Capitol Letter for April 5, 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

  • From our press release on the challenge to last year’s RTV law passage heard by the MN Supreme Court this week: “The League of Women Voters of Minnesota (LWVMN) is proud to continue our decades long commitment to nonpartisan voting rights by standing with ACLU-MN as they asked the Minnesota Supreme Court on Monday, April 1, to uphold the state’s 2023 law that restored the vote to 55,000 Minnesotans. LWVMN is participating as an amicus in the Minnesota Voters Alliance et al. v. Hunt et al. litigation, in support of the state respondent’s position to affirm the district court's decision to dismiss the lawsuit that was previously filed in an attempt to overturn the 2023 law. A ruling from the MN Supreme Court is expected soon.”

    The press conference that followed the hearing urged the importance of upholding and continuing to implement this law. The attorneys also provided positive initial reactions and when a decision might be expected, hopefully before June 29, when early voting for the primary begins in MN.

    More coverage from the Minnesota Reformer, CBS News, & MPR News.

  • LWVMN submitted written testimony on three bills heard by the House State and Local Government Committee this week. Reports by Observer Corps member Cathy Thom are below. Paul Huffman, Election and Redistricting Policy Coordinator, addressed the Committee on HF4593 with bill author Rep. Klevorn. We have been advocating for and engaging with stakeholders on this redistricting bill over the past 5 years with Common Cause MN and other trusted democracy partners.

Observer Reports

  • LWVMN Observer Corps Member Cathy Thom

    Both of the bills on the agenda had been laid over after full discussion on March 21 to await fiscal notes. Since it was determined that zero costs were attached to them, they were sent back to this committee for further action.

    HF2609 (Berg - DFL) Regulation of machine guns modified. The bill increases the penalty for possession of a machine gun or trigger modifying kit to up to $35,000 and up to 20 years in prison. It leaves the penalty for possession of a short-barreled shotgun at up to $10,000 and up to 5 years in prison. Currently the penalties are the same for both types of weapons/accessories. Rep. Novotny (R) - Moved to reconsider adoption of the DE1 Amendment. The motion passed via unanimous voice vote. He then offered an amendment which would remove what he called the "unspecific language" regarding triggers within the bill as currently amended. He urged work to craft and adopt more specific language to protect from prosecution for firearms that were not intended to be included within the bill's provisions. Chair Moeller urged a no vote because removing the trigger language would mean that there would be no prohibitions against certain types of binary triggers, which supporting documentation from the BCA shows is what this bill is meant to prohibit - current law does not do so. On March 21, there was a concern expressed that the bill would prohibit current commonly used firearms like a popular Glock semi-automatic pistol, which is a favorite of law enforcement and private gun owners. It has a particular type of trigger that the BCA clarified does not qualify as a binary trigger automatic conversion kit. The amendment failed via a voice vote. Chair Moeller moved the DE1 Amendment. It was adopted via unanimous voice vote. Rep. Hudson (R) - Cautioned that if the bill language was adequate, then the detailed BCA clarification would not be necessary - he urged that some of that clarifying language be incorporated into the bill itself. The bill passed to be placed on the general register via a voice vote.

    HF3757 (Demuth -R) Felony offense established for reporting a fictitious emergency and directing the emergency response to the home of other individuals, and conforming change made. Also called the "swatting bill." Chair Moeller moved the bill to be placed on the general register. The motion passed unanimously via voice vote. Coverage from MN House News

  • LWVMN Observer Corps Member Cathy Thom

    HF4598 (Long - DFL) - Independent Redistricting Commission established, Applicant Review Panel established, principles to be used in adopting legislative and congressional districts established, legislative members lobbying activity prohibited, convening and conduct of regular legislative sessions requirements amended, and combined constitutional amendment proposed for all three provisions, to be placed on the ballot in the 2024 general election.

    Chief Author Rep. Long noted that it is only by "sheer luck" that we have not had a divided government during each redistricting cycle and the courts have drawn our maps for the past 60 years. Rep. Long stated that this is not guaranteed, as Wisconsin and Maryland examples show. The bill draws from mistakes and successes from other states. We are far enough out from the next redistricting cycle that we don't know who will win, and so there should be no worries about protecting one's own party's advantage. The anti-lobbying provision within the bill is necessary because "anti-lobbying" is currently unenforceable. The elimination of the 120-day session limitation Rep. Long said is "a check and balance” between the executive and legislative branches, and he cited examples from the past two decades where the legislature disagreed with a Governor's actions or wanted to take immediate action on an issue but could not convene outside of regular session because the Governor would not call a special session.

