Capitol Letter for March 15, 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

  • LWVMN staff stood alongside our partners on our top priority of redistricting reform at the Capitol this week. Representative Ginny Klevorn presented the “With Us, For Us” Redistricting Commission bill (HF 4593) to the House Elections Committee on Wednesday evening (see report below), and nine organizations shared their support for this community-led redistricting reform at a press conference on Thursday morning. Redistricting and Election Policy Coordinator Paul Huffman provided technical support to Rep. Klevorn and submitted written testimony for LWVMN along with our Executive Director, Michelle Witte. Through over five years of work on this bill with many of the partners who testified this week, we believe that the “With Us, For Us” bill represents a redistricting reform by and for the people of Minnesota, consistent with national best practices and experience. The Senate Companion Bill (SF 4894, Chief Author Senator Hawj) has been introduced, and we are urging the Senate Elections Committee to hear the bill next week. We believe that the details and structure of implementation in HF 4593/SF SF4894 reflect the concerns and experiences of Minnesotans, with a specific focus on impacted and marginalized communities which are most affected by inequitable and unrepresentative redistricting. Read this op-ed from Common Cause on why Minnesota needs an independent redistricting commission. 

  • Similarly, HF 4598/SF 4785 which proposes a constitutional amendment that includes an Independent Redistricting Commission, a lobbying ban for current and recent legislators, and gives lawmakers more flexibility to call sessions, passed the Elections Committee in both chambers.

Observer Reports

  • LWVMN Observer Corps Member Cathy Thom ~ Tuesday, March 12

    SF 4432 (Westlin) - Expands absentee ballot applications to local elections but excludes town elections. It also expands witnessing and notary credentials to people for those who are voting absentee from out of state to out of state voters and notaries - it is targeted largely for students and snowbirds. It also allows head election judges to report preliminary results after 8 PM along with the number of absentee ballots turned in on election day that are left to be counted - it allows at least some majority early voting results rather than having results in larger counties lag until very late evening or even into the next morning. It also modifies the timelines and definition of "elections" to reflect MN's actual election structure and schedule.

    TESTIFIER: Kristin Sepeta - Hennepin County Elections Administrator - Testified in support of all sections of the bill. Troy Olsen - MN Association of County Officers (MACO) - Testified briefly that there were no objections to the bill by his organization. The bill was laid over for possible inclusion.

    SF3555 (Carlson) - This bill would allow for a sheriff or county attorney position vacancy to be filled via a special election and by appointment. Current law only allows for appointments.

    TESTIFIERS: Laurie Halvorson - Dakota County Commissioner - Her and her fellow commissioners were surprised that they could not call a special election to fill an unexpected County Attorney position and could only fill it via appointment. It was very onerous and not very representative nor respectful of voters' choices and accountability of the person who fills the position. It only adds the option of a special election. It does not take away the option of making an appointment to fill the position. Senator Koran (R) - Said that he not only supports the bill but also thinks it is "quite incredible" to him that it has taken so long to fix this issue. The bill passed via unanimous voice vote to be placed on the general orders.

    SF3616 (Mitchell) - Allows postsecondary institutions over 1500 students to request that their county provide a temporary early voting polling place for one day on the institution's campus, which anyone, not just students and staff, can use. The costs are estimated at between $2000 per site (election workers for the day and additional ballot printing). It is only a general election provision - applicable every two (even) years, and excludes primaries and special elections.

    TESTIFIERS: Lily Sasse (We Choose Us MN) - Testified that busy schedules and lack of transportation creates time and cost barriers to voting at polling locations off campus. This bill would help young people feel like their voices matter and that they are valued in the electoral process.; Troy Olsen (MACO) - Election administrators have concerns about the resource costs of mandating any polling locations at the demand of non-governmental entities, since it includes private institutions as well as public ones.

    MEMBER DISCUSSION: Senator Anderson (R) - Asked if coalitions, like We Choose Us, would be willing to pay for these additional polling locations? Senator Mitchell replied that it would be akin to a poll tax to have voters or voter organizations pay for their own polling places. Counties, with state assistance, already pay for polling places, and there are other Voter Fund resources available to help pay for these costs to reach not just students, but also staff and immediate campus community members - she used the phrase this polling place can provide "a lot of bang for the buck." Senator Drazkowski (R) - Asked if there were any Republican authors on the bill. Senator Mitchell said no, but Sen Drazkowski is welcome to add his name to it. Senator Drazkowski reminded the committee that last year there were a lot of election laws "crammed through" that also did not have bipartisan support. He then read off the supporters of the bill (Note: LWVMN is a We Choose Us coalition partner which supports this bill.) He says that the purpose of the bill is "transparent": and that is "to elect more Democrats." He also emphasized the "unfunded mandate" nature of the bill on county governments statewide. Senator Bahr (R) - Emphasized the county and city requests to consider costs and flexibility. He offered the A8 Amendment, which states that if a polling place is requested, that the county and institution should have to pay for all costs for implementing it. Senator Mitchell noted that these polling places would be open to anyone in the county - not just university students and staff. She also said that no one knows how individual students will vote. Senator Bahr responded that all institutions over 1500 receive at least some state funding - they can use that to pay for the polling place. He doesn't understand why if it's only $1000, then why would they not be willing to pay for it? The A8 Amendment was defeated via a party line roll call vote of 7-6. Senator Koran (R) - Referenced the ability granted to counties last year to create and administer pop-up voting locations at their discretion, he does not think that this bill is necessary. He moved the A9 Amendment, which would disallow groups or other political groups from holding events in the same building or within 100 feet of the polling place building. Senator Mitchell replied that she said that it is not necessary under current law. Current law says, "100 feet from the door of the polling location." Senator Koran said that this is specific to "political events and groups," which makes it different - the supporters of the bill described how "this was not just a polling place" to them. Senator Mitchell said that the events that were referenced in testimony were just about events to register voters, not for voting itself. She discouraged having extra rules for campus locations that we don't have for any other locations across the state. The A9 Amendment failed on a party line roll call vote of 6-7. Senator Drazkowski offered the A7 Amendment, which would remove the 1500 student threshold for participation because it would exclude smaller institutions, which are often religiously affiliated. He said if the bill means to broaden participation to everyone, then "we should do it equally." Senator Mitchell said that she encourages a no vote because it was not brought to her in advance and because the larger number weeds out online institutions. The A7 Amendment failed on a voice vote, but Sen Drazkowski called "division" and it still failed on a 6-7 show of raised hands. Senator Anderson offered the A(10?) Amendment, which would expand the same pop-up location to veterans' homes and organizations. Senator Mitchell urged a no vote because it was not provided to her in advance, and as a veteran herself she said that no VFWs nor American Legions have asked for these locations, largely because they don't actually reside in these facilities. She also added that current law provides for counties to make accommodations for homebound seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities - this bill extends, in its own way, those considerations to campus communities. The amendment failed on a party line roll call vote of 6-7. The bill was laid over for possible inclusion.

