Capitol Letter for March 14

Hundreds of democracy defenders showed up in solidarity for International Women's Day on Saturday, March 8. LWVMN Associate Director, Amy Perna, stood proudly for our mission and values in front of League members and allies at the MN Capitol expressing our discontent with recent actions taken by the Trump Administration and demanding accountability.

Below you will find updates from the federal level with volunteer reports and news from our State Capitol. We will continue to Take Action and share opportunities where we can stand together, put pressure on our elected officials, and fight for our future. Here are some opportunities to keep us informed and use your voice this week:

  • Join Nonprofit Vote to learn about how the SAVE Act, new state laws, and other policy work could impact our voter engagement work - March 19, 1 pm on Zoom, Register Here

  • Turn up the Heat on your members of Congress during their in-district work period beginning March 17. LWVUS has tips, tricks, and resources in this Congressional Recess Guide for Action including talking points, guidance for contacting your members of Congress and template letters to the editor if no response. Please visit our Take Action page for more template letters, Timely Actions, and opportunities to join us.

 

LWVMN Advocacy

Election and Redistricting Policy Coordinator Paul Huffman’s Redistricting Update:

  • With the next census only 5 years away, efforts continue to reform the existing process for revising Minnesota's congressional and legislative maps after each decennial census. The interest is heightened ahead of the 2030 Census since it is likely that Minnesota will lose one of its eight congressional seats. HF 550, Bipartisan Redistricting Commission constitutional amendment, authored by Representative Torkelson was advanced to the House floor and then was tabled for further work. The author acknowledged in committee hearings that the bill is a "work in progress" and that he is looking for input on key aspects of the bill. A companion to HF 550, SF 824, has been introduced in the Senate by Sen. Rest which means this can be considered a bipartisan bill, an important distinction with our divided legislature this year. LWVMN provided written and oral testimony expressing appreciation for Rep. Torkelson's interest and efforts, while opposing the bill in its current form. The key concerns of LWVMN are: 1) limited exclusions on redistricting commission membership such that current partisan political party officers or lobbyists could be on the commission; 2) no specific requirements for the number, location, and participation options for hearings, and 3) no provision for the potential for a commission deadlock. DFL legislators introduced amendments in several committees that closely resembled the independent commission legislation supported by LWVMN that was introduced by Rep. Klevorn in the 2024 session. We are continuing to work with the authors and other legislators and partners to achieve our goal of creating an independent citizen redistricting commission that includes the interests and voices of voters, and where the legislators, governor, and partisan political parties do not play a role in developing the district maps. Please stay tuned for future opportunities to speak up in support of this legislation!

Observer Reports

  • LWVMN Observer & Lobby Corps Member Carol Seiler

    There were several bills considered for final passage by the Minnesota House:

    First up was HF 13. This was a partisan bill (Authors: Bliss, Schultz, Duran, Engen, Perryman and Others) This is a companion bill to SF 624. A bill relating to public safety, eliminating the duty to retreat before using reasonable force in defense of self or others. There was a lively discussion among the legislators. Rep. Matt Bliss said that the judicial branch had inserted language into the bill and Judge Thissen wrote a dissent (see State v. Blevins (2024)). Bliss spoke passionately about accepting the bill. Rep. Athena Hollins (St Paul) spoke in opposition of the bill. Fear of itself is not a right to kill someone else. She cannot support HF 13. Rep. Pete Johnson (Duluth) heard from constituents on this bill - both for and against. HF 13 won't change the way incidents are investigated. He asked for a no vote on the bill. Rep. Jim Nash (Carver) said that there may not be a way to retreat. He completely supports the bill. Rep Cedrick Frazier (New Hope) said that HF 13 encourages violence. He will not support the bill. Rep Kristie Knudsen (Lake Shore) said that every person has the right to protect themselves. Women cannot even hold keys in their hand to use as a weapon currently. Women will be hurt if this bill is defeated. She urged her colleagues to join her in voting yes for this bill. Rep. Dave Pinto (St Paul) said that the Blevins case brought this bill to the House. His view is that if you can reasonably avoid the danger you should do so. He asked for a no vote. Rep Kelly Moller (Shoreview) said it was a terrible bill that makes Minnesotans less safe. Rep. Harry Niska, Majority Leader, said it protects Minnesotans and Rep. Matt Bliss aggressively defended his bill. Rep. Niska made a motion that HF 13 be laid on the table.

    HF 129 is a bipartisan bill. There was a third reading of HF 129 authored by Rep. Aaron Repinski (Winona). This bill requires the Director of child sex trafficking be required to submit a program evaluation each odd-numbered year to the legislature. Rep. Jessica Hanson (Burnsville) strongly supports the bill and asked that the legislators vote green. Rep. Dave Pinto said recognizing the larger issues of homelessness, hunger, and vulnerability were important. Investing in human needs is what needs to be addressed. Rep Repinski said he would appreciate support of the bill; please vote green. The vote was taken and passed with 132 ayes and 0 nays.