    TESTIFIERS: Michael Li - Brennan Center for Justice - Testified that the bill meets every recommendation the Brennan Center made in its 2018 report. He said that some tweaks could be made, but it is a good bill.

    Emilia Gonzalez Avalos - Unidos MN - Immigrant and a new American, has been in the USA for 20 years. Testified in favor of the bill because it is a "people centered" bill that increases the power of voters through transparency and the prevention of redistricting abuses like gerrymandering. The anti-lobbying proposal mitigates conflicts of interest - some legislators are lobbyists and have even resigned in the middle of their terms to become highly paid lobbyists. Legislators should be responsive to all.

    MEMBER DISCUSSION: Rep. Nash (R) - Expressed concern that the elongation of the legislative session is a "scary proposition" that would be very expensive and opens the door to a full-time legislature, which is neither needed nor wanted by most constituents. He offered an amendment which eliminates this provision. Rep. Long urged a no vote, saying that Rep. Nash "misrepresents" the intent and language of the bill. Rep. Nadeau (R) - Asked if the language would permit a full-time legislature. Rep. Long said it would allow it, but states that have provided themselves such flexibility do not meet year round, in fact WI meets fewer days than MN does despite having this flexibility. The amendment failed via a 5-8 roll call vote.

    Rep. Harder (R) - Offered an amendment that restores the 120-day limit. She said that this limit is "clearly long enough to complete the work." She stated that a longer session means increased costs and that this is trying to fix something that already works. She said that since 1962 there have been people who have wanted to serve in the legislature who cannot because of their line of work, which is particularly problematic for those in agriculture, noting that farmers are decreasing in number within the legislature. Rep. Long urged a no vote but said that he is open to a different cap on legislative days that might garner GOP support. He believes that 120 days is too few. Rep. Kosnick (R) - stated that he would really like to see a specific deadline/cap on session length. He did say that he is glad that Rep. Long is at least open to discussing having some type of limit. The amendment failed via a 5-8 roll call vote.

    Rep. Joy (R) - Offered an amendment to insert "would permit a full-time legislature" in the amendment which would increase transparency in regard to its full implications. He also stated that legislators need to spend most of their time in their districts with their constituents. Rep. Long urged a no vote because it is a mischaracterization of what the amendment would do - reiterated that states which do not have limits on session length do not meet full time. The amendment failed via a 5-7 roll call vote.

    An amendment was offered by Rep. Nadeau (R) that split the three elements into three different questions. Rep. Koznick explained the legislative term "logrolling," which is to "tuck an unpopular provision that would not pass on its own in with other popular provisions." He said that there are some constitutional concerns in regard to the single-subject amendment clause within our state constitution. Rep. Long stated that the three are related - they are all "government reform" amendments. Rep. Nash noted that he did a constituent survey - he said reaction was mixed on an independent redistricting commission, there was support for the anti-lobbying provision, but there was overwhelming opposition to even the possibility of a full-time legislature/permanent political class. He noted that these are very different concepts without clear public support for all of them. Putting them together in one ballot question denies voters the opportunity to support one provision while opposing another. Rep. Long repeated the mischaracterization of the legislative session provision, and pointed to the Legacy amendment, which combines environment and the arts. Rep. Nash asked exactly how they are so closely related. Rep. Long said they are more related as "good government provisions" more than the arts and environment is within the Legacy Amendment. He said that MN has a tradition of combining issues into one ballot question in order to not have a large number of different questions on each ballot. Rep. Nadeau noted that the Legacy Amendment was a vote for Minnesotans to impose a tax on themselves to protect our environment and arts heritages. That is very different from these three concepts and how they relate to each other. He stated that it's important for them to be separated so that voters have a clear view of each issue. The amendment failed via a 5-7 roll call vote.