  • LWVMN Observer Corps Member Shannon Moore ~ Tuesday, March 12

    HF3651 (Kozlowski) - Chippewa Bands Authorized to establish open seasons for big game in accordance with the 1854 treaty. Rep. Kozlowski (DFL) reviewed the bill, and the conversation was relatively short. Rep. Kozlowski said that if the bill was passed there would need to be discussions with the commissioner of natural resources. The big game in Minnesota is moose and in the past several years the number of moose in Minnesota has declined. The Chippewa Band depends on moose to feed their families. If there is no open season for hunting moose this bill would allow the Chippewa Band to establish an open season independently of the state, for members of the band to take the species. This was laid over. The committee was not named but people in the background said “omnibus”.

    HF3783 (Kozlowski) - This bill would require a county to offer tax-forfeited land within the boundaries of an Indian reservation to the affected band of Indians first at the appraised value and requires the cost of any survey or appraisal to be added to the appraised value. Requires the county to notify the band in writing and requires the band to respond with an offer within two weeks of receiving the notice if they want to buy the land. Requires the county to accept the offer if it is for at least the appraised value. The bill would still allow the former owner of the property or their heirs the opportunity to purchase the property prior to the sale. There was a lot of interest in this bill.

    Testifiers: April McCormick, Grand Portage Tribal Council, secretary / treasurer, gave some background. This goes back to the Allotment Act of 1889, also known as the Dawes Act. The US Government required that the reservation be broken up into allotments of 40 or 80 acres. If the native people did not accept an allotment they were forcibly removed from their reservation. The goal of the US government was to civilize the native people by having them become farmers. The Grand Portage area is clay and rock and has terrible farmland. The bill is meant to correct a problem that started 132 years ago. There will be no cost to the state, the band will cover the costs. (The Grand Portage Reservation is located in Cook County in the extreme northeast corner of Minnesota, approximately 150 miles from Duluth. It is bordered on the north by Canada, on the south and east by Lake Superior and on the west by Grand Portage State Forest.) Dave / farmer in Mahnomen, MN, near the White Earth Reservation - Do not pass the bill. I am not a tribal member but I have friends that are. We all agree it is not good for the county, or for native or non native people. Mahnomen County Commissioner - Do not pass the bill. This bill takes away the bidding process. Takes money away from our county. Business owner - Does not want the bill passed until all details are worked out. Some additional testifiers are not reflected in this report. This was laid over, likely omnibus.

  • LWVMN Observer Corps Member Cathy Thom ~ Tuesday, March 12

    SF4785 - Port (DFL) - MN Constitutional Amendment Proposal to establish a 15-member partisan-balanced Independent Redistricting Commission. Voters should be able to choose their legislators rather than legislators choosing their voters. Establishes a ground floor ban on legislators being employed by lobbyists while in office and for one year after leaving office. Removes the restriction on legislative days and the mandatory adjournment date for the legislative session. The legislature lacks, for half the year, the ability to oversee executive branch offices and respond to emergencies without having the governor call a special session.

    TESTIFIERS: Michael Li - Brennan Center for Justice - Testified in favor of the bill, saying if passed it would be the strongest redistricting legislation passed in the entire country to date. Minnesotans would as a result be subject to one of the fairest redistricting systems in the nation. Even with a divided government, MN does not have perfect maps, because the courts who draw them operate on a principle of "least change," which does not always reflect the changing demographics and migrations of Minnesota's statewide populations. It is exceedingly rare that legislatures enact redistricting reform of this effectiveness - usually, if they consider it at all it is largely in name only and retains the elements of partisanship that existed prior to the "reform."

    Sara Lopez - Unidos MN - Testified in support of the bill because it will make the map drawing process more transparent, fair, and empowering of all Minnesota voters. She also complimented the anti-lobbying elements of the bill for legislators, and supported the full-time legislature provisions because people of color and low-income people cannot always run for office that will take them away from their jobs for half the year yet not truly replace that lost income.

    Brian Cook - MN Chamber of Commerce - Testified in favor of the bill and called the conduct of the legislature a "business issue," that currently is dragged down and corrupted by too much partisanship and gamesmanship within the redistricting process. The MNCOC has long maintained that an independent commission should draw redistricting maps. He did have some concerns about the commission make-up in the bill, saying it allowed for "backdoor gerrymandering."

    David Fisher - Clean Elections MN - Supports the bill in regard to the independent redistricting commission and the anti-lobbying provisions for legislators. Cited studies that have shown that independent redistricting commissions can reduce abuses, but only if they are carefully designed and administered. He said that he joined the LWVMN in the hope that two bills can be combined to achieve a result reflecting best practices for best outcomes.

