter Account.) These shifts more than double the amount that the State contributes to local elections, and will be ongoing. There was a one-time appropriation for training of campaign treasurers.

    There were two testifiers: Secretary of State Steve Simon; and Administrative Services Director of Crow Wing County, Debbie Erickson (also representing the Minnesota Association of County Officers (MACO)). Both were in favor of the bill. Both noted the increasing cost of administering elections at the local level. This bill does not take over the funding of elections but contributes reliable support for now and the future.

    Senator Mark Koran, ranking minority member on the Committee, voiced his support for the bill, and SF4260 was approved as amended via a voice vote to the Finance Committee with no objections heard.

  • LWVMN Observer Corps Member Paul Huffman

    The purpose of this hearing was to review bills that had missed the earlier legislative deadline to be heard by all required committees (March 22). By Senate rules, any bill that misses its deadlines is required to be presented to and reviewed by the Rules Committee.

    Per the chair, Sen Erin Murphy, the discussion was limited to the reason the bill was "late" and not to discuss the substance of the bill.

    SF 4729, Senate Elections Policy Omnibus, was presented by Sen Carlson. This bill is the Senate election policy omnibus which includes Prison Gerrymandering; change in student voter registration opportunities as well as changes in student residence address documentation; changes in presidential elector and canvassing requirements required to comply with changes in the federal electoral count account; Deep Fake election crime changes; alternate means to identify residence as well as clarifications of some 2023 election policy changes, especially foreign language and translator requirements; and provisions for vacancies and special elections for county attorneys and sheriffs.

    The hearing started with statements from several minority members (Sen Johnson and Limmer) about the large number of bills that missed deadline and the number of bills continuing to be introduced.

    Sen. Carlson discussed that the Elections omnibus was late due to the large number of bills to be heard by committees (traffic). Sen. Limmer noted that the role of a committee chair to prioritize the bills to be heard. Sen. Carlson noted that the bills in the election omnibus were heard by the elections committee before the deadline. He noted that the Judiciary committee was not able to meet its deadlines. Sen. Johnson began to question whether bill had been to all required committees, specifically State and Local Government and Elections, due to concerns some local governments had for potential litigation. Chair Murphy noted that some parts of the omnibus had been to the State and Local Government committee, but not the whole bill. Sen. Johnson made a motion to refer the bill back to State and Local Government rather than send the bill to the floor as proposed. The motion was not adopted on a voice vote. The motion to refer the bill to the floor and allow it to proceed while late passed on a voice vote.

  • LWVMN Observer Corps Member Amy Caucutt

    HF4413 (Koegel) amending the open meeting law as it pertains to appointed, advisory boards of local governments was heard and laid over "for more work" There was a surprising amount of pushback to the idea that boards with appointed people only should be able to meet remotely (i.e. by zoom), as long as the public could watch and participate if it is a hearing, by zoom as well. Noel Nix from the St Paul Mayor's office and a woman in a wheelchair whose name I didn't get, testified that allowing what was available during the covid emergency to continue would widen the pool of citizens who could take part as members of these boards, not to mention the additional numbers who could tune in.

    Matt Ehling of the Coalition on Government Information and Rich Neumeister who is a citizen advocate on all things about open meetings were opposed. Their argument was that citizens would be unable to schmooze before and after a meeting in person with board members.

    Members of the State and Local Government Committee seemed to want to pull back and only allow remote participation in very limited circumstances.

    LWVMN Observer Corps Member Amy Thomas

    HF3276 (Frazier) - Ranked choice voting local option.

    Motion to accept Amendment 4: Amendment adds definition for “undeclared candidate” and revises: definition of “ranked choice voting local election official”, conditions for authorization for local adoption, ballot format rules in local RCV voting elections, method for tabulation of votes in RCV local elections in general and under certain circumstances, reporting requirements relative to RCV local elections, requirement for rules governing recounts related to RCV local elections, certain requirements for post-election review of RCV local elections, required certification for RCV, and requirements for testing of voting systems. Rep. Nadeau (R) question on A-4 amendment: How would a ballot for mixed election (part RCV) be drafted and administered. Nicole Freeman, Office of the Secretary of State (OSS): So far jurisdictions have handled it in a variety of ways, but typically group the RCV offices together and the non-RCV offices together; the bill would provide for OSS to do rulemaking working with local election officials to get the ballot order and layout right so it’s clear to voters and workable for local election officials. A-4 motion prevailed and amendment was adopted.