    Rep. Koznick offered the A13 amendment, which switched the date the amendment would be on the ballot from 2026 rather than 2024. He reasoned that voters need more time to fully understand all of the elements contained within the amendment, including its intent and potential effects. He noted that Sections 3, 5, and 12 of the Constitution are all being amended by this proposal, and they are very different parts of it, and the public needs to fully understand that and how the amendment would change things for each provision. He noted that voters have expressed dislike of huge omnibus bills that lack transparency in regard to their construction. Rep. Long urged a no vote, stating that it is neither complicated nor controversial and "there is plenty of time for voters to understand it." Rep. Bahner (DFL) stated that these issues have been polled repeatedly about these issues. She noted that everyone understands the need for fair map lines, and that no one believes that legislators should become lobbyists immediately after leaving their seats. She also believes that if the legislature needs 121 days to get the work done, the public would be fine with that, and there is no reason to believe that it would lead to full time sessions. Rep. Nash took issue with the statement that this is "simple" or easy to understand for voters. He said that even the concept of lobbying is vague and inconsistent in understanding, let alone the implications of an unlimited legislative session. He stated that this needs "a much longer runway" in order to ensure adequate public understanding of all of these very different concepts. Rep. Koznick noted that we don't seem to have time to even debate the amendment in committee, yet we are going to accept November 2024 as enough time for public debate in regard to it as a combined ballot measure. The amendment failed via a 5-8 roll call vote.

    Rep. Koznick offered the A14 amendment, which would add individuals and entities that have directly received government funds to the list of those disallowed from serving on the independent redistricting commission. Rep. Long urged a no vote because it is too broad because it could even sweep up teachers and others that there is no legitimate reason to exclude. Rep. Nash stated that people who receive government funds should not be able to pick their own legislators just as legislators should not be able to pick their own voters. The amendment failed via a 4-9 roll call vote.

    Rep. Nash offered the A15 amendment, which would require that if the ballot initiative were to pass, a special session of the legislature should be called to address and appropriate the funding increases that would be needed to accommodate longer sessions. Rep. Long urged a no vote because the amendment assumes effects that are not necessarily going to happen. The amendment failed via a 5-8 roll call vote.

    Rep. Hansen (DFL) commented that the rapid growth of lobbyists and special interests within our state since 1962 necessitates that legislators must be knowledgeable and clear-eyed in regard to their influence. Rep. Nadeau - Agreed with Rep. Hansen but reiterated his preference that these questions should be split up. He also stated disappointment that Rep. Long does not seem to be willing to "give even an inch." He noted that he wanted to vote for the bill, and that he thought Rep. Long would at least consider some amendments and tweaks to it, but that isn't the case. He stated that "just because you have the votes does not mean that you should abuse that" and completely ignore or dismiss all suggestions from others. Rep. Koznick agreed and said that he appreciated the intent of the bill, but took great issue with lumping everything together, and insisting on such a tight timeline to put it on the ballot. Rep. Joy (R) said that DFL authors keep saying that they "are willing to work on a bill," Minnesotans expect them to follow through on that, and in this case that has not been done at all. He said that he has a lot of fear about this bill not being worked on at all.

    Rep. Nash pointed out that the budget increased $20 billion in the first year of the biennium. At the beginning of this session, there were DFL warnings about spending more and adding to it. Adding to the length of the legislative session will swell the cost of doing government if left to the legislature alone to determine how long and how often they meet. During this session, the legislature has dealt with over 5000 bills and asked "how much more time do you need?" He referenced the children's book, "If You Give a Mouse a Cookie" to make his point. He made a motion to table the bill, which failed via a 5-8 roll call vote. The bill passed to be re-referred to the Rules Committee via a 5-8 roll call vote.

    HF4593 (Klevorn - DFL) - Advisory citizens' redistricting commission established, redistricting principles and redistricting requirements established, constitutional amendment to establish an independent citizen's redistricting commission proposed, and money appropriated. Rep. Klevorn noted that it has been in the works since 2019. This is the state redistricting bill supported by LWVMN and Common Cause, as well as Speaker Hortman and Senate President Champion.

    TESTIFIERS: Annastacia Belladonna-Carrera - Common Cause MN - Almost 2500 Minnesotans and numerous organizations and communities have submitted supportive statements for this bill, and that number continues to increase.

    MN Council of Foundations - Testified in support of the bill. Stated that the Our Maps MN Unity Cohort produced community interest maps for the 2021 redistricting cycle that were not fully adopted by the courts. But it proved that fair maps based on community needs can be drawn if done explicitly with those needs in mind and with participation by those communities.

    Peter Wattson - Attorney involved in redistricting since 1971. His suggestions helped produce the 2022 maps that were adopted under which the current legislators were elected. He stated that he likes the bill, with some amendments he proposes. He thinks that it could then pass on the ballot this fall.

    MEMBER DISCUSSION: Rep. Koznick (R) - Proposed tabling the bill so that more complete discussion could be had when the committee reconvenes. The motion failed via a 5-8 roll call vote.

    Rep. Klevorn (DFL) - Explained that this is a citizen-led bill that is singularly focused on redistricting by a citizen-inclusive independent redistricting commission. She said that she is fully open to more discussion and revisions - the bill "is not done," and she welcomes member input.