    MEMBER DISCUSSION: Senator Koran (R) moved the A6 Amendment, which would simplify the bill by pulling out everything but the anti-lobbying provisions. He said that the redistricting provisions need to stand on their own due to importance and the fact that they are different issues that need a lot more discussion. He believes that there is a lot of public and legislative support for the anti-lobbying provisions. He also noted the absence of Senator Rest (DFL) from participating as a bill author. Senator Port urged a no vote because these issues need to be addressed together because they are of equal urgency, and all relate to the role of the legislature and preventing corruption and encouraging good governance. She said that voters are "asking for all of these things." Senator Anderson (R) challenged her assertion that voters are asking for all of these things and asked how that was determined. Senator Port replied that many members have had conversations across the state with constituents about concerns about our democracy and our election systems and a feeling that the current system is not truly responsive to voter needs and preferences. She also replied that having to wait for the Governor to call a special session is not necessarily the best system, and pointed to the SRO issue from last year, when constituents wanted that, but Governor Walz declined to call one. Senator Port said there are also practical considerations for redistricting reform because relying on the courts delays the process and makes it difficult for the elections process the first year the new maps take effect. She also said that the full-time legislature would open up the opportunity to run for legislative seats from both a financial and a time standpoint, and they could become more informed and engaged legislators as a result because it would be their full-time job. Senator Mathews (R) - Supported the amendment because they are three different issues that would require three separate ballot initiatives. Senator Limmer (R) pointed out that a "lobbyist" would be "defined by law." He asked if there could be more clarification as to what that definition would be. Alexis Stangl, Senate Counsel, replied that it is already defined in statute, and read a bit from that definition, which included an "engaged for pay" provision or someone who spends personal funds of $3000 or more to persuade legislators to adopt a particular position on [an] issue[s]. Senator Rest (DFL) said that she supports the redistricting provisions and the anti-lobbying provisions but does not support the full-time legislature provision. She would have to vote no because of that. She also noted that the anti-lobbying provision should not just be one year after leaving office but should be instead that one election has to happen for their former body before they can come back and lobby that body. And she noted that it can also be done without a constitutional amendment, and so it, by that very reason, needs to be separated out from the constitutional issues. Senator Rest also asked which election year she wanted the amendment to be on the ballot - Sen Port replied that it would be on the ballot in 2024. Senator Rest said that she would have issues with it being on the ballot that soon. Senator Port replied that putting the anti-lobbying provision within the constitution means that it could not be easily undone by future legislatures. She also pointed out that this bill does not make the legislature "full-time." It simply allows the legislature to set its own session schedules - in Michigan, they work just a few weeks more, and so does Wisconsin. It is incredibly popular among rural legislators in both of those states because it allows for the legislatures to have abbreviated weeks (Tuesday through Thursday) because they have a longer session time. Senator Rest said that she "seriously disagreed" with that characterization that the anti-lobbying provisions belong in the constitution. Senator Koran said that a number of proposed constitutional amendments is starting to sound more like a referendum initiative and "mob rule" rather than the proper constitutional process - making everything a constitutional amendment is inappropriate just because you don't want something undone by future legislatures - voters can hold legislators accountable if they do not want a particular law undone rather than just letting voters decide issues that are not clearly constitutional amendment issues. Senator Port took issue with calling the will of the voters "mob rule" and again urged a no vote on the amendment. The amendment failed on a party line roll call vote of 6-8. Senator Limmer (R) - Questioned the need for this bill in terms of "concern for our democracy." He said that if there is another crisis of democracy and we needed to change any of these items, would we be stuck with them and find it difficult or impossible to remove them? Would they stand the test of time? Senator Port replied that she does not think that our democracy is in peril, and she believes in the good of government, when voters are engaged - and these amendments help to encourage and preserve voter engagement and the feeling that voters feel their voices are truly being heard and are enacted within the legislature. She said that the independent redistricting commission is a key tenet of healthy, responsive democracy - voters must be able to choose their legislators, not the other way around. She also feels that the anti-lobbying provisions are key to removing influences that undermine the voices of voters in regard to legislation that gets enacted and how it gets implemented. The legislative session number of days is already in the constitution, it simply needs to be modified to better reflect the needs of the modern-day legislature and the changing demographics of MN to better make our legislature more diverse and reflective of MN's voting population. Senator Limmer said that he has not gotten any discussion from constituents pushing for any of these constitutional amendments. He also echoed previous concerns that all of these items may not rise to the level of constitutional amendment status. By doing so, sometimes you can slow down the process of changing them (have to wait for an election to enact them) when necessary, rather than having the legislature just change them as needed. He also pointed out that he believes that the public does not want the MN legislature to be full time and those states that have full time legislatures are some of the highest spending states in the country. Senator Mathews (R) - Stated that he agrees that our democracy is not in peril. But he also thinks that these provisions do not "meet the smell test" in regard to being "good governance" measures. He said that it is not transparent for voters - they will only see a few lines of what is a long bill full of a lot of complex provisions. He said that the concept of redistricting itself is worthy, but the execution provisions are not reflective of actual transparent, good governance. He said that he would caution against how commission members are chosen (by a partisanly appointed judge). He said that he thinks the legislature could get to a bipartisan redistricting amendment, but this one is not that. He added that extending the legislative session provision also does not pass the good governance test because it simply removes the 120 legislative days cap and provides no limit at all to the number of days that the legislature can have. It is open-ended to where it could easily devolve to a full-time legislature - it is being sold on the ballot as just extending the legislative session when necessary, not as something that could result in a full-time legislature, which he suspects most members of the public would not support. He thinks that they could get to a bipartisan amendment on that issue, too. Senator Port replied that she is willing to have further discussion and entertain other amendments. Senator Bahr (R) - Expressed concern about the process that kicks in if the redistricting commission cannot agree, then it kicks to the courts anyway - which is what we have right now. What's the point? He suggested that perhaps lowering the minimum majority threshold of 9 to get something to pass the commission might help with that. He also questioned how the non-affiliated or independent people would be determined/chosen? By not participating in a primary? Everyone has beliefs and often lean to one side or the other whether they are affiliated or not. How does their objectivity or independence get determined? He also cautioned against putting extreme partisans on the commission from the major parties to increase the likelihood of fair compromise. Senator Koran (R) - Added a concern about the explicitness of who cannot serve on the redistricting commission - he fears that it carves out everyone who is involved in the process, but then it could also then be filled with a bunch of homogeneous people with little diversity of thought and/or little knowledge of the process. He said that raising the bar for becoming a third party in MN last year also eliminated that there would be any third-party representation on the commission to help with diversity. Senator Port replied that this is not new - these detailed membership provisions for the commission are derived from what other states have done/not done and learning from what has worked best around the country thus far. As to the Supreme Court's litigation of redistricting plans, Senator Port replied that the Supreme Court does not create a plan - the commission does and the plan that gets the most votes gets passed - the court simply litigates any challenges to it. Senator Mathews asked if Chair Carlson (DFL) wanted to have a bipartisan bill leave his committee. Senator Carlson replied that yes, he would prefer that, but sometimes it is not possible. Senator Mathews said he is quite sure that this could be achieved, but he doubts the commitment to do the bipartisan work on the DFL side given how all of this has come together so quickly with just DFL authors thus far - the bill is only 5 days old. He suggested tabling it for further work before passing it out of committee. Senator Carlson said that decision is up to Senator Port as the Chief Author of the bill - it has several more committees to go through, and there is a lot of work that can be done as it goes through that process. He stated that the bill has actually been worked on for a long time by several parties, with invitations for others to assist with that. Senator Port echoed those comments.

    The bill passed to be re-referred to the Committee on State & Local Government & Veterans on a roll call vote of 7-6. Senator Rest abstained.

  • LWVMN Observer Corps Member Fern Panda ~ Tuesday, March 12

    HF3577 (Jordan) - Packaging Waste and Cost Reduction Act, now has 18 co-authors. Rep. Jordan offered the A3 amendment as a cleanup that clarifies the contracts and advisory role and improves the needs to aid studying collection methods. Amendment passed.

    This bill is strongly supported by cities and counties. This bill would decrease the costs for managing waste by government entities, and there would be an increase in recycling. Those that testified for the bill included Hennepin County Commissioner Kevin Anderson and Kurt Koudelka, an Assistant Commissioner for the Pollution Control Agency.

    Most testimony was against the bill, and many testifiers had testified previously so they gave similar arguments. Those that testified against included Medical Alley, Minnesota Forest Industries, Waste Management of Minnesota, Chamber of Commerce, and the National Waste and Recycling Association, which was the only new testifier. Sarah Erickson of the National Waste and Recycling Association did not support the bill because it creates an entirely new regulatory structure that pushes some waste and recycling companies to the margins and empowers brand manufacturers through the PRO (Producers Responsibility Organization) to call the shots. PRO is essentially dictating how recycling collection and processing business should run, overriding their existing customer relationships and operations.They do not like all the powers given to the PRO.

    Comments and questions from Representatives: Representative Jim Joy thought the bill is good, but it is moving too fast. Representative Harder was a county commissioner and recycling was one of her favorite parts. They did a lot of education, but it is hard for people to do the right thing. Sometimes the containers are full of illegal dumping. Representative Nadeau thinks we should wait until the MPCA comes back with their study. Jordan responded, we can't wait for the study. The Burnsville landfill is full and we don't have time to wait. Our trash piles are getting bigger. Our incinerators are working at capacity. Representative Her is worried about toxins from the landfills seeping into the groundwater. She is also concerned about all the plastics that nobody is taking. Representative Nash thinks there should be a provision in the bill for medical packaging dictated by the FDA. Rep. Jordan responded that there's a provision in the bill for the exemption process. She did want all medical products to have the exemptions. She has makeup with SPF, is this considered a medical product? The committee by voice vote approved the bill to go to the Judiciary Finance and Civil Law committee.