    Testimony for HF3276 as amended - Four people testified in support of the entire bill or portions of it and two in opposition:

    Steve Simon, Minnesota Secretary of State: Supports the bill to give all Minnesota cities the option of using RCV for nonpartisan, municipal elections.

    Christina Scipioni, Bloomington City Clerk: Spoke in support of two provisions in the bill: (1) Statewide standards for RCV; and (2) Allowing the use of federally tested RCV tabulation software.

    David Clark, Residents for A Better Bloomington: Opposes the bill. Stated that RCV is confusing; too many candidates to research by getting rid of the primary process; large number of spoiled ballots; disenfranchises minorities because their votes are spoiled at a higher rate than other groups and thus their votes don’t count at a higher rate than other groups; Center for Election Confidence report found that RCV disproportionately decreases representation and electoral influence of minority voters; U of M study found that in Minneapolis 2013 election, voters who were more affluent and white turned out at higher rate, completed their ballots more accurately and were more likely to use all three opportunities to rank their most preferred candidates than voters living in low income neighborhoods and in communities of color; same study also found that 20% of voters had their ballots spoiled; in letter to editor of Duluth News Tribune, Walter Mondale said RCV will not bring us more democracy, it favors elites who know how to work the new and complex system.

    Raymond Mews [sp?]: Supports the bill; RCV opens up all of it for everyone; allows districts, states, cities to participate in our voting election system; is very versatile, can vote for the one candidate – don’t have to make three choices if you don’t want to, just allows citizens to have more options from who they like the most and who they like the least; it is not difficult; if you vote for just one, your vote dies out when [if] the candidate dies out.

    Clarence Richard, Minnetonka resident: Supports the bill; stated they had higher voter turnout in 2021 compared to 2017; RCV won by 8 points originally, repeal failed by 18 points; RCV best way to represent the people.

    Mary Lectenburg [sp?], Bloomington resident: Opposes the bill; stated that Bloomington election numbers had been trending up, but when RCV was initiated in 2021, the numbers went down; instead of including more people on the ballot, both sides found out in 2021 that RCV splits the ballot, so parties in 2023 actually ran fewer candidates to avoid splitting the vote.

    MEMBER DISCUSSION: Rep. Harder (R): Likes that it gives counties local control; asked if any data on how often or how long reporting is delayed. Rep. Frazier referred to certification of tools used for reporting in the bill to address that. N. Freeman stated that OSS reports first rankings on their website and would continue to do so since they don’t do the reallocation work. Christina Scipioni, Bloomington City Clerk, stated that in 2021, they had about 15,000 ballots and three races that required tabulation rounds; using hand count method, work was complete the Saturday after election day; in 2023, they had about 20,000 ballots and two races that required tabulation rounds; using spreadsheet method, work was complete the Wednesday after election day. Rep. Harder stated that RCV seems to be labor intensive. Any idea of additional cost for RCV vs traditional? Christina Scipioni replied that hand count method is most time intensive; in 2021, Bloomington hired about 12 election judges for 3 days of work; spreadsheet method is much less labor intensive; in 2023, they had four internal staff members working on it for half a day; also stated that tabulation software would be least expensive and fastest option but needs to be certified. Rep. Harder stated that she thinks there would be some additional cost because the county would have to be available and that could affect some cities who wish to use RCV.

    Rep. Koznick (R): What happens to single vote in RCV, does that dilute the impact of the voter who only votes for their first choice and doesn’t rank them? Rep. Frazier stated that RCV gives voters options, and does not think it’s dilution. Rep. Koznick thinks RCV local option will create a patchwork of elections throughout the state that is confusing to voters and does not promote consistency; will create confusion in our election laws. Referred to an article in The Hill from an Assistant Professor at U of Wisconsin Law School and Associate Professor from Georgetown that RCV rewards more extreme candidates from either the left or the right; RCV makes it more difficult to elect moderate candidates when the electorate is polarized. Thinks it’s important to have a unified election system throughout the state and has concerns about pushing this down to cities and about fiscal impact, so will not support the bill.

