Capitol Letter for February 28, 2025

This past week, LWVMN was joined by Professor Alan Rozenshtein from the University of Minnesota Law School for an enlightening webinar, “Can the President Do That?”. If you haven’t seen it yet, please watch this recording. If you have seen it, please share widely and join us for more upcoming webinars and opportunities to ensure the strength of our democracy!

Over 70 LWVMN members joined us with their phones and their plans for action this past Fired Up Friday. We shared how the League can be visible and how we can all take action on the issues important to us by calling our representatives. Please visit our Take Action webpage for more resources to get involved, and use this form to Urge Your Members of Congress to Stand Up for Democracy.

  • On Tuesday, March 4 at 7:30 pm, LWVMN will host an informational webinar to learn about our rights and those of our neighbors with ACLU MN! This event will take place during the "Light for Our Democracy" events happening during the President's first address to Congress. This Know Your Rights training is to build solidarity and support the health of our democracy with people across the country. All people in the United States, regardless of immigration status, have certain rights and protections under the U.S. Constitution. Come learn more about your rights, and how to take action in your community!

  • On Saturday, March 8, International Women's Day, LWVMN will join Minnesota 50501 to demonstrate our commitment to upholding the government's accountability to the people. Bring your friends, your family, your signs, and listen to your fellow Minnesotans stand up and fight for our democracy. Meet us at the MN Capitol from 12:00 to 2:00 pm!

 

LWVMN Advocacy and Observer Reports

LWVMN Election and Redistricting Policy Coordinator Paul Huffman submitted testimony in opposition to HF550 which would establish a Bipartisan Redistricting Commission. You can learn more about this proposal from our Observer Reports below in House Elections - 2/24 and State Government Committees - 2/27.

We also have Observer Reports following legislator’s bipartisan efforts to establish an Office of the Inspector General with SF856 in the MN Senate and HF1 in the MN House. Check out the discussions in the multiple Committee stops and other issues followed by our Observer and Lobby Corps members this week!

  • LWVMN Observer & Lobby Corps Member Shannon Moore

    SF472, Author Senator Kunesh, co-authors Senator’s Pappas and Oumou Verbeten - Office of Ombudsperson for American Indian Families court fee requirement exemption prevention. were added as.

    Testimony given by Jill Kehaulani Esch with the Minnesota Office of Ombudsperson for American Indian Families. She is also a licensed attorney. Minnesota is #1 in the nation in removing American Indian children from their homes. The American Indian population in Minnesota is 2%, and 20% to 25% of their children are removed from their homes.

    Ms. Esch’s job as an ombudsperson is to be a neutral party and provide information and resources to the court. She will send letters to the court with information and ask the court to waive the filing fee. Some judges have waived the fee and some have not. In some cases the judges will refer in the court files to the information provided and why the case cannot move forward. There are 89 courts and each court can make their own decision. Ms. Esch said their office cannot afford the $285.00 filing fees. In 2021, when the office was created, $190,000.00 was appropriated for 1 person's salary, rent and computers/office supplies. They do not have extra money to pay the filing fees.

    Senators Carlson, Howe, Kreun, Latz and Limmer all asked questions on how the process worked.

    Ms Esch gave detailed answers on what is involved and how her job works, see a few examples below:

    • She works with both federally recognized tribes covered by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and Minnesota Indian Family Preservation Act (MIFPA) and tribes that are not federally recognized. Mendota Mdewakanton Dakota Tribal Community is a tribe that is not federally recognized. She provides assistance as a neutral party by supplying information and resources.

    • If the case is in County Court, it is up to the tribe if they are going to intervene in the case to provide testimony. She will look at the case to determine if the county has done everything they are supposed to do.

    • She observes court proceedings throughout Minnesota on zoom. If it appears the Court has not given notice to the tribe it is one of her duties to ensure that the County is in compliance with ICWA and notifies the tribe.

    Senator Oumou Verbeten made the motion that SF472 be recommended to pass and be referred to the Senate Floor. All ayes, 0 no.

  • LWVMN Observer & Lobby Corps Member Linda Smith

    HF550, Presented by Rep. Torkelson, ‘Bipartisan Redistricting Commission established, principles to be used in adopting legislative and congressional districts established, and constitutional amendment proposed.’