  • LWVMN Observer Corps Member Amy Caucutt ~ Tuesday, March 12

    Rep Agbaje presented her bill, HF4043, Prison Gerrymandering Reform quickly before the big bill of the day on end-of-life options. Chair Becker-Finn said that the only discussion in her committee would be on Sec. 2, collecting of the addresses of inmates during the census to be sent to the Legislative Coordinating Commission using a unique identifier, rather than names. From there the numbers would be added to the count in precincts where the inmate had once lived. This data would be classified as private. Rep. Scott wanted to know how last-known-address would be verified. Answer: the court system has it, or geo-coding can be used. No other discussion and a voice vote sent the bill on to the Public Safety Committee.

    After Rep. Freiberg's end of life options bill HF1930, an interesting little bill, HF3389 (Pursell) Subsurface drain tile installation and modification disclosure was presented. The Recorders Association does not support this bill which would require them to record drain tile placement at the time of sale of an ag property. Why? Water managers like soil and water conservation districts and those handling ditches need to know because during a heavy rain event, these can lead to surprising floods. And, according to the author, many land owners are unaware of the placement of these tiles, which could actually increase value. The author had an A-1 amendment which was accepted. On a voice vote it was sent to the floor (general register).

    LWVMN Observer Corps Member Kathleen Oganovic

    HF1930 (Freiberg) - End of Life Options Act. Representative Freiberg began by reading the Eligibility Criteria which have not changed since the bill was introduced - Just like the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, to be eligible, a person must be: 1) An adult, aged 18 or older; 2) Terminally ill with a prognosis of 6 months or less to live; 3) Mentally capable of making an informed healthcare decision; and 4) Resident of Minnesota. Individuals are not eligible for medical aid in dying because of age or disability.

    TESTIFIERS: Terry (Terence) J. Knowles MD / Family Physician spoke in opposition of the bill: Doctors must be able to refuse to participate in medical aid in dying (MAID). If doctors cannot refuse to participate, he fears that local medical clinics will close in rural areas. Passage of this bill will cause doctors and advance care registered nurses (ACRN) to leave the profession.

    Wendy Longacre Brown / End of Life Doula and Founder of MN Death Collaborative spoke in support of the bill: As an End-of-Life Doula she is present to provide emotional, educational, and spiritual support by honoring every path in the present and to the end of the patient’s life. A doula works with the hospice team and the family and friends of the patient. The goal is to guide the patient through the final stages of life. Medical Aid in Dying (MAID) provides multiple steps in the decision process for the patient and the family. A doula helps steward the patient through the final stages of life and gracefully supports the wishes of the patient. She is an extra set of eyes to advocate for the patient and creates a situation of trust which prevents coercion and brings peace and beauty to the end-of-life event. Individuals of the hospice team at the bedside of the patient make sure that the medicine is prepared properly and help properly dispose of the excess medication if necessary.

    Steven Bergeson, MD / Family Practice Physician spoke in opposition to passage of the bill: The informed consent process would require him and others to explain that MAID is another medical option for terminally ill patients and thereby creating a false impression that MAID is the same as hospice care, palliative care, or pain medication. He believes that doctors who do not explain ALL options will be subject to penalties of law in opposition to their medical role as healers.

    Rosie Gaston / Hospice Clinical Social Worker spoke in support of the passage of the bill: She believes that the provisions of Section 8 allow physicians to refuse a patient’s request for MAID free of litigation. She has obtained the signatures of 90 medical clinicians in support of MAID. She begs legislators to move forward in support of the bill. She needs to work freely in support of patients’ wishes without fear of prosecution.

    Kathy Blaeser / Co-Director of Minnesotans Concerned for Life spoke in opposition to the bill: She believes that this bill will lead to a different standard of care for those with disabilities and those able-bodied people without disabilities. She suggests that people with disabilities would be offered medication to end their lives by suicide to reduce the burden on their families. While those physically healthy people will be offered suicidal prevention support to continue their lives. She is concerned that there is an unreliable standard involved in physicians making a diagnosis that patients have six months to live when patients have a physical disability that may lead to terminal illness. Her concern is that euthanasia and assisted suicide – the killing of patients for their alleged benefit – endangers the lives of people who are sick, elderly and/or disabled.

    Thaddeus Mason Pope / Law Professor who is an expert on Medical Law and Clinical Ethics at Hamline Mitchell Law School spoke in support of the bill: He has written 300 articles and two books on MAID. It is his belief that it is pointless to legalize a healthcare option that healthcare providers are afraid to implement. Healthcare providers must have legal protection. In the over 20 years of MAID existing in 10 states and Washington, D.C. there have been no abuses reported in over 15,000 cases. He reports that as of March 2024 twenty other states are considering legalizing MAID.

    John Mielke MD / Geriatric Medicine Specialist and Medical Director at Presbyterian Homes spoke against the bill: He believes that if this bill is passed it will force him to violate his own ethical standards. This bill will require him to follow standards of informed consent which include the topic of MAID as he explains the available healthcare options to his terminally ill patients. He wants clearer language in the bill. He believes that as a conscientious objector to MAID he should be allowed to opt out of discussing MAID with his patients. He warns that he and other doctors will be unwilling to suffer the legal consequences of refusing to tell their terminally ill patients about the MAID option for their healthcare and will leave the profession thereby causing an increase in the shortage of doctors in Minnesota.

    A. Stuart Hanson, MD / Retired doctor who practiced medicine for 41 years spoke in support of the bill: Dr. Hanson is the author of two books on end-of-life planning: Do No Harm: A Personal Memoir and A Seniors’ Guide for Living Well and Dying Well. He believes that the physician’s role is to cure when he can, to care always, and to relieve pain of the suffering of terminally ill patients. As he reads the bill it protects medical providers who prescribe life ending medicine, it requires no medical health provider to participate in MAID and does not penalize those who do participate, and it protects patients who choose MAID.

    MEMBER DISCUSSION: Representative Brian Johnson (R) - stated that he knows that 250,000 deaths a year are due to medical errors. He is wary of the idea that doctors could accurately determine a prognosis of 6 months or less to live. He is concerned that the MN doctors will leave the state if they are forced to act against their own ethical standards. Rep. Frieberg’s response was that safeguards are in place to protect doctors who do not want to participate in MAID. Representative Sandra Feist (DFL) - She stated that we DO need to honor the wishes of all humanity. She is sick of people declaring that “The sky is falling” when they do not agree with a proposed bill. Representative Harry Niska (R) - He believes that the bill if passed would encourage unwilling healthcare professionals to provide patients with the ability to commit state sanctioned suicide. He questioned the unclear difference between undue influence and coercion. Frieberg’s response was there is no mandate for healthcare professionals to prescribe life ending medication or administer the medication to patients in the bill. Data from 30 years of legalized MAID in 11 other jurisdictions shows NO abuse. Representative Matt Grossell (R) - He fears that this bill will make Minnesota a “destination of death and mutilation”. We cannot just extinguish life. We are not God. Representative Leigh Finke (DFL) - She acknowledged that this is a difficult bill to discuss. However, the question seems to be personal autonomy of the patient versus the right of medical professionals to practice their religious beliefs. Or stated another way the doctors’ ability to express their values versus the patients’ values. We cannot say that one person’s values are more important than another person's values. There is a power differential when a patient’s values have less value in a medical system with too few doctors. The statement that providers such as the death doula who spoke today cannot act as God is offensive. Representative Peggy Scott (R) - She is concerned that if a doctor states that a patient died of cancer on a death certificate when the patient died by choosing MAID would be illegally falsifying a death certificate. She wants more data to be collected about each death to ensure there is no abuse as is collected in Oregon. She believes that Oregon collects far more data than MN will if the bill is passed. She is concerned the doctors will be required to discuss all options available to terminally ill patients, when Ob/Gyn doctors are not required to discuss adoption with patients seeking an abortion. Freiberg’s response is that ALL detailed documentation is required for the first several years of implementation of MAID. Assuming there is no abuse as in Oregon the amount of data collection will be reduced. Again, he stated that a provider who does not want to discuss MAID can refuse but he/she must transfer the patient’s medical records to a new doctor.