    HF 286, Rep. Bernie Perryman (St. Augusta) presented her bill which gives local governments authorization to conduct criminal background checks under certain circumstances. It targets massage parlors and adult entertainment who may be engaged in sex trafficking. This bill has bipartisan support. There was a third reading of the bill. Rep Brion Curran (White Bear Lake), said that sex trafficking is a state-wide issue. She is grateful to work on this bipartisan bill. There is a similar bill authored by Rep. Dave Pinto. Rep. Perryman made a last plea to vote green. The bill passed with a vote of 132 ayes and 0 nays.

    HF 124 Rep Kaela Berg (Burnsville) presented a bipartisan bill. Currently some cities have rules against their first responders and their families accepting gifts. This bill applies to acceptance of certain gifts related to a line of duty death of a public safety officer be allowed. Rep. Jeff Witte (Lakeville) told his colleagues to do the right thing to our heroes who give the ultimate sacrifice for the public. Please vote green. The bill passes with 132 ayes and 0 nays.

    In other business, HF 983 was recalled from one Committee and referred to another committee. HF 1360 Rep. Koegel - motion to recall and re-refer to the Transportation Committee prevailed. HF 1992 recalled from the Environmental Committee and referred to the Legacy Finance Committee. Motion prevails. There was an announcement for committee meetings after this meeting. Speaker Rep. Niska made a motion to meet again on 3/10 at 3:30 PM. Motion was approved and the meeting was adjourned at 3:06 pm.

  • LWVMN Election and Redistricting Policy Coordinator Paul Huffman

    HF 550, Bipartisan Redistricting Commission (Rep Torkelson) was presented for addition to the General Register and to be moved to the floor. This bill 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 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 the redistricting bill introduced by Sen Rest and Rep Torkelson in the 2024 session (HF 5404/SF 5450).

    Representative Torkelson introduced the bill and stated that the bill continues to be a work in progress and that he is open to working with others to improve the bill. He emphasized that he is looking for something that he felt could pass, and that his interest is based on being part of the House Redistricting Committee.

    Testimony in opposition to the bill was provided by an individual (Tom Wiesen), LWV Minnesota, Common Cause Minnesota, Minnesota Council on Foundations, Clean Elections MN, Take Action MN, and a representative of the Forward Party of Minnesota (Rich Tru). The focus of the testimony was:

    1. The partisan political nature of the proposed commission;

    2. Commission membership, especially very limited of exclusions;

    3. Lack of adequate priority on native and minority communities to assure representation;

    4. Lack of specific requirements for hearings which are part of the process for most states with commissions;

    5. Lack of a specified process in case of a commission deadlock, or specific role of the court;

    6. Lack of input from other individuals or organizations.

    Rep Long proposed a Delete Everything (DE) amendment to replace the bill proposed by Rep Torkelson with an independent citizen commission consistent with that contained in the “With Us, For Us” redistricting bill submitted in the 2024 session (HF 4593). Rep Torkelson suggested opposing the DE because it did not have bipartisan support, whereas HF 550 is a bipartisan bill. (Sen Rest (DFL) is the chief author of the Senate companion, SF 824.) The DE was defeated on a party-line vote (8-5).

    Rep Coulter asked how a deadlock would be addressed. Rep Torkelson stated that he wanted to create a bill that would put pressure on the commission to make a decision, however he does not currently have that established. He noted that his experience with redistricting and the courts is that there is a lot of expertise required to develop maps and the computer systems are very complex. The courts and the proposed commission both need to hire experts to develop the maps.

    Rep Coulter also noted the very limited exclusions for commission members and compared this to the current state constitution requirements for the legislation salary commission. Rep Torkelson noted this is an area he is also working on. He also noted that it is very important to have knowledgeable and qualified people on the commission.

    Rep Long asked Rep Torkelson who he had worked with on the bill and what the bill was based on, and responded that the bill is his own work based on his experience in the 2021 – 2022 redistricting. Rep Long asked if the author was willing to work towards a nonpartisan redistricting process. Rep Torkelson stated that redistricting is by nature political and that if it were made nonpartisan, then it would not be effective. He also noted that the bill is not yet in its final form. Rep Long questioned the path the bill was taking based on the author’s statement that the bill is a “work in progress”, and proposed the bill be laid over for additional work. The motion to lay it over was defeated 8-6.

    Rep Engen challenged the nonpartisan nature of the organizations testifying against the bill. He specifically challenged Clean Elections MN based on the nature of a staff member who specializes in “race, gender and social justice” and they list Fair Vote as a partner. He challenged Common Cause’s nonpartisan status because their chair is the Colorado Democratic party general counsel.

    When asked, Rep Niska (Committee Chair) stated that the bill would be added to the general register, however would not state what was intended once the bill is taken to the floor. The bill was approved for addition to the General Register on a party line vote, 8-6.

  • LWVMN Observer & Lobby Corps Member Rebecca Monson

    SF1690 was presented by Senator Kupec, Co-Authors: Abeler ; Putnam ; Hawj (bipartisan). A bill to establish a stewardship program for circuit boards, batteries, and electrical products; prohibiting mercury in batteries; authorizing rulemaking; appropriating money. Sen. Kupec added, and was passed, an amendment A2 moving out the establishment date by one year to 2028.

