Capitol Letter for February 14, 2025

This Valentine’s Day, February 14th, marked another important milestone for LWV. We turned 105, and LWV members across the country celebrated our commitment to representing voters and achieving a more perfect democracy with a virtual birthday celebration. At the same time, LWVUS sent an urgent letter to Congress expressing our grave concerns about the current state of our democracy. We know that we can and must ACT by staying informed and engaged.

Here at LWVMN, members from around the state joined us via Zoom to kick off Fired Up Fridays, exemplifying the power of the League. We shared our concerns and how we can all take constructive, nonpartisan action together. If you are looking for actions that you can take today, please visit our newly launched Take Action webpage. One upcoming opportunity is a webinar on Understanding Executive Power and State Protections to address some of the many questions that we have right now.

LWVUS Urges Congress to Act in New Letter

The League of Women Voters of the United States, with all 50 state Leagues + DC, sent a letter to US Congressional leadership urging Congress to exercise its authority to protect the rule of law, defend the Constitution, and rein in the executive branch's overreach. "The dismantling of our sacred democracy on full display for the world is one of the most horrific events in modern-day politics," said Celina Stewart, CEO of LWVUS in the press release.

In the detailed letter, the League highlighted several recent executive branch actions that are causing significant harm to millions of Americans, including the undermining of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, attempts to end birthright citizenship, pause distribution of congressionally allocated federal funds, and dismantle federal agencies without proper congressional oversight.

 
 

LWVMN Advocacy

Paul Huffman, LWVMN’s Election and Redistricting Policy Coordinator, submitted testimony in support of SF 1071, Ranked Choice Voting for Local Offices (See 2/13 Report below). As Paul writes, “Experience both within Minnesota and nationally has shown that ranked choice voting for local elections can be implemented effectively and be valuable to assuring election results that reflect the preferences of voters.”

Observer Reports

  • LWVMN Observer & Lobby Corps Member Amy Caucutt

    Bulk of the meeting was discussion of SF856 presented jointly by 2 authors: Gustafson-DFL, Kreun-R, to establish an office of Inspector-General. While there were many questions from Sen Koran-R, it appeared that the authors have developed this language with nearly every affected group to get to the delete-all A-7 and A-8 amendments which were adopted. Bill authors create an independent oversight authority "to solve a problem, not impugn motives", and to empower employees to report to this independent authority, which is an executive function, but not reportable to the Governor. The OLA (office of legislative auditor) will remain distinct from reviewing general systems, while this new officer (OIG) will respond to specifics.  The bill outlines how this officer is chosen ...legislators as well as chief judge of OAH (Office of Administrative Hearings) ... are involved. System should be operational by Jan 2026. Authors are open to amended language but have the basics here.  This bill was passed, but like the Sen Matthew's-R whistle-blower bill (SF475) which was also discussed, it will be brought back to this committee after stopping off at Judiciary where language of definitions in these 2 bills will be coordinated among other possible changes made there. Sen Maye-Quade had noted the problem with different definitions for the same terms between these 2 bills.

    In comments made by members, it sounds like many of the Republicans plan to author bills on some part of this issue but are overall supportive of SF856. Rich Neumeister (a citizen) who testified that he has been lobbying at the legislature on open meetings, public access, and data privacy since 1975, urged clarification in the language so that we do not end up with "same old, same old."  It seemed clear to me that the truly bipartisan SF856 Inspector General will be the Senate's stake in the ground on this issue in 2025.

  • LWVMN Election and Redistricting Policy Coordinator Paul Huffman

    SF 569, Resolution for Congress to Overturn Citizens United (Sen Marty).

    This bill proposes a resolution be sent to Congress to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court Citizens United ruling by amending the U.S. Constitution to state that only “natural persons” are provided rights under the U.S. Constitution. Artificial entities such as businesses, associations and organizations may be regulated by government. Sen. Marty presented the bill noting that the Supreme Court opinion that rulings that equate money to speech, and providing the rights of individuals to companies and organizations, has fundamentally undercut the right of citizens to equal and meaningful participation in elections.

    Sen. Bahr noted that he has a lot of areas of common interest with Sen. Marty on this issue. He pointed out that one approach is to change the constitution to limit rights to individuals. He agrees on the goal but does not believe that congress will give up the money that comes from special interest. Sen. Bahr also noted that there is a need to both limit the amount of money individuals can spend, and to prevent people from donating money to in elections where they could not vote. Sen. Bahr believes that a constitutional convention, convened by state legislatures, is the best way to address this. Sen. Bahr also noted that committee assignments in Congress are based on how much money is raised for their parties. He concluded by stating this is a reflection of “how terrible congress is”.

    Sen. Marty stated that he agreed with most of the points made by Sen. Bahr. He pointed out that the proposed amendment would specifically allow federal, state and local governments to regulate campaign spending. He agreed that making this change is hard, no other state has yet passed this resolution, and that it is unlikely that congress would act on it.

    Sen. Lucero thanked Sen. Marty for introducing the bill and stated that he agreed with the comments of Sen. Bahr. He agreed with the goal as the voices of the “small guy” get snuffed out by the large dollars spent by others. He disagreed on the approach and the method to make the change.

    Sen. Cwodzinski stated that he felt that it might be possible for Congress to see the light in making their jobs easier by limiting campaign spending. He also stated that Citizens United is the second worst Supreme Court decision of the 21st Century.

    Sen. Limmer asked if the restriction on campaign spending applied to unions. He also asked if spending by wealthy individuals such as George Soros. Michael Bloomberg, and Elon Musk be limited.