    Committee Chair Jamie Becker-Finn (DFL) called for a vote by the committee.8 yes / 5 no. The bill will be forwarded to the Commerce Finance and Policy Committee.

  • LWVMN Observer Corps Member Amy Caucutt ~ Tuesday, March 12

    Sen. Port's SF3964 had been amended over the weekend, and now appears as a delete-all amendment to SF1370. This is the "missing middle housing"' bill, still substantially intact and applying across the state. Housing densities will be increased in all residential districts (cities must authorize at least 6 types of middle housing besides single family on residential lots, lot sizes can be smaller, parking requirements are limited to one off-street parking per dwelling unit, deadlines applied for local permits, there are increases in heights allowed, and if a municipality has an alternate method of achieving this density, they can opt out, and many other items including architectural design requirements that are not for safety will be prohibited.)

    There were 11 testifiers. Those in support called this "game-changing” for addressing the 100,000 unit deficit in housing we have in the state. Municipalities complained of the loss of local control in managing the types of neighborhoods their citizens want and that they have invested infrastructure to fit. Higher density may require upgraded infrastructure. A researcher at U of MN said this bill could lead to a greater variety of housing. Right now, MN mainly has single family homes, and large apartments. Developers spoke of the nightmare of trying to meet city requirements only to have the goalposts moved by NIMBY (Not in my Backyard) neighbors. Sen. Port said she is still working on the language. Sen. Draheim and Lucero (both Republicans) were very supportive and put forward amendments to add ADUs and twinhomes to the list of "middle housing" appropriate for residential areas, and another amendment to restrict counties as well as cities and towns from requiring homeowners associations (HOAs). The bill passed on a voice vote (I heard no dissent) and was sent to the state and local government committee.

    This bill, if passed, could lead to BIG changes. However, I discussed this with a Rochester builder who said that you can only load so much on a lot, so that these new minimum lot sizes and maximum building sizes may never totally be achieved. Additional Coverage from the MN Reformer

  • LWVMN Observer Corps Member Amy Thomas ~ March 13, 8:30 am

    HF3276 (Frazier) - Ranked choice voting local option. Seven people testified in support of the entire bill or portions of it and none in opposition:

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

    Jen Westmoreland, Hopkins School Board member: supports the bill, cited benefits of RCV local option including more diverse candidate pools, higher voter turnout, and less costly election cycles.

    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.

    Anita Smithson, political strategist and campaign manager in Bloomington: Stated that election data has showed that voters from all demographics across the city were able to find candidates to rank and that overwhelming majority understood how to cast their ballot; also stated that several of her campaigns had multiple candidates for each seat and that with RCV they had incentive to talk to more voters, it made them reach beyond their more dedicated base of voters.

    Rod Adams, Executive Director of New Justice Project: Stated that RCV helps communities of color run more candidates; gets rid of the unrepresentative low-turnout primaries which has been a huge structural barrier for candidates of color; and allows voters of color to pool their votes and have their candidates win in single higher-turnout elections.

    Mary Hartnett, Executive Director of Clean Elections Minnesota: Stated that 15% of Minnesota cities are currently authorized to use RCV, while 85% are not; in previous election in which she ran, RCV resulted in healthy competition, promoted more direct outreach to diverse voters, and there was more thorough vetting of issues important to the community.

    Michael Holt, resident of St. Paul: Spoke in support of the bill in connection with his experience with RCV for election of the mayor of St. Paul, stating that one of his four ranked choices won; also stated that he had a positive reaction to the winner because he voted for him, even though that person was not his first choice; RCV made him a more engaged voter, feels a closer connection to government because he voted for the winner as one of his ranked choices; stated that RCV is a way to increase citizen engagement and buy-in.

    MEMBER DISCUSSION: Rep. Quam (R): In connection with A-7 amendment stated that one of the criticisms he’s seen across the nation relative to third or fourth round is that the total number of votes decreases sufficiently to where the majority of remaining votes are not a majority of the votes cast. For election confidence and integrity, wants to maintain that in order to win, the candidate has to win the majority of votes cast initially in the election, not the majority of a portion of the votes cast because other ones have been pushed to the side. Motion to accept the A-7 amendment did not prevail. Rep. Coulter (DFL): Stated that there are a lot of reasons local governments should want to consider RCV; regardless of what members think about RCV itself, will give local governments considering it the ability to consider guidelines and guardrails and all the things that are involved with implementing RCV; will make it more transparent and accessible for local officials and residents; results in good government at the local level. Rep. Torkelson (R): Asked if there is a history of recounts in RCV for elections in Minnesota; Rep. Frazier and Nicole Freeman from the Office of the Secretary of State (OSS) are not aware of any, but OSS will check and advise. N. Freeman stated that the OSS felt it was important to create rules particularly related to recounts for RCV to make clarifications for that process. They don’t have standards set yet but would be part of their rulemaking process. Rep. Torkelson (R): Asked how filing fees impact a candidate’s ability to be on the ballot; stated that from his perspective, it seems like the entire reason for raising filing fees was to limit the number of candidates. Who sets filing fees for these elections? N. Freeman from OSS confirmed it would be up to the individual municipalities. Rep. Quam (R): Stated that he appreciates statewide standards because of the confusion we’ve seen, decreases the amount of time to prepare, and gives a little bit more confidence. Rep. Bliss (R): Asked if there is evidence that RCV leads to higher incidence of ballot spoilage and what is criteria for ballot spoilage? Frazier: Not aware that RCV leads to higher rate of ballot spoilage but deferred to OSS; N. Freeman stated she’s not aware of a higher occurrence at the polling location as someone is voting but will check to see if ballot spoilage is reported.

    Motion to re-refer HF3276 to the State and Local Government Finance and Policy committee prevailed; not unanimous.

    LWVMN Observer Corps Member Cathy Thom

    HF4728 (Bahner) - Requires the Commissioner of Revenue to establish an online system to claim the political contribution refund and amends the political contribution refund program to allow electronic transfer, and appropriates money for implementation. MN consistently has the highest voter participation rates in the country, and last year the Political Contribution Refund (PCR) program increased by $25 per person. This bill would streamline the process by allowing for electronic application for a refund. Receipt numbers would be unique whether they are submitted via paper or electronically. The bill has bipartisan support.