    Rep. Quam, Committee Chair, spoke repeatedly in favor. Rep. Greenman spoke in opposition, stating redistricting commission should be out of the hands of the legislature and there should be independent redistricting. When Rep. Freiberg asked who drafted the bill and whether any other input was sought, Rep Torkelson said it came from him and no other outside sources were sought. When asked what would happen in the event of a tie of the eight members, Rep. Torkelson replied he did not know.  

    Brian Cook, of the Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of this constitutional amendment.  Michael Li, of the Brennan Center, spoke in opposition stating, among other issues, that it was not sufficiently robust without restrictions on who could serve, too political. Tom Wiesen, a Mahtomedi resident, spoke in opposition, stating it lacked impartiality, and opposed ‘imbedding propaganda’ of only two parties by calling it bi-partisan redistricting in the Constitution. May Yang, Minnesota Council on Foundations, spoke in opposition that it was not impartial and wanted “communities of interest” to be given more importance. Emma Rage, of Common Cause, spoke in opposition, stating they want a non-partisan bill.

    Considerable back and forth discussion among members of the committee including Representatives Coulter, McDonald, Lee and Virnig in addition to members described above. Roll call: 6 ayes, 5 nays advanced to State Government Finance and Policy Committee on Thursday.

    Additional Report from LWVMN Election and Redistricting Policy Coordinator, Paul Huffman

    HF550 proposes a constitutional amendment to establish a bipartisan redistricting commission composed of individuals appointed by the majority and minority party leaders in the Minnesota House and Senate. The only people who would be excluded from being on the commission are current federal, state, or local elected officials, other public officials defined in MN statute, and their immediate families. The practical effect is that the commission will likely consist of former elected officials, or current party officials, lobbyists, and consultants. A companion bill, SF 824 was previously introduced by Sen Rest. This bill is identical to the redistricting bill introduced by Sen Rest and Rep Torkelson in the 2024 session (HF 5404/SF 5450).

    Representative Torkelson introduced the bill by highlighting the importance of having the legislature draw the new district maps 2032 rather than the courts based on the high likelihood that Minnesota will lose one of its eight congressional seats. He also stated that this bill is something that has a chance of passing the legislature. An author’s amendment was proposed to revise language regarding the first and second parties in the chambers to address the potential for a tie such as currently exists in the House. After some questions by Rep Freiberg regarding the language, and a commitment by the author to address the questions, the amendment was passed.

    Representative Greenman had previously submitted a Delete Everything (DE) amendment to replace the bill proposed by Rep Torkelson with a citizen commission similar to that contained in the 3-part “Good Government” bill submitted by Representative Long in the 2024 session (HF 4593). The DE as submitted contained parts of the 2024 bill that were not intended to be presented to the House Elections Committee, so the Amendment was withdrawn. Chair Quam allowed Rep Greenman to provide an overview of the amendment even though it was withdrawn. (The amendment was revised and submitted for the House State Government Finance and Policy Committee as DE2 on Thursday, 2/27.)

    Rep Greenman discussed the major points of the bill, based on taking the power for drawing maps from legislatures due to the conflict of interest of legislators drawing their own maps. She stated that the main difference is a citizen commission rather than a commission selected by the legislative caucus leaders. Rep Greenman also discussed the large number, and range of locations that her proposed amendment required. She also noted that there were many restrictions on who could be on the commission under her amendment to prevent partisan influence. Rep Greenman also noted that one of the primary, early, types of gerrymandering is drawing maps to protect incumbents through parties working together.

    Chair Quam raised a challenge to Rep Greenman’s proposed bill that most of the State Supreme Court members could not be on the redistricting commission as she described it. He stated that members of the court were previous legislators or staff members for the governor (solicitor general). Rep Greenman responded by discussing the potential for judicial reform as a separate matter.  Her concern is keeping lobbyists and party officials from drawing maps. The Chair stated that several redistricting maps have been drawn up by the actions of the state supreme court and the state supreme court is not nonpartisan.  It is important to note that no one mentioned that the Supreme Court does not actually draw the maps. This has always been done by a party-balanced board of judges assigned by the Supreme Court. The most recent Special Redistricting Panel consisted of 2 judges appointed by DFL governors, 2 appointed by Republican Governors, and 1 appointed by an Independence party governor.

