Capitol Letter for May 10, 2024
The Capitol Letter™ is a recurring publication that includes reports from LWV Minnesota volunteer Observer Corps and Lobby Corps members on what is happening in the current legislative session.
LWVMN ADVOCACY
ERA Update: The Equal Rights Amendment bill, SF37 as amended, passed the House Rules Committee on Monday, May 6! A House Floor vote is scheduled for Monday, May 13, and there will be many ERA supporters wearing green or white to help the ERA cross the finish line. We hope that you can join us as we rally outside the House Chambers of the MN State Capitol building beginning at 10:30 am! The floor vote will likely happen in the afternoon and can also be viewed online.
For coverage on last week’s Rules Committee hearing, please check out our Observer Report below.
RCV Update: The Ranked Choice Voting Local Option bill, HF3276 (Frazier), has also been added to the House Floor schedule for Monday and supporters will be outside the House Chambers at 10:30 am. As LWVMN has written in support, “HF 3276 provides the framework for local governments to choose the electoral process that works best for them to assure proportional representation in their community, and provides requirements and support to do this in a consistent, efficient manner.”
Observer Reports
-
LWVMN Election and Redistricting Policy Coordinator Paul Huffman
The conference committee initially convened Monday morning, 5/6, to discuss the 2024 legislative session Elections Policy Omnibus. Rep Freiberg, House Elections Finance and Policy Committee chair, had the gavel and Sen Carlson, chair of the Senate Election was the co-chair. Other committee members are Sen Westlin, Sen Boldon, Rep Greenman, and Rep Virnig (all DFL).
Sen Carlson made a statement at the beginning of the first meeting that his goal was to quickly review and agree on a bill that could easily pass through both chambers. This established a basis to expect there would not be any additions to the omnibus that had not previously passed both chambers. The first meeting, lasting about 30 minutes, approved all of the comparison table items where there was no difference between the bills in the two chambers. The most significant of these were miscellaneous changes to voter registration such as changing ID and residency documentation requirements for students; adding residence location to the list of items that would not invalidate an otherwise valid voter registration; minor changes to documentation for voter registration and absentee voting; Changes to the post-election timeline, including the state Canvassing Board, to comply with the Electoral Count Act; and technical changes to election policy changes from 2023 to assist in implementation.
The conference committee reconvened on Friday, May 10 to receive testimony and approval resolution of the differences in the chambers’ bills. At the beginning of the hearing Chair Freiberg stated that after the testifiers were complete, there would be a recess for caucus meetings and leadership consultation, after which the committee would reconvene. He also stated that the conference committee was authorized to negotiate the budgets for those items included in the policy omnibus, within the Elections committee budget target.
Key testifiers included:
• Lilly Sasse, We Choose Us, testified in support of on-campus early voting provisions; the Minnesota Voting Rights Act; and ending prison gerrymandering. She also expressed concern about changes to lobbying legislation which would narrow the definition of “public officials” which has the potential to allow executives and CEOs of corporations to be exempt from identification as “lobbyists”.
• Kate Klossner and Nancy Haas, Minnesota Governmental Relations Council (MGRC, lobbyist association), testified regarding concern for expanded registration as lobbyists for local and state government. They supported establishment of a study and the Senate bill carve-out for technical experts to provide information without being termed lobbyists. Rep Greenman expanded on the question to note that technical experts were not intended to be within the scope of the bill, however CEOs being presented to legislators could be an issue. The MGRC responded that they needed the technical experts to get into the necessary detail on potential legislative policy issues such as chemical engineers, doctors, or hospital administrators. Those experts would be accompanied by a lobbyist who would report the costs associated with the lobbying, including fees paid to technical experts. Sen Weslin pointed out that there are technical experts who present information with the intent to influence and persuade, which would be different than an objective technical expert. MGRC identified the example of the County Attorney Association which is requested by legislators to provide information to aid in policy making. All agreed that a study will be helpful to define the line between experts and lobbying.
• Mike Dean, Executive Director, Northstar Prosperity, testified in support of on-campus polling locations (A-24 amendment). He reflected past experience in working to get voting places on campus in 2004 and then in 2022/2023. He stated that he felt there was “bureaucratic inertia” in election officials in establishing on-campus voting locations and that there were no pop-up locations created in 2022 – 2023. (This was a law passed in the 2023 legislative session.) Dean also noted that voter turnout among community and state college students was about 15% lower than University of MN students, further emphasizing the need for change.