    TESTIFIERS: Kyle Ton, Frequent campaign treasurer - testified in favor of the electronic process, which would make it easier for people to claim their refunds. He believes that the extra burden will be carried by campaign treasurers rather than the office of the MN Department of Revenue because unique receipts would be generated by those treasurers which is another concrete step that helps to solidify campaign compliance with campaign finance laws. Mary Hartnett - Clean Elections MN - Testified that electronic applications for the PCR refund will increase the number of donors who will actually claim it, just as it would increase the number of people who submit retail rebates if they can be done electronically. Tom (didn't catch the last name) - Called political parties corrupt organizations that are created by politicians to benefit politicians, and that manipulate the outcomes of elections via gerrymandering, propaganda, and other means. Because of this he opposes the bill because he believes that political parties do not deserve to be supported by public funds. Although he supports getting big money out of politics, giving more taxpayer dollars to political parties is not the answer.

    MEMBER DISCUSSION: Rep. Bliss (R) - Asked why the bill eliminates the paper option - it would be bad for those who do not have or are incapable of using internet access to claim their refund. Joanna Baers from the MN Department of Revenue clarified that the bill does not eliminate the paper option - donors can claim their refund either electronically or by mailing in their paper receipt. This was confirmed by Jeff Sigurdson from the MN Campaign Finance Board. Rep. Bliss asked that the bill be amended in a future committee in order to make the retention of a paper option more clear. Rep. Quam (R) - Stated that he opposes the bill unless the amendment to retain a paper option is clarified within the bill. He would prefer that it be amended in this committee so that he could vote yes for it today. Mr. Sigurdson clarified that the electronic receipt number requirement for campaigns is only for electronic receipts, not for paper receipts - the MN Dept of Revenue creates it when it receives paper receipts. It does not disallow the issuance to nor the submission of paper receipts by donors. Rep. Davis (R) - Cautioned against discriminating against donors who do not use modern technology. Rep. Torkelson echoed this and said that he and others who were on the bill to date would remove their support until the DE language is removed or altered to make the retention of a paper receipt option more clear. Rep. Bahner said that there is donor education with the PCR program for all donors, and assured everyone that the bill language in question originated in the Senate and that she is having conversations about them to change it in both Houses in the next round of committee hearings. The bill passed to be referred to the Judiciary Committee via a voice vote.

    HF4287 (Virnig) - Requirements to fill a vacancy in the office of school board member modified to provide more flexibility to use appointment rather than having to run a costly special election. The author presented that current law does not make practical sense for school board vacancy fulfillment because it has such a small window for when appointments can be made versus having to call and administer a special election to fill the seat.

    TESTIFIERS: Greg Winter - Superintendent, Melrose Public Schools - Testified in favor of the bill, stating that in the past 7 years, Melrose has had to call 2 special elections due to school board members moving outside the district. It cost the district 5 figures of costs, when appointment of a retired board member to temporarily fill the seat would have sufficed. He called the current law an "unfunded mandate." Mike Funk - Superintendent of Stillwater Area Schools - The impact of special elections on SAS has been very large - 5 resignations since 2020, with 2 special elections needing to be called. The costs have run into 6 figures. Election expenses keep increasing at all levels, and school board elections are no exception. Without dedicated election funds, this comes out of the district's general fund. Elections are not the primary purpose of a school district, and having to do them so often unnecessarily harms students.

    MEMBER DISCUSSION: Rep. Davis (R) - Reminded members that school board members serve at the permission of district residents who vote them into office. He feels that this takes away local control from voters. Rep. Quam (R) - Former school board member where three resignations happened and 2 were filled by appointment and 1 by special election. He said that perhaps there should be a limit to the number of appointed members on a board to help alleviate concerns about unelected school board members making decisions for too long (over a year). Having that happen could harm the confidence of the public in the school board and hurt a district's chances of passing a necessary referendum. He is in favor of the bill, but would favor amending the bill to make sure that appointed members don't end up with a quorum, which is very possible in smaller districts with just 5 members. Rep. Altendorf (R) - Expressed concern about schools having so many unfunded mandates, and stated that she hears the concerns about that which superintendents testified today about, but she feels that this is not an unfunded mandate, it is "democracy." She stated that she fears that too many appointments can snowball (creates an incumbent in the next election) into a board being dominated by "selected elites." Rep. Bliss (R) - Stated that since COVID school boards have been in the spotlight a lot, which he feels is a good thing. He pointed out claims that this is a "local control" issue but takes issue that local control means school boards being able to appoint their own members. Local control in the end comes down to voters. He is more interested in helping school boards to better be able to afford and administer special elections. Rep. Colter (DFL) - Pointed out that the bill does not require appointment, it simply provides the option for appointment. The special election option still remains open to school boards. He also pointed out that his bill actually brings school board vacancy practices in line with both city councils and county commissions. Rep. Freiberg confirmed this point. The bill passed to be placed on the general register via voice vote.

  • LWVMN Observer Corps Member Carol Ball ~ Wednesday, March 13

    HF4745 (Long) - Establishes a MinnesotaCare public option.

    Testimony in favor by private citizens, a small business owner, a health care provider, an employee of a large health care provider in the state, and a member of the farmers union. All discussed the difficulty for themselves and/or their patients of accessing care due to high premiums and deductibles. Several discussed having chronic health problems and were able to access care when on MinnesotaCare, but could only get high deductible insurance when their income increased and they were no longer eligible for MinnesotaCare. Their chronic conditions then deteriorated because they could not afford to access care.

    Testimony opposed from representatives of multiple organizations representing insurers and hospitals including MN Council of Health Plans, MN Chamber of Commerce, MN Hospital Association, MN Association of Health Underwriters, and others. The most prominent reason for opposition was concern that providers, both hospitals and doctors, would be reimbursed at a lower rate for these new patients in the MinnesotaCare system resulting in further hospital staffing shortages and closings, and exacerbating the health care provider shortage as clinics would not be able to keep staff and keep their doors open. Cost shifting to commercial payers would need to increase and premiums would then rise for those who are still in the commercial market. They stated that there are other options such as subsidies and tax credits to reduce the cost to lower income families. Finally, one testifier stated that a public option has been tried and “failed” in three other states.

    There was very little member discussion other than one comment re-emphasizing concern about provider reimbursement rates. Rep. Long shared that providers only get reimbursed if they actually provide care, and current high deductibles and co-pays cause people to avoid care, which means less reimbursements for providers. The bill as amended was re-referred to the Health, Finance, and Policy Committee.

  • LWVMN Observer Corps Member Cathy Thom ~ Wednesday, March 13

    HF3682 (Kotyza-Witthuhn - DFL) - Requires state academic standards in health education and appropriates money for implementation. Currently health education is the only subject area in Minnesota public education that does not have statewide uniform standards. It is important to remember that standards are learning and skill sets expectations - curriculum, which the actual materials, tools, and methods by which these expectations are met, are chosen by local school districts in order to meet these standards in regard to student learning and achievement. This bill would set uniform standards for health education, which brings it in line with all other educational subjects within MN elementary and secondary education.