    Rep. Her (DFL): Thinks when people don’t support RCV, it’s because they don’t understand it; stated that RCV is very easy. Regarding discussion relative to patchwork of rules, voters only need to know how the rules work in their city, so whether another city does it differently shouldn’t impact ability to vote where they are. Regarding discussion relative to only voting for one candidate, thinks that’s the beauty of RCV; it gives options to vote for only one candidate or for additional candidates if the first candidate may not have momentum to win. Means that candidates need to talk to more people to secure votes for subsequent round(s) of voting. Thinks we already have more extreme candidates without RCV. Stated importance of giving people choice, ensuring candidates are doing their job, people have the ability to choose the best person for them that doesn’t force them to choose a candidate just because that candidate is most likely to win.

    Rep. Nadeau (R): Does not know how RCV will help with hyper-polarization of two-party system; fears that instead of electing the most popular candidate, we’ll end up electing least-popular candidate. Rep. Frazier: Idea is that candidates have to talk to a broader base of voters, so even if not my first or second choice, I know I ranked that candidate and they reflect at least some of my values. Rep. Nadeau: Complex system, a little harder to understand, but agrees that we can figure it out. Question regarding enacting legislation: How would a city repeal RCV? Rep. Frazier: Left to local communities to do what’s best for them. Chair Klevorn: Bill states that method used for adoption of RCV can be used for its repeal. Rep. Nadeau: Confirmed that’s his question: If RCV adopted by voter referendum, can it be repealed by ordinance? Rep. Nadeau requested a roll call vote on the bill.

    Rep. Freiberg (DFL): Thinks there is a fair amount of misinformation or lack of understanding about how RCV would work. Thinks RCV would not lead to more extreme candidates being elected. Lives in a statutory city and sees no reason why his city should be prevented from adopting RCV if it wants to; RCV is just an option; it’s a good bill, makes sense, supports local control, and he supports it.

    Lead Nash (R): If the goal of the bill is to provide the same experience, it’s not. How would rulemaking work for a county that has some cities with RCV and others without? N. Freeman, OSS: Tabulation equipment is programmed to tabulate each race with its own rules. If a city race is RCV, but a school district that spanned multiple jurisdictions was not, that city race would look like a RCV race but the school board race would appear as it typically does. In cases of mixed election ballots (RCV and traditional), OSS is interested in standardizing format, layout, and instructions to be clear so a voter knows how to treat certain offices vs the others. Lead Nash: Does not think it’s simple. Does not think the paradigmatic shift is worth the effort. Has never had one resident ask for RCV. Does not support it.

    Chair Klevorn: Because of discussion on exhausted ballots and spoiled ballots and confusion between the two, requested OSS to consider educational component in rulemaking process.

    Chair Klevorn: Motion to re-refer bill as amended to Ways and Means Committee. Motion passed on roll call vote.

  • LWVMN Observer Corps Member Sherry Hood

    SF4944 (Gustafson) - Management of Wasted Food Prevention. Brief summary: Requires generators of surplus food & food waste to manage surplus food & food waste if they exceed a per year threshold beginning 1-1-2026 (104 tons or more) to 1-1-2033 (6 tons or more). Requires persons mandated to manage surplus food and food waste to separate that material from other solid waste and manage it to: 1) reduce the amount generated at the source, 2) upcycle or donate for consumption, 3) convert for consumption by animals or leaving crops unharvested, 4) compost or anaerobically digest, 5) apply food waste to land. Maintenance & record-keeping by waste provider. Administered by the MPCA.

    Among those testifying in favor: Eureka Recycling, and Vadnais Heights Green Team. Wasted food accounts for 25% of everything that goes into our landfills. Methane is produced when food waste is broken down, which is 80 times more powerful in warming the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. One third of food goes unused or uneaten. Among the coalition opposed: Hospitality MN, MN Retailers Assoc., MN Chamber of Commerce, AgriGrowth, MN Hospital Assoc. Among the reasons they oppose is that any organization that produces or manages food will be subjected to the reporting requirements outlined without any consideration for capabilities or capacities.

    Resolution: bill laid over for possible inclusion in an omnibus bill.

    SF 4969 (McEwen) Lawn & Snow Removal Electrification Grant Program Establishment & Appropriation. Testifying in favor: Fresh Energy. They said that one hour of mowing with a gas lawn mower equals driving 300 miles; that one hour with a gas leaf blower equals 18 hours of driving and that one hour using a diesel generator equals 10 hours of driving. Those also in favor are: American Lung Assoc. and the Sierra Club. No apparent opposition indicated.