    Sen. Marty noted that all artificial entities are limited, including associations such as unions. He noted that artificial entities such as companies and unions, should have only those rights that are granted by the government. He also stated that the amendment would limit all spending by individuals, including the very wealthy. The specific requirement in the proposed change is “Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate's own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of their money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.”

    Sen. Koran raised the concern that many nonprofits and advocacy groups are funded by dark money, outside groups. He also stated that Sen. Marty is identifying “good billionaires” and “bad billionaires”. Sen. Koran suggested focusing on limiting dark money that influences or impacts elections, such as from Mark Zuckerberg. He also suggested focusing on “in-kind” contributions, such as big tech being involved in elections, and addressing what can be done in Minnesota. {This is a reference to sites such as Facebook and Google providing support for voter registration, voter information, and grants to local election organizations.) Sen. Koran stated that he believed in-kind contributions are exponentially larger than cash contributions.

    Sen. Marty stated that he is not in favor of any wealthy individuals affecting elections. He noted that nonprofits such as Move to Amend, Clean Elections Minnesota, Common Cause MN, League of Women Voters MN have small staffs and limited funding. While he understands the challenges to implementing this change, Sen. Marty believed that it was important to let peoples concerns about this issue be heard and send a message to Congress.

    The bill was passed and referred to the Senate Rules Committee by a 7-4 vote. Sen Bahr voted yes with the DFL members.

  • LWVMN Election and Redistricting Policy Coordinator Paul Huffman

    SF 1071 - Ranked Choice Voting Provision (Local Voices/Local Choices Act); Presented by Sen. Carlson

    The bill is almost identical to SF 3868 which was introduced in the 2024 legislative session, with only minor changes. That bill did not pass either chamber. This bill allows any local jurisdiction to implement ranked choice voting (RCV) based on a vote of its residents. The bill would also establish state-wide standards for the process of conducting ranked choice voting, determining the winners, selection and testing of election equipment, and including RCV races when conducted in conjunction with a general election.

    Testifiers included Secretary of State Simon, Minnetonka City Council member Ramaley, Hennepin County Commissioner Kevin Anderson, Columbia Heights mayor Amanda Marquez Simula, and representatives of Clean Elections Minnesota and Veterans for All Voters.

    Points raised by testifiers in favor of the bill included providing the options to local jurisdictions; the benefits of establishing a state-wide standard for RCV; reduced cost to both candidates and local election offices due to not having a primary; greater participation by candidates and higher turnout; and more nuanced, civil discussion with voters due to needing to reach more voters. One testifier (Veterans for All Voters) identified the benefit of having options for voters beyond those put forward by political parties in primaries.

    Sen. Koran was the first to ask questions. His first question was whether Sen. Carlson would bring any bills forward that had a chance to pass. Sen. Koran also said that the way to eliminate the two-tiered system of elections (those that can have RCV and those that cannot) is to eliminate the RCV option, for which he has submitted legislation. He noted that in most elections the winner by RCV was also the winner by a plurality. (This is not always the case as seen by the 2022 congressional election in Alaska.) Finally, Sen. Koran pointed at the large amount of money from outside of Minnesota that has supported and preserved RCV in Minnesota cities.

    Sen. Cwodzibnski stated that he disagreed with the points of Sen. Koran and cited testimony from Represent Women noting that in cities with RCV women hold 52% of seats, twice the rate as those without RCV.

    Sen. Bahr pointed out, correctly, that local elections are nonpartisan. He also pointed out the higher turnout in 2024 (a presidential and state general election) versus the municipal election in 2023 (which was much lower). Of note, Sen. Bahr submitted a bill, SF 634, which was heard in the Senate Elections Committee on 2/8/25, which would require all local governments except cities with greater than 100,000 residents, to have elections in even numbered years in conjunction with state-wide general elections.

    Nicole Freeman from the Office of the Secretary of State (OSS) was asked what difficulties RCV would create for the OSS. She described the elections process, how rulemaking would be conducted, and stated that the bill as presented is workable.

    Sen. Lucero asked why the bill is limited to local, nonpartisan races. Sen. Carlson noted that there are complications with statewide implementation. Sen Lucero then asked, since the bill provides local jurisdictions the option to use RCV, why could there not be options for local jurisdictions to vary in other ways from the norm in conduct of elections such as varying voting hours or local use of voter ID. He argued that many local communities would like to implement voter ID however do not have that option. Sen. Lucero did not see how one option can be provided to local governments (RCV) while others are not (voter ID). Sen. Carlson responded that not all changes or options are equal in their impact on elections.

    Sen Lucero questioned the existence and impact of “exhausted ballots”, a situation in which a voter’s ballot is no longer counted in later RCV rounds because all the options they selected are no longer able to win. This results in a smaller pool of ballots being counted in later rounds because some ballots do not include any of the remaining candidates. His concern is that some people’s votes are not counted in the final tally.

    Sen. Mathews expressed concerns that RCV violates the principle of one-person, one-vote established by the U.S. Supreme Court. His other concern is that a primary system has the benefit of allowing a voter to vote for a potential winner in the primary as well as in the general election. He also reinforced some of the points made by Sen. Lucero. Sen. Mathews concluded by identifying the delays in counting votes, and errors made in counting RCV ballots in some jurisdictions, as reasons to not allow RCV in Minnesota. (Chair Westlin noted that the MN Supreme Court determined that RCV is constitutional.)

    Sen. Boldon spoke in favor of the bill, citing many of the same points made by Secretary Simon, Sen. Carlson, and the testifiers.

    No amendments were offered. The bill passed on party lines, 6-5 and was referred to the State and Local Government Committee.

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