    TESTIFIERS: Janett Jimenez - Women's Foundation of MN - Testified in support of the bill. Stated that the key subjects like violence prevention, personal health, health hazards, substance use and abuse, health prevention and practices, etc., cannot be assured of being taught to all students when there are no uniform state standards. Health disparities can be both a short-term and long-term result of this lack of statewide standards in health education. Pogi del Rosario - MN Coalition Against Sexual Assault - Testified in support of the bill because it is necessary for all students to have access to complete health information that will help them make good decisions about their own health. The standards will include primary input from health professionals, educators, and also some input from students. A holistic approach to health education is essential to improving statewide health outcomes for all Minnesotans. Dr. Sheldon Berkowitz - Retired Pediatrician and speaking for the MN Chapter of the American Association of Pediatricians - Testified in favor of the bill as necessary because MN is not uniformly preparing our children for how to take care of their own physical and mental health. There are increased rates of mental health concerns among adolescents, along with increases in obesity, eating disorders, vaping and other substance use, internet/social media exposure, children and families need consistent education related to individual, family, and community health. Ayla - a high school junior - MN Youth Council - There is more to preparing students how to thrive than just teaching them reading and math. They also need to learn about physical and mental health issues, substance use and abuse, suicide and self-harm prevention, and sexual health with the increased incidences of students having issues with these things at younger and younger ages.

    MEMBER DISCUSSION: Rep. Keeler (DFL) - Asked a question about the new 988 suicide hotline and if making sure students know about it will be included within the new standards. Rep. Kotzya-Witthun replied that it is not right now, but she is very open to adding it, particularly within the rule-making process - including requiring it to be on student IDs. Rep. Keeler expressed a desire that sex and human trafficking be included within the standards for sexual abuse and sexual assault. Rep. Bakeberg (R) - He took issue with the claim that school districts are not teaching about these issues. Local control has been the tradition for health education, and districts have worked hard to include parent and community input within their local standards, which builds trust. He is concerned about losing or diminishing local control too much. He also cautioned against having too short of an implementation timeline if this passes. He said that the inclusion is so much about the use of the word "must," which means it is a mandate, which school districts complain are imposed upon them way too often. Rep. Youakim (DFL) asked what is in this bill that would prevent a local district from including additional items not included within the standards. She read through the people who would have input into the standards, and it includes a broad spectrum of community stakeholders, including parents, business organizations, the MN Youth Council, etc. The author, Rep. Kotyza-Witthuhn, replied that no, there is nothing preventing them from adding additional items to the standards, and indeed local districts still have the authority to choose the curriculum materials to fulfill these learning targets that comprise the standards. Rep. Youakim emphasized that standards and curriculum are two different things - standards are a baseline destination, and curriculum is a locally controlled pathway to that destination. She reminded members that health education is the only graduation requirement still not subject to statewide standards. Given the increase in health issues and dangers to our kids, it is imperative to bring health education into a standards-based model along with all other subjects. Rep. Peggy Bennett (R) - Asked if there is currently state guidance and assistance for health education. It was pointed out by committee counsel that there are some supports, but they are piecemeal and not adequate. Rep. Bennett also commented that we are already putting so many state mandates on schools, perhaps a more flexible model policy approach would better fit communities that are diverse in moral beliefs and other values that are quite in conflict right now. She said that she is losing confidence in the standards process after seeing how "biased" and "weaponized for political purposes" the social studies standards ended up being this past round of changes to them. The author said that she is still taking input from more stakeholders, and that she is being very mindful and careful of the implementation timeline. The bill passed for referral to the Education Finance Committee via a voice vote.

  • LWVMN Observer Corps Member Cathy Thom ~ Wednesday, March 13, 6pm

    HF4598 (Long) - Independent Redistricting Commission established, Applicant Review Panel established, principles to be used in adopting legislative and congressional districts established, legislative members lobbying activity prohibited, and constitutional amendment proposed for all provisions. Rep. Long explained that many Minnesotans think that it is automatic that our courts always draw our redistricted legislative maps, but that is not true. One need only look to Wisconsin to find out what happens when one party gains control of all three branches of government and is allowed to gerrymander themselves to a strong or super majority for the next decade or more. This bill proposes a constitutional amendment that would establish an independent redistricting commission, prohibit legislators from being employed as lobbyists while in office and for a period of one year after they leave office, and would provide the legislature more flexibility in regard to how many days each year that they are in session and at what times.

    TESTIFIERS: Michael Li - Brennan Center for Justice - Redistricting abuses like gerrymandering are a bipartisan problem whenever one party achieves a trifecta during a redistricting year, as we know from the experience of WI. But MN itself barely escaped this when Governor Dayton only narrowly won his race for governor in 2010. Not all redistricting commissions are equal - the OH commission fails largely because it does not guard against partisan imbalance. Without other types of safeguards, it becomes reform in name only. He called MN's model, complete with multiple safeguards, "landmark" legislation.

    Robert Haider - Take Action MN - Testified in favor of the bill. The increased transparency, independence, and safeguarded practice from undue influence would increase trust in our map making process.

    David Fisher - Clean Elections MN - Testified in favor of the redistricting portion of the bill, as well as the anti-lobbying measures. They have not taken a position in regard to a year round legislature. In states where legislatures draw redistricting maps behind closed doors often results in legislators choosing their own voters, rather than voters choosing their legislators. Expressed support for both bills before the committee at this hearing.

    AMENDMENTS: A2 (Davis- R) - Would strike the language which refers to lengthening the legislative session. He stated that it would not be supported by rural legislators who live far away from the Capitol and doubts the public would support it either. He also says it is a separate issue from redistricting and should have its own amendment ballot question if passed. Rep. Long said that the Legacy Amendment combined arts and culture together into one amendment two decades ago. Rep. Quam (R) agreed with Rep. Davis that redistricting should stand alone as its own ballot question and would probably get broad support. The question of a year-long legislature is less clear in regard to support. Both issues are extremely complex for voters to understand them separately, let alone within one ballot question. Rep. Freiberg pointed out that the bill does not specifically provide for a year-long legislature, but simply removes the limit on the number of days, which would allow the legislature to address issues like executive un-allotment without having to rely on the Governor to call a special session. The amendment failed on a party line roll call vote.

    A3 (Altendorf - R) - Caps the additional number of days that the legislature could meet in with special sessions added to the regular session. Rep. Long said that he would certainly entertain a discussion about a cap for additional sessions but is requesting a no vote for now until that discussion happens, because he is not certain that 120 days is the correct number. Rep. Pursell (DFL) - Pointed out that the business before us in the current era takes a lot more time than it did when the last constitutional session length times were amended. The amendment failed via a voice vote.

    A5 (Bliss - R) - Noted that testifiers mainly focused on redistricting and lobbying - most did not emphasize the full-time legislature portion, and one testifier even did not take a position on that. Stated that these are completely unrelated issues, and said that he could vote for two of the three, and so the amendment simply splits them into three different amendments. Rep. Long urged a no vote because the amendment regarding the legislative session also contains the language "full time legislature," which is not the intent of the original bill. Rep. Davis emphasized the need to split them up or the entire amendment will go down in flames because voters will reject the full-time legislature provision and the other two provisions will go down with it.

    A6 (Davis - R) - Moves the vote on the amendment from the 2024 ballot to 2026 in order to have a broader and deeper conversation about issues that will be of great concern and complexity to voters. Rep. Long urged a no vote because he believes that the public will support it and understand it. The amendment failed via a voice vote.