    Rep. Koznick - Said that this "is a good bill." He still has questions about who gets to choose who is on the commission, but with further discussion he could support it. He noted that this bill is longer at 57 pages than the more complex 46-page Rep. Long bill, with more detail regarding the redistricting commission process itself. He asked why the current system is not working if the House and Senate majorities are so close, and we traditionally have divided government in MN. Rep. Klevorn replied that the system does not work because legislators are doing it and they have a vested interest in the outcomes of redistricting. Rep. Koznick stated that's not true - the courts have drawn the maps for the past 60 years rather than the legislature.

    Rep. Nadeau (R) - Expressed support for the bill and asked about checks to ensure nonpartisanship. Paul Huffman - LWVMN - Explained more fully how members of the redistricting commission are vetted, take an oath, and by which they can be removed. Party leadership members and paid lobbyists are explicitly excluded. Rep. Nadeau expressed concern that there are no restrictions on unpaid/unregistered interest groups whose members would not necessarily be excluded. Rep. Klevorn replied that all of that must be disclosed during the individual vetting process. The discussion halted early because the committee ran out of time and recessed to the call of the chair.

    More coverage from MN House News on this hearing.

  • LWVMN Observer Corps Member Cathy Thom

    HF4593 (Klevorn) Reconvened from Thursday, 4/4, see report above.

    TESTIFIERS: Paul Huffman - LWVMN - Provided a brief description of the bill, particularly the makeup, selection process, rules for, and member removal process for commission members. Noted that this bill is very descriptive in regard to the independent redistricting commission's administration, duties, rules, and code of conduct. He also added that broad public input as well as an advisory council are mandated within the bill for the entire redistricting process to increase transparency and to maximize the probability of fair maps. He noted that there are provisions for a deadlocked commission, which has doomed redistricting commissions in other states.

    Annastacia Belladonna-Carrera - Common Cause MN - Testified in favor of the bill, stating that it has broad public, organizational, and community-based support that has been built since 2019 and continues to build. The bill is also the result of much research done in other states and local governments across the country who have implemented redistricting commissions to learn from their mistakes and successes. She noted that what is wrong with the current process is that the judicial panel explicitly stated that it did not feel it was empowered to make significant changes to existing lines, and so it adopted a least change approach to them. This is not responsive to the rapidly changing demographics within Minnesota and perpetuates existing unfairness incorporated within past maps.

    MEMBER DISCUSSION: Rep. Harder (R) - Asked about the differences between this bill and Rep. Long's bill. Rep Klevorn replied that this bill is singularly focused on redistricting alone. Paul Huffman explained further that there are more transparency and checks and balances measures woven within this bill to better ensure a fairer and better result. It also contains measures that better ensure representation of all Minnesota communities on the redistricting commission itself. Rep. Harder stated that she personally likes citizen boards, however she thinks that over time some citizens bring their own agendas and the boards become populated by biased activists. Rep. Klevorn replied that the entire bill is set up to prevent partisan domination of the commission and process. Paul Huffman added that the application and selection process is set up to identify what individuals are already involved in, including disclosures, screenings, and interviews. Rep. Klevorn also pointed out that members can be removed.

    Rep. Nadeau (R) - Asked who the primary overseer of the commission would be. Paul Huffman stated that the State Supreme Court is the final arbiter and overseer, while the MN Legislative Coordinating Commission and the Secretary of State's office would provide administrative support although neither would have oversight functions. The selection panel itself would be composed of legislative members from all parties. Rep. Nadeau asked if the commission would be subject to open meeting laws, and asked if there would be problems with a 2/3 vote requirement for maps to pass the committee. Rep. Klevorn replied that yes, they are subject to open meeting law - there is a mechanism if there is a deadlock and a 2/3 affirmative vote can't be reached. There is also a 5-year moratorium on commission members to run for office after appointment. Rep. Klevorn stated that this bill is the result of the most detailed, comprehensive, and exhaustive studies of what other states have done right and wrong, with keeping MN citizens at the center throughout the redistricting process.

    Rep. Koznick (R) - Inquired what the intent is for racial and language minorities of non-voting age. Paul Huffman replied that this is reflective of elements contained within the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. Rep. Klevorn replied that legislators are supposed to represent everyone, not just those of voting age. Legislative council clarified that the section does not refer to voting age, but instead to the racial/language group as a whole and its percentage of the community's population. Those areas where they are a majority they can elect a representative of their choice - Rep. Koznick questioned whether that could backfire. Rep. Klevorn said that is why there is community input so that they can determine who best represents them.