    Testimony included:

    • Minnesota Chamber of Commerce (Brian Cook) in favor as the bill would provide stability and predictability in redistricting, and due to the long-lasting impacts on businesses and communities.  The bill will be transparent in that partisan affiliation of the commission members would be clear.

    • Michael Li, Brennan Center applauded the legislature taking up redistricting reform.  He noted that Minnesota has been lucky to have not had a trifecta which would likely have led to a partisan gerrymander. He noted partisan abuse in states with partisan commissions, such as in New Jersey. Mr. Li identified concerns with the lack of limits in who could be on the commission, having principles in statute (which can be changed by the legislature) rather than the constitution, and using compactness as a principle equal to contiguity when communities are frequently not compact and compactness is not defined in the bill. He also recommended that the bill specifically state that districts are drawn based on total population, rather than some other measure such as number of voters. Rep. Quam challenged Li by noting that the election after the last 2 redistricting cycles resulted in a trifecta, though he did not point out how that was relevant to the discussion as it appears to support Mr. Li’s testimony. He also pointed out that the second redistricting principle in the bill is a requirement that the maps not cause racial discrimination. Chair Quam suggested getting an updated copy of the bill.

    • Tom Wiesen, a resident of Mahtomedi, testified objecting to the limitation of the commission to 2 parties (the “duopolies”). He also asserted that the existing maps are the result of partisan gerrymandering (even though the courts draw the maps).

    • May Yang, Minnesota Council on Foundations, supports the creation of a commission however expressed concerns with the commission members being appointed by the legislature, and support appointment by non-political individuals.  She also identified concerns with the low ranking of communities of interest in the principles, and lack of specific hearings for community input. May cited the “With us, for us” Redistricting Bill introduced in the 2024 session.  

    • Emma Rage, speaking for Common Cause, appreciated the introduction of a bill and the opportunity to discuss achieving a bipartisan solution for redistricting based on the inputs of Minnesotans.  

    Rep Coulter asked the author what would happen if the commission did not get 6 votes for a map. The author stated that the design of the bill was to force the members to reach agreement. Rep Torkelson stated that he was not sure of the remedy if the commission members could not agree.  (This is a notable gap in that no political commission in a closely divided state reached a bipartisan agreement in the 2022 redistricting cycle.)

    Rep Coulter (DFL) asked why the list of exclusions is very limited. Rep Torkelson noted that the bill is written based on the belief that redistricting is a political process, and even the courts have a partisan component. Rep Torkelson also discussed that the computer systems for redistricting have “gotten amazing and will only get more amazing.” (The reality is that the applications have gotten very accessible and easier for individuals to use.) Rep Coulter noted that it was very troubling that party officials, candidates, former legislators and lobbyists were all allowed to be on the commission. He was also troubled that this was being presented as partisan when it was noted that people did not like this being a partisan process.

    Rep McDonald (R) asked the representative from the Chamber of Commerce why, in his expert opinion, legislatures and governors have not been able to reach agreement in the past 50 years.  He stated that he thought that if the 4 party redistricting leads had been empowered to create district maps in 2022, without needing legislative or governor approval, they could have produced maps.  

    Rep McDonald compared this redistricting bill to a past constitutional amendment that established a panel to set legislator’s pay. He thought it was a good idea for the people of Minnesota to decide how the maps be drawn similar to deciding pay.

    Rep Lee (DFL) asked how the order of principles was selected. The author stated that he thought it was the same as used recently. (In fact the principles and their order are very different from those used by the courts in the most recent redistricting cycle.)  Rep Lee also expressed concern with not placing more weight on communities of interest, and the past research by the Brennan Center identified the value and importance of communities of interest. Michael Li from Brennan Center noted that in their research, when independent commissions draw maps that place a value on communities of interest, the districts are more competitive.

  • LWVMN Observer & Lobby Corps Member Amy Caucutt

    On Feb 24th, Sen Latz (Chair) and Sen Limmer (Minority lead) got into the weeds on data in the bi-partisan fraud bill creating an independent IG (investigator general) at the Judiciary Committee hearing. At every committee stop, Sen. Gustafson (DFL) and Sen Kreun (GOP) co-present. At every hearing, more disagreements have been worked out. In the A-19 amendment fraud is now defined as "an intentional or deceptive act to gain unlawful benefit". Police officers have been dropped, replaced by investigative officers, and criminal referrals will be sent to the AG. The IG in the Department of Corrections (DOC) will either be renamed or not moved to this new office since it does only internal work. All employees except the IG and deputies will be classified, keeping those employment protections. Sen Kreun said it doesn't matter where the worker is located, just who he reports to. LONG discussion on data with 2 testifiers: Neumeister and Ehling. Data will keep its classification from where it originated. Latz and Limmer are worried about public access to "abandoned" cases. Limmer says we need a balance between public's right to know and protecting personal reputation. Latz wants to require an annual report to legislature and said that a compromise on "abandoned" cases can be resolved informally or come back to committee. Bill recommended to pass and sent to Education finance, unanimously.