    A7 (Quam) - This amendment would add individuals who get their livelihood from direct government funding from serving on the redistricting commission. Rep. Long urged a no vote because it would be too broad because it could eliminate even teachers or other public employees from being able to serve on the commission. Rep. Bahner said that it could perhaps even eliminate many farmers or the director of a food bank that receives large state government grants. Rep. Quam withdrew the amendment and asked the author to agree to consider a more specific one to prevent "pay for play" types of activities on the redistricting commission.

    MEMBER DISCUSSION: Rep. Bliss - Pointed out that Gov Walz has said that he wants bipartisan election bills, and yet reasonable and non-controversial amendments have been offered and summarily rejected. He thinks that the full-time legislature provision would not be popular with voters once explained, and it would cause the failure of the other two by default. Rep. Bliss said that it would be a very difficult thing for him to be a full-time legislator due to it being very hard to leave the business he owns. Similar points were made by other GOP legislators to the Committee and Rep. Long. The bill passed to the State and Local Government Committee.

    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. This is a stand-alone redistricting bill, which is a primary difference from the other bill being heard in this hearing.

    TESTIFIERS: Brian Cook - MN Chamber of Commerce - Testified in support of the bill because it would decrease polarization and political gamesmanship. The Chamber has long advocated for an independent redistricting commission, and this bill fulfills that stand alone goal with partisan balance, and important safeguards to prevent distortions and manipulations of the process.

    Dan Vicuna - Common Cause, Director of Redistricting & Representation - The way that redistricting currently works is through the legislature and sent to the Governor. When it often goes to the judiciary, there is very little transparency and assurances that the public's needs will be prioritized. Also, all of Minnesota’s population growth in the most recent census was driven by communities of color. However, this does not guarantee their seat at the table in the redistricting process. HF4593 aims to ensure that members of the redistricting commission represent the state and the commission is not captured by partisan interests. The redistricting advisor group created would consist of the executive directors of the state’s ethnic groups and other communities of interest.

    Jovita Morales - Minnesota Immigrant Movement, Executive Director - Testified in support, sharing that her organization empowers voters in communities from Le Sueur to Minneapolis. The far majority of immigrants in Minnesota are eligible and vote. Fair maps creates a more representative democracy by allowing communities of interests to negotiate where lines are drawn, so no one gets left behind.

    May Yang - Minnesota Council of Foundations, Senior Policy & Partnerships Manager - Testified in support of a standalone bill for a more inclusive democracy that maximizes community input and participation through strong redistricting principles. During the 2021 redistricting cycle, they partnered with 12 BIPOC organizations to form the Our Maps unity cohort and drew more than 40 community of interest maps, including keeping MN’s northern Native communities together. This proved that an independent redistricting commission is possible and that underrepresented communities can lead this process.

    MEMBER DISCUSSION: Rep. Davis offered the A1 Amendment that changes the ballot date for the constitutional amendment from 2024 to 2026. Rep. Klevorn urged a no vote because work on this bill has been going on for years, and so she would have to ask her coalition partners before she could accept the amendment. She said that the people are asking for this bill now - the citizens of MN have actually drafted it via these coalition representatives. The amendment failed via a voice vote. Rep. Quam stated that he likes that it is a single issue proposal. He does like that the author seems open for more bipartisan input and discussion. But he doubts that most people across the state truly are aware of this issue, and so it would take more time to educate people. He would like to see regional hearings and public discussions across the state before this is adopted, and also if it passes, during the actual process of drawing the lines by the commission. Rep. Bahner (DFL) - Remembers that this was a topic of large concern six years ago when she joined the legislature, and that it was even a topic of concern before that. In polls across the state, Minnesotans have a significantly high degree of agreement that basic fairness matters in our electoral processes and that fair maps drawn by an independent redistricting commission is an essential part of that. Rep. Coulter (DFL) - Stated that now is the time to do redistricting because we have just come off of a redistricting cycle and it is fresh in everyone's minds. He also reminded that in 2010 if 4000 votes had been different, one party would have been in control of the legislature, and if 2023 had been a redistricting year, a trifecta would have been in place for it. Rep. Davis said that so far, bipartisanship has been rejected with the trifecta. Rep. Klevorn replied that with this bill, she is quite open to input from both sides of the aisle. The bill passed to be referred to the State & Local Government Committee via a voice vote.

  • LWVMN Observer Corps Member Cathy Thom ~ Friday, March 15

    HF3527 (Greenman - DFL) - This bill would establish a Minnesota Voting Rights Act. It would prohibit actions that result in voter suppression or vote dilution made by political subdivisions or officials/entities with responsibilities relating to election administration and establish a civil cause of action for violations. It would require prior notice of a claim in order to maximize opportunities to resolve issues locally before lawsuits are filed. Recent rollbacks since 2013 of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 by the federal courts make a state voting rights act necessary in order to restore the private right of action in response to discriminatory practices that limit voting access for eligible Minnesota voters. It has been witnessed that some practices have happened across the state, such as denial of language interpreters at the polls, which also indicate that a state voting rights act is necessary.

    TESTIFIERS: Aseem Mulji - Campaign Legal Center - Current MN law offers additional protections against discrimination to augment federal law, but it does not include voting. This bill fills that protective gap. There are not just protections for discriminatory practices relating directly to the ballot, but it also prohibits vote dilution via gerrymandering and other methods. To minimize costly lawsuits, the law requires prior notice to local jurisdictions so that violations can be remedied before a lawsuit has to be filed. Teresa Nelson - Minnesota has the highest voter turnout in the country, but there are still widespread disparities in all aspects of life, including our elections, for citizens of color. Preserving the right of civil redress for all Minnesotans while preventing frivolous or preventable costly lawsuits is particularly essential.

    MEMBER DISCUSSION: Rep. Niska (R) - Stated that there are some concerns that would or could need to be addressed, including vote dilution, outside of just this bill. For instance, in large local jurisdictions with polarized voting (where voters of color vote as a block) the votes of people of color can be diluted by holding at-large elections for local offices such as city councils. Rep. Greenman replied that this cannot always be proactively identified, and this bill will help to do that, and the prior notice requirement can prevent lawsuits from going forward if local jurisdictions adjust voluntarily to complaints that have merit. Rep. Niska thinks that the bill is too broad in this area - calls it "the wrong tool" - and could result in costly litigation if the legislature does not take on the task of proactively identifying problem areas. He stated that pushing electoral issues into the courts removes things away from a democratic process. He stated that he does like the bill in general but thinks that various aspects of it need to be revised. Rep. Finke (DFL) - Asked about the definitions of protective groups used within the bill. Rep. Greenman replied that the language is taken directly from the federal Voting Rights Act. She said that perhaps we should look at that and refine those definitions. Rep. Finke said that there are "creative ways" being employed to deny the access to voting, including some that deny the use of chosen names. Rep. Scott (R) - Asked why the bill is going to Ways and Means instead of the State Gov committee. Rep. Greenman said that the portion of it that is within the purview of State Gov (regarding ward language) will go on its own to that committee. Rep. Scott suggested that perhaps the entire bill should go to that committee. The bill passed to be referred to the Ways & Means committee via a voice vote.

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