• Wintana Melekin, voting rights advocate, spoke in favor of ending prison gerrymandering and on-campus voting locations. She spoke in opposition to the definition of expert exemptions for being defined as a lobbyist due to the potential that CEOs and other executives will be exempt from being defined as lobbyists and could have special access to lawmakers that ordinary citizens would not.
• Matt Hilgart, Association of MN Counties, and also representing MN Association of County Officers (local election officials) and the League of MN cities spoke in appreciation of the effort that has gone into modifying the amendment regarding on-campus voting locations, and development of the MN Voting Rights Act. With respect to the MN VRA, he noted the changes to allow that actions taken in good faith by local governments and changes made in response to voter concerns could not be held against the jurisdiction. He specifically objected to Mike Dean’s testimony about pop-up polling locations given the 2023 legislation which authorized, limitations on funds and staff in counties, and the additional funding the legislature has provided to counties. Rep Greenman noted the positive collaboration and cooperation of AMC and LMC, and stated that the actions of the legislature should be seen as part of maintaining elections as basic infrastructure, like roads and bridges. Sen Westlin brought forth the point that on-campus voting locations should also be open to all voters, and should focus on populations that have difficulty getting access to vote.
• Emma Rage, Common Cause, spoke in favor of pop-up campus voting locations, prison gerrymandering, deep fake prohibitions, and the MN VRA. She expressed a concern that the MN VRA does not include provision for a state provided database to serve as a respository for election and demographic data to aid individuals and groups in identifying policies and practices that potentially violate the MN VRA. Note: Currently only CT has this requirement. It was only passed in 2023 and is several years from implementation. LWVMN will be meeting with Common Cause and Legal Defense Fund (LDF) to understand the impact of not having this resource, and options for individuals and communities to take action under the MN VRA.
• Sen Boldon asked Jeff Sigurdson, Executive Director of the MN Campaign Finance Board to discuss the scope and concerns for the study regarding definitions of lobbying and the use of experts. She and Rep Virnig provided some examples of situations where an expert might be used in state and local government decision making.
Following a 2 ½ hour recess, the conference committee reconvened to review agreements and amendments being approved in accordance with the resolution table. The changes were approved by either oral or written amendment. All were agreed to by voice vote. Significant agreements:
• Adopted the proposed amendment (A24) for a requirement to establish a one-day pop-up polling place at a college or university based on a request from either the institution or the student government association. The bill was revised to require the request to be made by May 31 of the election year, and that the institution must have at least 100 on-campus student residents. The bill also specifies reimbursements from the Office of the Secretary of State to counties that establish temporary polling locations.
• Adopted language to allow eligible voters to use a description of their home’s location in registering to vote, as long as that information is sufficient to define their precinct.
• Adopted prohibitions on use of Deep Fakes in elections;
• The Minnesota Voting Rights Act was amending with the A43 and A55 amendments, which aligned the terminology, provisions for pre-suit notice and local jurisdiction responsibilities, formation of wards by statutory cities, with or without a MN VRA notice, reimbursement for MN SVRA claims, and implementation funding.
• Adopted change to counting of incarcerated individuals for redistricting (prison gerrymandering) with minor wording changes.
• Changes in lobbying and electioneering impacting local elections and campaigns, including requiring a study for the definitions of public official, experts and local lobbying (A54 amendment). This will be effective 1/1/25.
• Miscellaneous changes proposed by Republicans during the House debate on the elections budget. These include including a requirement that the secretary of state use the Social Security Death Index for updating voter registrations; requiring candidates to present a proof of residence when filing for office; and prohibiting candidates from making a personal loan to their campaign with terms that would require the campaign to pay the candidate interest on the loan.
-
LWVMN Observer Corps Member Kathleen Oganovic
SF37 - Constitutional amendment providing for equality under the law. Representative Kaohly Vang Her (DFL) 64A is the lead author.
Representative Her began the discussion. She introduced the bill and acknowledged this would be a difficult discussion for some and requested that everyone proceed with love. She asked that we all remember that we are a state that validates equality for all.
Twelve people gave public testimony:
1) Megan Peterson / Executive Director of Gender Justice spoke in support of the bill.
She urged the committee to empower Minnesotans to enshrine in our state constitution the most inclusive Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) possible.
2) Jason Adkins / Executive Director & General Counsel at MN Catholic Conference spoke in opposition to the bill.
He opposes this version of the ERA because he feels that it lacks protection against discrimination based on religion.