    On Feb 26th SF856 appeared in Sen. Kunesh's Education Finance Committee with another amendment (A-22) which takes out the subjective word "waste", keeps some Ed department investigations in that department for student maltreatment, for instance. DHS will retain its IGs for licensing and background studies. Authors said this will "create clarity, not confusion...and independence".  It is modeled after Minnesota's own Campaign Finance Board and Office of Legislative Auditor. This does not violate separation of powers because the IG is appointed by the administrative law judge (executive department). MDE likes changes and reported on what their new IG has accomplished in 18 months closing 80 of the 140 complaints. MMB is still unsatisfied, but MAPE is now OK. House and Senate authors meet every Tuesday evening to work out bill problems. Bill recommended to pass and referred to Health and Human Services Committee after a few GOP members made short political comments about recent fraud problems in MN.

  • LWVMN Observer & Lobby Corps Member Cathy Thom

    Chair: Rep. Ron Kresha (R) - Little Falls

    HF1 (Anderson, Patti - R - Dellwood) - Office of the Inspector General established. Rep. Anderson clarified that there are Inspectors General at certain individual agencies, including Minnesota Department of Education (MDE), but this bill creates an umbrella office for the entirety of MN state government. It would replace or oversee many of these departmental Office of Inspector Generals (OIGs). It is the companion bill to Senator Gustafson's bipartisan Senate bill (see report above). Rep. Klevorn is a DFL co-sponsor in the MN House. There is a special bipartisan committee composed of members from both the House and Senate working on the bill.

    TESTIFIERS: Mr. Bruce, a professional public employees' union representative (MAPE), testified that the bill would strip protections from many OIG public employees, possibly subjecting them to political targeting and other abuses now being seen at the federal level, and could strip them of their rights to collective bargaining. He also expressed concerns about eliminating some individual agencies' OIG offices, particularly when it comes to licensing functions. Rep. Anderson replied that the use of the word "unclassified" to describe employees would likely not remain in the final bill. The employee statuses will mimic those of the Office of the Legislative Auditor, so it is likely that the union's current concerns regarding employee protections will not exist within the next engrossment of the bill. Only the top hierarchy employees will be unclassified. She also said that there may be some departmental Deputy OIGs that will remain in certain agencies as needed - that would be left up to this new umbrella agency to determine in partnership with all of the state agencies that currently have them.

    MEMBER DISCUSSION: Rep. Liz Lee (DFL - St Paul) suggested that it would have been helpful if Rep. Anderson would have had an amendment to offer at this meeting with language to alleviate these classified versus unclassified employee status concerns and that clearly states that OIG employees will indeed be given protected classified status. She also expressed concerns that the timeline for offboarding other agency OIGs is too short.

    Rep. Josiah Hill (DFL - Stillwater) - Expressed concerns about the scale of the bill, especially in regard to cost. Rep. Anderson replied that the new agency would not be paid for all with state funds - some would be paid for by fees charged to the clients the agencies and grants serve. Rep. Hill also echoed Rep. Lee's concerns about the July 1, 2025 implementation timeline, which seems very short. He also expressed concern that there is currently no dollar amount assigned to how much this would cost. Rep. Anderson said that some of the cost is already covered by shifting current employees who are already getting paid - they would simply move within this agency. The intent is that there will be no additional cost to the general fund for this agency.