    Resolution: bill laid over for possible inclusion in an omnibus bill.

    SF5258 (McEwen) Grant Program Establishment For Pilot Projects To Encourage & Increase Composting In Multi-family Buildings. Testifying in favor: Steve Jorrison, Northeast Metro Climate Coalition. He said that composting is a popular program but is rarely available to people living in multi-family units. This bill provides grant money to establish composting programs to help fill the void. Local governments, building owners, & non-profit organizations will be able to apply for the grants. Another supporter is Eureka Recycling, More than 30% of MN residents, about 620,700 households, live in a rental unit. MN apartment owners will save on taxes paid by diverting their organic waste into a compost bin. No opposition reported.

    Resolution: bill laid over for possible inclusion in an omnibus bill.

  • LWVMN Observer Corps Member Amy Caucutt

    I watched these bills because it affects my county, but it has statewide impact. The bills have to do with the tax forfeiture process in Minnesota

    HF3425 (Hicks) "sets the stage" according to Chair Hansen, of the downside for counties who are in charge of this process. HF4822 (Feist) rewrites state law to conform with the Supreme Court Decision (Tyler vs. Hennepin county) which said it is unconstitutional for the county to keep any "profits" from a sale, even if the few sales with profits work to slightly offset those which are very costly.

    The situation in HF3425 pertains to Olmsted County's request for $800,000 in state funds to help with environmental remediation on a tax forfeited site at which the county has already spent $150,000, and the MPCA spent $80,000 for oil tank removal. Property is probably worth $50-60,000 so sale will not cover these costs. Haverhill township has dealt with the owner and MPCA since 1992 with no clean up happening and in fact more than 80,0000 tires added to the site. In 2017, the owner died, and the property went into tax forfeiture. A county commissioner and a township officer explained the problem. No one from MPCA was in the room. The chair said he had spoken with the author and told her it is hard to do a "one-off" but he wanted to start the discussion. Unclear if any funding would be appropriated this session. Chair invited Matt Hilgart of the Association of Minnesota Counties (AMC) to speak. He said that this is a problem statewide, often it is schools purchased by a developer, who then abandons the project to tax forfeiture, leaving asbestos cleanup, etc. to the county.

    HF4822 is a result of a huge number of stakeholders agreeing on a compromise, including the lawyers who took Hennepin County to the Supreme Court. There is "peace in the valley" as the saying goes with the DE amendment. To ensure that there are no "excess takings" violations, the new law would require all tax forfeited properties to be sold at auction, with excess proceeds going to the property owner. There are many changes to ensure that the owner is properly notified. There is an additional process for property with "mineral interests” which the DNR testified in opposition to unless they get more funding. There is no fix for counties and their property taxpayers that are stuck with environmental cleanup. After much discussion on the remaining problem for counties, the Feist bill was passed and sent to the Tax Committee. Chair noted that the appropriation for this bill does NOT come out of his Environment Committee target.

  • LWVMN Observer Corps Member Shannon Moore

    SF4992 (Kunesh) - American Indian focused birth center planning grant application. Requesting $350,000.00 for distribution to Native American Clinics.

    Dr. Antony Stately, Executive Officer and President of the Native American Community Clinic in Minneapolis testified in support of the bill - The Birthing Justice Collaborative is working with American Indian and African American organizations who are in partnership with Hennepin County. The Birthing Justice Collective is focused on co-designing strategies to improve birth outcomes for American Indians and African Americans. The planning grant for the development of an American Indian focused birthing center will be co-lead by several key native lead organizations in the Twin Cities including the Native American Community Clinic, Division of Indian Work, Minnesota Indian Resource Center and others. We believe it is critically important to provide native women and birthing people a place to seek prenatal care and deliver their babies in a culturally affirmative setting. Having access to an American Indian Birthing Center can help mitigate generational harms that have been done for indigenous women and their families for generations. Too many of our birthing stories end in tragedy. 8% of pregnancy associated deaths are American Indian despite the fact they are only 2% or less of the population. We believe that we can define our future through the engagement of our community members and the planning process to bring our traditional cultural practices into the pregnancy and Postpartum experiences of native women and families. We appreciate your support for this important planning grant.