3) Correna Falls / A college student spoke in opposition to the bill.
She stated that she is “repulsed” by the language in this version of the ERA which she believes tries to enshrine the right to an abortion in our constitution. She questions the transparency of the meaning of the words “making and effectuating decisions about all matters related to one’s own pregnancy or decision whether to become or remain pregnant”. She and others of Gen Z do not support this “abominable” language.
4) Kat Rohn / Executive Director of OutFront spoke in support of the bill.
She said that equality is a Minnesota value. She reminded us of the day over 10 years ago when Governor Mark Dayton signed the Marriage Equality bill into law. But she now fears based on attempts in other states to eradicate Marriage Equality bills that we need to put the ERA in our state constitution.
5) Renee Carlson / General Counsel for True North Legal affiliated with MN Family Institute spoke in opposition to the bill.
She is opposed the bill because she believes that this bill erases women and undermines already established legal protections for women based on sex. The ERA will invalidate special treatment of women and negate the right of young women and girls to privacy, safety, and dignity.
6) Rebecca Delahunt / Director of Policy with MN Family Council is opposed to the bill.
She has several concerns if the ERA is passed. She believes that adding the ERA to the constitution will allow children to have the right to gender affirming care which could have a potential adverse effect on their health. She believes that passage of the ERA will prioritize the feelings of men that identify as female gender identify and expression over the rights of girls and women who need the protection of female only spaces in rest rooms, locker rooms and prisons.
7) Betty Folliard / Founder of ERAMN supports the bill.
Our state has never had equality in our constitution. As our state has evolved over time and so has the ERA. We need to dismantle the systemic inequalities in our society and grant full dignity and humanity to All Minnesotans. All means all. She wants everyone to know that her faith informs her politics, and she is an Elder in the Presbyterian Church.
8) Cathy Blaeser / Co-Executive Director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) is opposed to the bill.
Cathy believes that passage of the ERA will create unlimited access to abortions. There will be no protection for viable babies who are victims of late-term abortions. She believes that abortion advocates are not being truthful and are hiding their desire for abortion up until birth with the words “pregnancy outcomes”. Advocates of ERA do NOT believe in equal rights for all and are being purposely deceitful. If this bill is passed the opposition will come out in droves to prevent it from becoming part of the constitution.
9) Karen Adante / MN citizen from Mendota Heights opposes the bill.
The ERA will give constitutional protection to women who abort their healthy babies up to the point of birth. The bill does not recognize rights related to age, conscience, or creed. It is a lie to believe that some abortions are medically necessary. We will all find ourselves at the mercy of the judgment of God and she wants to be able to tell her God that she has done everything she can to oppose abortion.
10) Dr. Kristy Janigo / The American Legion Department of Minnesota Legislative Chair, Minnesota Association of County Veteran Service Officers Legislative Chair supports the bill.
She usually speaks on behalf of veteran’s organizations, but today she is speaking on behalf of herself, her mother, all female veterans, and all Minnesotans. She is a third-generation member of the army in her family. There are veterans of every race, color, and creed, gender identity and orientation. All six years of her military career was marked by regular demeaning and sometimes threatening sexual harassment starting with the first day of basic training and continuing to the last basic training exercise. She knew that sexual assault would eventually happen to her. The concept of equal rights for all is a veterans’ issue and should not be a partisan issue.
11) Mohamed Ahmed / Executive Director of African Immigrant Community Services spoke in opposition to the bill.
He believes that that he and his community are being told a lie with the ERA language. By using the phrase, the right to “making and effectuating decisions about all matters relating to one’s own pregnancy or decision whether to become or remain pregnant” in the bill rather than using the word “abortion” is a trick. He knows that the authors of the bill really want to kill babies. He speaks with love not with hate. Please go back and re-write this bill.
12) Heather Clarkson / A Minnesota citizen spoke in opposition to the bill based on her religious beliefs.
Discussion of the Representatives prior to the vote:
Representative Kelly Moller (DFL) 40A
Explained for those who were concerned that the word “creed” was dropped from the House ERA proposed bill, that the MN constitution already protects the right to worship according to your own choice. The right to practice your own religious beliefs does not give individuals the right to impose their beliefs on others. She supports the bill because of her concern about intimate gender-based violence.
Representative Jim Nash (R) 48A
Commented that even though testifier Kat Rohn said that she supported the ERA because equality is a Minnesota value, he was concerned about the rights of medical people who disagreed with some of the provisions of the ERA.