    Rep. Cheryl Youakim (DFL - Hopkins) - Wondered if the bill would be back before the Education Finance Committee once the fiscal note is added, in case it does impact MDE's budget. Rep. Kresha replied that he has already requested that be done. Rep. Youakim also pointed out that different agencies are funded differently (for instance, DHS has much more federal pass-through funding than MDE does, nor is DHS mandated by the MN Constitution like MDE). She wondered if this would be reflected in the bill's definition of "misuse" of funds. That this is not defined in the bill is concerning and she requested that it be added so that it doesn't make simple accounting errors crimes that are mandated to be reported to law enforcement. Rep. Anderson said that "misuse" should be defined as something very intentional and asked that nonpartisan staff make that correction. Rep. Youakim also expressed concern about the broad language allowing unfettered access to education data by OIG employees without parameters - perhaps there should be some limits or at least some disclosure requirements when it comes to student and family data as required by the Chapter 13 Government Data Practices Act. She also echoed the previous concerns about the tight timeline.

    Rep. Bianca Virnig (DFL - Eagan) - Inquired about the difference between a "monitoring visit" versus an "investigative visit." Rep. Anderson replied that a monitoring visit is a routine unannounced visit to make sure that the organization exists and is doing what they say they are doing, where they say they are doing it, for whom they say they are serving. An investigative visit is one that is done as a result of a reported violation or strong suspicion of violation. Rep. Virnig cautioned that the inspectors who do these visits need to be numerous enough that there will not be "drive by" inspections, which would nullify the effectiveness of the agency being created by this bill.

    Rep. Engen (R) - Asked if the office can refer civil and criminal complaints. Rep. Anderson said that yes, they can and likely will, but the prosecutions will be done by the MN Attorney General or the federal government.

    Rep. Julie Greene (DFL - Edina) - Suggested the importance of doing more defining between degrees of violation such as "misuse" versus "fraud."

    Rep. Pete Johnson (DFL - Duluth) - Questioned how complaints are made and handled, so that this does not become a pathway for political harassment of nonprofits by rival interest groups. Tight definitions of misuse and fraud can help with this, he suggested, as well as having a well-defined complaint/reporting process to weed out petty or unfounded complaints/reports.

    Analysis: There is clear bipartisan support for this bill. But concerns about employee classifications, funding for increased numbers of inspectors, data privacy, and the tight timeline will need to be worked out within the bipartisan committee.

  • LWVMN Observer & Lobby Corps Member Cathy Thom

    HF1329 (Koznick - R - Lakeville) - Metropolitan Council governance modified, and Transportation Advisory Board eliminated. Rep. Koznick reviewed bipartisan calls for Task Forces regarding Met Council reform since 2020. He stated that the new DE2 Amended bill is the most practicable element from those reform suggestions. The amended bill changes the structure of the Met Council - instead of the Governor appointing all Met Council members - 2/3 of the members would be selected by nominating committees from cities and counties and recommended for appointment by the Governor. If the Governor chooses to reject the recommended candidates, an explanation is required. Chair Duane Quam (R - Byron) pointed out that the Met Council's jurisdiction includes roughly half of the population of Minnesota. Rep. Koznick explained why a completely elected Met Council is not a good solution because it would become a "mini-legislature" with less transparency and less accountability than the Met Council has now. 

    MEMBER DISCUSSION: Rep. Mike Freiberg (DFL) - Inquired if there was new outreach to stakeholders regarding the new DE version of the bill, which is only one day old. Especially since cities and counties are not equally represented on the nominating committee. Rep. Koznick replied that this bill is just about the nominating committee. He suggested that the bill, rather than being referred to the general register, should go to the Transportation Committee. Rep. Koznick says that this is not new - it's been studied since 2020, and all provisions come from those studies. Any further amendments can be done prior to bringing it to a floor vote. Rep. Liz Lee (DFL) formally made the motion to refer the bill to the transportation committee. The motion failed on a 5-6 party line vote. Rep. Lee then moved to table the bill. That motion also failed on a 5-6 party line vote. The bill was passed for referral to the general register via a party line vote of 6-5.

    HF931 (Nash - R - Waconia) Requirements that certain mailings containing an absentee ballot application or sample ballot sent by or on behalf of a committee or other private organization must be more clear that they are simply absentee ballot applications, not actual ballots. Rep. Nash noted that Common Cause submitted written testimony in favor of the bill.

    TESTIFIERS: Michael Stalberger - MN Association of County Administrators - Testified in support of the bill due to the increased volume of these types of mailings and the confusion that they currently cause for voters. He pointed out that the bill also disallows that these types of ballot applications be pre-filled out with voter information, and when it is sent in, it often must be rejected if it contains outdated or incomplete information. They also result in duplicate applications being filled out and sent in by voters who receive them but have already filled out an application with the county.