    Member Discussion: Senator Kunesh after a question from Sen. Utke about the bill’s relationship to another bill heard in the Committee - This is a very tight knit coordinated effort. The Birth Justice Collaborative works within the community to inform and support our communities of color. It is the clinics that actually help do the work. We then need experts such as Dr. Stately for the clinic and the services he provides.

    Dr. Stately -The Birthing Justice Collaborative is made up of 6 native and African American organizations that are non-profits that deliver care in the community. We formed the collaborative in 2022. We also work with Collective Action Lab administratively who supports the Collaborative. They play an important role in the Collaborative because all 6 organizations have other work that they do. African American women and Native American women have significantly disparaged rates of maternal and child mortality which out strips the rest of the state of Minnesota. In Hennepin County it is even worse.

    Senator Morrison - I am proud to be a co-author of this bill. The maternal morbidity and mortality crisis that is impacting our Native American and African American community is an American tragedy and Minnesota tragedy. It is not one we can look away from, we have to engage. As we learn more about the importance of culturally competent, culturally congruent care we have data to back this up. This is a really exciting project. It is a relatively tiny investment with potentially really big returns.

    Senator Jim Abeler - The disparities are terrible, we have been talking about this since I came here.

    Dr. Stately - Not all people will be able to go to the collaborative. In the past 7 years we built out a traditionally healing program that is now fairly robust. We started with 2 traditional healers part time and they now work for us full time along with 3 additional people. We have 2 women who are trained as birthing doulas and lactation experts. We are seeing a significant uptick in women coming for prenatal and postnatal care. Native Women report they are reluctant to go to larger health systems. They don’t feel as comfortable, they feel a sense of discrimination, they feel anxious of their own families history of having been treated poorly when going to an OBGYN. The purpose of this is to give Native Women another place where they can get culturally congruent care and sensitive care. Then they will seek prenatal care and are able to give birth and get supportive care for 12 months. The data in Hennepin County shows the majority of native women who die after giving birth happens 6 to 9 months after birth.

    Senator Abeler - As policy makers we hope to export great ideas and successes. Senator Kunesh I encourage you to engage with other clinics.

    Senator Hoffman - Thank-you Senator Kunesh for bringing a topic that has been part of the United States and Minnesota for many years. Every 5 years Minnesota is required to complete this comprehensive assessment of health and well being of children, families and others. (Person in the gallery called out twice, “Your Wrong!”) Two out of the 11 of their priorities are disparities and maternal child health. Is the department of health working with you or should be working with you? The work you are doing should be spotlighted. I think there is an opportunity here for us to go on something we know that is being successful and working and there is already that infrastructure that is in place to make it a systemic move. This is more a comment or encouragement to Senator Kunesh. Thank-you for bringing this.

    Final comments: Senator Kunesh - I think this is important to know this is a very modest request for something that is so monumental. When we ask why isn’t the Department of Health or why aren’t we doing these if these are best practices. Historically we know that there has been a lack of investment in Indian Country when it comes to health. Especially our women and children. I would ask that you would please consider this as an incredibly modest investment but it is gonna have a huge return on that investment and could act as that model to expand in the best way.

    Dr Stately - Across Minnesota and the US, the Twin Cities has the largest and densest urban population of American Indians in the country. More native people live in the urban environment of South Minneapolis in Hennepin County. 60% of Native American people in the state of Minnesota do not live on tribal land, they live in urban centers like Mpls and St Paul. This bill addresses the needs of indigenous women, not all of whom are members of the 11 tribal nations. The State has a government relationship with the tribal nations. The work that is done to invest in tribal nations is important. Much of the time the native people who live in urban areas don’t get these resources because we are not paying attention to indigenous people in the urban areas. This is a bill intended to specifically serve native women who are living in the urban core such as South Minneapolis and Hennepin county. We are hoping the birthing center will serve everybody in the state and be a model on how to do competent care and save lives.

    Chair Wiklund - This is a very important bill. We have a very small budget this session but we will take it into consideration and SF 4992 is laid over for possible inclusion in an omnibus bill.

 
Capitol LetterLWV MinnesotaSF4432, SF3555, SF3616, HF3651, HF3783, SF4785, HF4043, HF3389, SF3964, HF3276, HF4728, HF4287, HF4745, HF3682, HF4598, HF4593