Representative Marion Rarick (R) 29B - Suggested many concerns:
• Would the ERA override current constitutional rights based on religion?
• Will the ERA require state funding for medical gender affirming care for prisoners?
• Will the ERA require state funding for IVF?
• Will the ERA enshrine state funding for abortions up to the point of birth?
Representative Kristin Robbins (R) 37A - Suggested other concerns:
• If a MN entity receives state funds, is it a state actor and obligated to conform to the provisions of the ERA.
• In the past courts have found real differences between the needs of men and women in certain situations. Would the ERA harm women’s rights for safe spaces in rest rooms, locker rooms and prisons?
She made a motion to table the bill. The vote was 8 NO / 5 Yes.
Representative Sydney Jordan (DFL) 60A - Supports the bill because:
• It would NOT invalidate MN constitutional protections for religion.
• It would address gaps in racial discrimination.
• It would give individuals the right to make their own medical healthcare decisions regarding gender care and pregnancy concerns.
Representative Paul Torkelson (R) 15B:
Was concerned about the removal of the word “age” from the ERA, but the response was that we already have laws that discriminate by age such as age requirements for drinking or voting. Removing the word “age” in the bill recommended by lawyers who reviewed the bill.
Representative Athena Hollins (DFL) 66B:
Commented to refute the idea that the words of the bill are “sneaky”. It is good to use comprehensive language about pregnancy because medical healthcare for women trying to become pregnant or women who are pregnant involves many more situations than IVF or abortion as all women know.
Minority leader Representative Demuth (R) 13A:
Requested several roll call votes to move the bill back to other House committees for review which were defeated along party lines.
• To Judiciary Finance and Civil Law
• To Health Finance and Policy
• To State and Local Government Finance and Policy
She voiced concerns about:
• Possible loss of special treatment already in place for women owned business.
• Discrimination against people of faith.
• “Closed door meetings” that Republicans were not invited to.
A request was made for a roll call to move SF37 out of committee.
Committee Chair and Majority Leader Jamie Long (DFL) 61B closing remarks:
Representative Lisa Demuth was correct in stating that reproductive rights were approved in MN by statue last session. But he wants to remind everyone that no Republicans voted for the Pro-Act bill. We were recently reminded by the actions of the US Supreme Court that legislation can be overturned by the court. We all know that legislatures and courts change over time. The intent of this bill is to enshrine in our state constitution equal rights for all.
Representative Her’s closing comments:
The development of this bill was NOT a closed-door process. Minnesotans have been in discussion about the ERA for six years. Nationally we have been discussing the ERA for over 50 years.
She stated that there are several statements made by others that she would like to clarify:
• Rejects the idea that that she is trying to trick anyone. The language and intent are clearly stated in this bill. The proposal is to let voters decide. If you don’t agree with the bill, don’t vote for it.
• She is the daughter of the first Hmong Methodist Minister in the world. Many times her parents who were missionaries saw impoverished women with more children than they could care for and no access to birth control.
• She has had an abortion because she had an ectopic pregnancy which is a pregnancy that can’t be carried to term because the fertilized egg grows outside the uterus. No one in this room gets to decide how my God will judge me.
• Religion is protected in the MN state constitution.
• Healthy babies are NOT being killed in the last months of pregnancy. All abortions are required by law to be reported to the state.
• We will not be a state where women are dying in the parking lot of sepsis infection while their healthcare providers are afraid to act to address their needs.
• Anyone who believes that women and LGBTQ people rights are currently protected is sorely mis-informed. Do your research. Look at the data.
• No one holds the corner on making the right decisions for others.
Majority Leader Long made a motion for SF37 as amended to be referred to the General Register. The General Register is a list of all bills that have had 2 prior readings and have been reported out of one or more standing committees. The vote was 9 YES / 5 NO
Related NEws Coverage
House News Week in Review: May 6-10
MinnPost: A bill that requires Minnesota schools to teach about climate justice won’t advance this year
MN Reformer: Senate expected to pass $3 million nitrate treatment package for southeastern MN
MPR News: Tribal members reflect on 100th anniversary of Indian Citizenship Act at Minnesota Capitol
Axios Twin Cities: Infrastructure funding hangs in the balance as legislative session nears end
MN Reformer: Senate ethics committee delays action on complaint against DFL Sen. Nicole Mitchell
Please learn more at our 2024 Legislative Session Webpage.