    Matt Hilgart - Association of MN Counties - Testified in favor of the bill, echoing many of Michael Stalberger's points. He added that sometimes these mailings are misleading voters into believing that they originate from the government. This bill requires that the sender be very clear about who they are. 

    Nicole Freeman - MN Secretary of State's Office - Stated that the SOS's Office was in favor of the bill, but wanted to further clarify that the pre-filled application provisions do not end up, in practice, penalizing the voter in the end. Rep. Quam asked where these organizations are getting their information. Ms. Freeman replied that they usually come from public voter rolls.

    Kirk Peterson - Hennepin County - Testified in favor of the bill for the same reasons as other testifiers, and it can sometimes prevent voters from voting smoothly in person when they show up thinking that it is an official government document that they can use to vote.

    MEMBER DISCUSSION: Rep. Freiberg expressed concern that the sample ballot language is not strong enough. Rep. Nash said that it is strong enough because the provision is there that the sender must say it is not an official ballot.

    Rep. Emma Greenman (DFL - Minneapolis) - Inquired how a county elections official deals with prohibited pre-filled applications that are sent in? Matt Hilgart replied that these voters are contacted and most often sent an official absentee ballot application if necessary, and they are informed of the existence of the new permanent absentee ballot list. Rep. Greenman cautioned against outlawing pre-filled applications altogether because the biggest cause of ballot application rejection is handwriting issues. She said she would prefer that accurate pre-filled ballots should be accepted. Rep. Nash said that he would be open to more language clarifications prior to the floor vote.

    The bill was passed to the general register via a voice vote.

    Additional Coverage from MN House News

    HF1253 (Rep. Ben Davis - R - Merrifield) - Requirements related to the return of absentee ballots on election day modified from 8:00 PM to 3:00 PM, and absentee voting period modified from 46 days to 28 or 29 days for all non-overseas (UOCAVA) voters.

    TESTIMONY: Crow Wing County Administrator - Testified in favor of the bill due to the current strains that the current timelines put on county officials. He pointed out that most absentee ballots in Crow Wing County are received within 18 days of Election Day.

    Paul Linnell - Secretary of State's Office - Testified that the SOS's office has concerns with reducing the number of days for early voting for non-UOCAVA voters. He stated that 168,000 ballots statewide are received prior to 28 days before Election Day. Early voting is increasingly popular, with 40% of voters now voting prior to Election Day. He suggested that instead of reducing the number of days, there are other ways to reduce burdens on county election officials. The SOS's office also testified that the 8 PM absentee ballot return time is necessary to keep vote ending times consistent for all types of voting. The creation of absentee ballot boards across counties helps to alleviate issues with processing absentee ballots on Election Day evenings to expedite results as much as possible. There are exceptions where some counties can report absentee ballot results received after 3 PM at a later time than other results. Improvements are being explored to help resolve data results issues that occurred during the 2024 election. Rep. Quam inquired about the deadline for voters to change their votes cast on an absentee ballot. Mr. Linnell stated that it was changed from 7 days to 18 days for the past election.

    MEMBER DISCUSSION: Rep. Bianca Virnig (DFL - Dakota County) - Asked about postal service delays and other handling of ballots. Rep. Davis replied that it is up to the counties to communicate with their local post offices if they know there are delay issues within their own counties.

    Rep. Liz Lee pointed out that all mail delivery standards should be uniform across all counties. What is being done to make sure that is true in practice? Rep. Davis replied that his bill does not address this. Rep. Lee said that reducing ballot return time does not help to ensure that ballots get returned in a timely manner in areas where there are increasing numbers of mail delays. Rep. Quam suggested that the legislature get some data on those mail delay concerns, and stated that the USPS is a federal entity, not a state one. Rep. Lee suggested that the author add a "postmarked by" deadline date to address mailing delays.

    Rep. Greenman commented that the bill is working at cross purposes by compressing things towards election day, which would actually put more pressure on election officials rather than alleviate it during the election season. 

    Rep. Davis made final comments stating that the changes made to voting and election processes were made without bipartisan support over the past two years, "cutting out the voices of half the population" of MN. He stated that this bill helps to alleviate that, and that given that 93% of ballots across the state were cast within the 28 days prior to Election Day in 2024 helps to alleviate the burden on MN counties. 