    Rep. Nash (R) - Thanked Rep Klevorn for actually working with the minority, which others presenting these bills are not doing. He noted that Rep. Klevorn incorporated several suggestions. He also likes that it is a singular subject bill. He said that when he served on the 2021 redistricting commission, it was hyper-partisan and not very constructive - legislators failed to do their jobs - and he wants to get beyond this on such an important issue even if he is still skeptical of the need for redistricting reform. He asked if Rep. Klevorn would be open to precluding someone from serving on two consecutive redistricting conditions (instituting a one 10-year term limit). Rep. Klevorn replied that yes, she actually thinks that's a really good idea and is very open to that and any other ideas others may have regarding improvement of the bill. Rep. Nash said that with a few changes there could be some GOP support for this bill.

    The bill passed to be referred to the Rules Committee via a voice vote.

    HF4182 (Freiberg) - Equal Access to Broadband Act established, and broadband services and broadband infrastructure governing provisions modified to allow local government franchise fees.

    TESTIFIERS: Shannon Slatton Schwartz - CCX Media - Noted that the disappearance of local newspapers and other local media make local cable oversight entities even more important.

    Dan Roe - Mayor of Roseville - Stated that local broadband franchising will help to ensure that coverage discrimination does not happen. Local governments should be able to regulate it because these companies use publicly owned rights of way in order to provide services to their clients. Local news is also increasingly streamed only on broadband services as local cable access decreases in response to the switch to broadband.

    Brent Christiansen - MN Telecom Alliance - Testified against the bill, stating that it takes the decisions out of the hands of those who know when and to where broadband development can be expanded without high financial risk. He also claimed that no other state has passed a law like this because it violates federal law regarding taxing cable franchises by local entities. He claimed that this would be a local tax rather than a fee as stated in the bill.

    Melissa Wolf - MN Cable Communications Association - Testified against the bill, stating that it would "stop MN's expansion of broadband services in its tracks." The new "tax" would not result in any more expansion and instead increase costs for broadband users across the state. MN is the only state instituting this type of local franchise fees on broadband providers. Echoed that it violates federal law disallowing "duplicative" broadband fees and taxes.

    Sarah P - Cellular Telephone Industries Association - Echoed that the bill violates federal law and FCC rules, even with the exemption for wireless providers. The bill remains too unclear, and should be further amended to better clarify the exemption for wireless service providers.

    Mark Haveman - MN Center for Fiscal Excellence - Testified in opposition to the bill. Stated that the bill's "fees" function like taxes, and it needs to be determined what the use of these fees would actually be. How much actually goes to cable/broadband-related administration and expansion? Studies show that the majority of the current taxes and fees go to local general operating budgets rather than to mitigating costs related to broadband/cable service provision.

    MEMBER DISCUSSION: Rep. Nadeau asked why wireless providers are carved out from the bill's provisions, when wireless providers also provide internet services. Legal counsel Mike Bradley explained that they were excluded because the legislature passed special legislation that previously excluded them from franchising. He asked what costs a municipality would incur due to broadband expansion placed within the right of way? Rep. Freiberg replied that there are costs related to burial of the lines, repairing roads, ditches, and curbs, location of lines for further work, etc. Legal counsel added that this is exactly how we treat all utilities for use of the public right of way. Rep. Nadeau said that it is thus not a franchise fee as much as a rent/lease payment for use of space within the public right of way, and that makes it more of a tax, which would make it in violation of federal law.

    Rep Joy (R) - Stated that local governments have a good history of working well with internet providers to provide maximum community access. Said that it seems like the legislature is picking winners and losers by creating another tax in the form of a local franchise fee, which will be passed on to consumers. He asked why more taxes? Rep Freiberg said that there is a long history of franchise fees for cable companies, and this expands that option to broadband, but excludes wireless companies. He stressed that it is an option only, not a mandate - cities with good relationships with their broadband providers can opt out of the franchise fee.

    Rep. Nash asked Ms. Wolf upon whose monthly bill would this fee/tax be assessed? Ms. Wolf replied that it would be assessed on the consumer who pays the bill, but the fee itself goes to the city, not the broadband provider, yet who is actually charging the fee to the consumer is not going to be reflected on the bill.

    Rep. Freiberg stated that federal law and the federal lawsuit is being mischaracterized, and he also noted that the costs of expansion of broadband to underserved communities often largely fall to local governments via subsidies.

    The bill was laid over for possible future inclusion.

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