    The bill passed to the general register via a 6-5 party line vote.

    HF977 (Freiberg) - Money transferred to the voting operations, technology, and election resources account from the general fund. The purpose is to make more money available to assist local entities with election-related costs. 

    There were several testifiers from local entities in favor of the bill. Secretary of State Steve Simon also spoke in favor of it. They all spoke to increased costs across the state, and the need for this additional funding to help cover those costs. Secretary Simon explained why and how the fund was created in 2023 and how it functions, and the funds are distributed through his office, and the data collection requirements mandated in regard to them. He also reminded lawmakers that out of all MN counties, only 9 counties have full time election staff. Election-related duties in the rest of MN counties are covered by other current workers or temporary workers hired just for election season. He also reminded lawmakers that the SOS's office is a net money maker for the state because it pays for itself and then some from business services fees that the SOS's office also administers in addition to election and voting services. The bill was laid over for possible inclusion.

  • LWVMN Observer & Lobby Corps Member Carol Seiler

    SF 197, Authored by Senator Erin Maye Quade, requires every Minnesota District to have two student representatives on their school board .

    Five students testified and were strongly in favor of the Bill. One was a college student, two from the MN Youth Council, one from Progressive Victory PAC, and one from Catalyst for Systems Change.

    Terry Morrow, General Counsel for Minnesota School Boards Association, testified that there are currently 134 school districts with student representation on their school boards. Each district determines how the Board will operate with the students, and there are many different operational structures. He does not support the Bill as it is written because it dictates the same operational structure for every school board, and believes the school district should have the latitude to determine the structure that works best for them.

    Dan Schilling, a Little Falls School Board member, said the Bill is overreaching, it is a statutory dictator and circumvents local governance. Little Falls does have student representatives on their Board.

    No vote was taken; discussion will continue.

  • LWVMN Observer and Lobby Corps Member Cathy Thom and Amy Caucutt

    HF550 (Torkelson) - Bipartisan Redistricting Commission established

    Rep. Torkelson stated that there are still a lot of details to be worked out in this bill, especially how to incentivize the partisanly appointed commission to actually do the work that the partisan legislature itself has been unable to do. Rep. Klevorn urged the committee to table the bill because of what she felt were serious problems with the bill. Rep. Torkelson replied that the bill as written does have bipartisan support, with a DFL author in the Senate.

    Representative Torkelson says we should create this now because next redistricting will be very difficult with probably a loss of a congressional district and the possibility of one party having a tri-fecta which he thinks would lead to a very unfair map. 4 testifiers: Chamber of Commerce supports this bill; MN Council of Non-profits and Common Cause want a commission but formed differently; a citizen (Tom Wiesen) really dislikes this bill which he called 'in your face political bias" ..."we need non-partisan, not this bi-partisan insult." Some of the testifiers noted that gridlock is not addressed. Author agrees and says he is working on methods to get the commission to come to a conclusion.

    Rep Freiberg offered the DE-2 amendment, which was bigger than underlying bill, and substituted Rep Klevorn's language from her bill last year (that was supported by LWVMN). It was not adopted on a party-line vote. Rep Torkelson said he wants a bill that can pass. Rep Freiberg said this bill will not pass.

    The bill passed to be referred to the Judiciary Committee on a 7-6 party line vote.

  • LWVMN Observer & Lobby Corps Member Amy Caucutt

    HF1 (Patti Anderson) presented to Peggy Scott's Judiciary committee. She added the A-15 amendment to agree upon language changes with senate authors. Chair Scott presented 2 amendments: one requiring a report and another moving some data to internal audit from civil cases. Many questions from DFL members, unlike the Senate hearing. Rep Liebling worries about constitutionality. She also reminded the committee that we are not addressing fraud within MN government but defrauding of Minnesota government by outside actors. She is concerned we are "building the airplane while flying ". Author said that House language is constitutional because IG is totally in Legislative branch, unlike Senate language. Rep Moller is worried about IG access to all data and had questions about need for protection for 'privileged data" i.e. between doctor and patient. Author says it's the same data access as OLA has. On a party line vote, the bill was recommended to pass and referred to Children and Families committee. Rep. Anderson agreed to bring bill back to this committee at the end...similar to what appears to be happening in Senate Judiciary.

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