    The main purpose of this bill is to improve the collection of batteries and electronics of all types, and transfer more of the cost of collecting and recycling to the manufacturers of these products. MN banned certain types of e-waste from landfills in 2006. However, much e-waste continues to be put into landfills, and batteries have increased many times over in the last few decades! Education needs to continue, and the current system is not working.

    This report includes details not mentioned in the 3/7 Capitol Letter summary of SF1690 after it was heard in the Environment, Climate, and Legacy Committee on 3/6.

    Senator Kupec stated the benefits of SF1690:

    1. Counties are responsible for their waste and they are picking up the bill. This in turn increases property taxes.

    2. Constituents told Sen Kupec that they want producers to pay for e-waste.

    3. E-waste is going into landfills which are filling up and the cost to counties to cite additional landfills is great.

    4. Incinerator burns are cleaner without electronics which leads to less pollution of air and water

    5. People are dropping batteries in their recycling containers which causes 2-3 fires a week in recycling centers creating higher insurance rates and hazards for staff.

    Testifiers in support: Tammy Walhof, Director of Lutheran Advocacy -Minnesota, Kirk Koudelka Associate Commissioner of the MPCA, Brian Martinson Policy Analyst with the Association of Minnesota Counties and Solid Waste Administration Association, Mariam Holsinger of Eureka Recycling.

    According to Maria Jensen, testifier and co-director of Recycling Electronics for Climate Action (RECA), batteries represent $3.1B worth of metals and only 20% of that is being captured. Gold, platinum, palladium, lithium, cobalt, and copper are examples of valuable metals which can be extracted and reused.

    Senator Maye-Quade indicated that this bill represents good change that allows the manufacturers to figure out what will work best for them. This reflects the e-world in which we live today.

    Senator Ann Johnson-Stewart: Minnesota counties are responsible for their solid waste. Hennepin county has more drop off locations than many of the other 86 counties. E-waste is 2% of the waste stream. In Minnesota we produce 4.5 to 5 M tons of garbage a year, 2% of that is 108.2 million pounds. We don't have enough room in our landfills for this e-waste.

    Kirk Koudelka states 4M of e-waste recycling cost is not covered by manufacturers and in fact they cover only 1/3 of the costs.

    Brian Martinson states that Itasca County’s cost is $50K per year and sometimes e-waste is dumped in ditches and parks which taxpayers pay to have retrieved and recycled.

    Mariam Holsinger states that Eureka Recycling has 20 fires a year, sometimes in trucks which are in transit to recycling centers.

    Testifiers and Legislators opposed: Andrew Moreley from the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, Tony Kwilas of the Consumer Tech Association (CTA), Senator Drazkowski, Senator Bahr

    Topics of their opposition:

    1. The bill is too broad including everything with a circuit board or plug and the cost will be passed on to consumers

    2. SF1690 would "upend" the current system and would impact labeling... "too big of a hill to climb for us”

    3. Senator Drazkowski is troubled by the constitutional implications of the 1st amendment (association) and the contract clause of the US Constitution. We are telling businesses who they have to contract with. Minnesota would be the only state doing such "wild eyed" ideas like this one. ... "We continue to bring more and more oppression to businesses in our state." "The environmental people in our state seem to hate businesses so much that we are chasing them out of here." "The activists in this state have taken over their legislature and they are headed in a very bad direction."

    4. Senator Calvin Bahr: Resident are not going to be willing to drive someplace specified to drop off this e-waste.

    The bill was approved on a voice vote and referred to the Judiciary Committee.

  • LWVMN Observer & Lobby Corps Member Amy Caucutt

    HF252 (Igo) exempts small natural gas utilities from PUC regulation. Rachel Sorentino of NW Gas testified that local govt. still regulates. Rep Igo said this was needed for commerce in sparsely settled regions of the state. DFL committee members (Acomb, Jones, Kraft) worried that big utilities could simply install a series of smaller gas utilities and avoid PUC regulation. Rep. Igo responded comparing this carve out to craft breweries. Bill passed on voice vote and sent to General Register (House floor).

    HF787 (Paul Anderson) was introduced by author as a "common sense bill" and a “necessary clarification" that MN 2040 clean energy regulation only applies to generation within MN borders. He noted that the Governor of ND has promised a lawsuit, and that a previous position vis a vie ND by MN was struck down in federal court in 2007. Testifier Vita Konetz (volunteer with DFL environmental caucus) said her first reaction is outrage. She had information about ND "propping up dirty coal” and undermining wind. She also reminded the committee that they represent MN, not ND. Rep. Acomb said this moves us backward. Rep. Hollins noted that Judge Gorsuch had found CO law, after which MN was crafted, constitutional. She said, "I am not here to advocate that ND have access to our population." Rep. Kraft said that 1/2 the states have legislation like ours and anyone can threaten a lawsuit...so we cannot react to that. Representative from Dept. of Commerce was unable to answer Republican member questions about electricity on MISO grid, but Rep. Jones could. She also said that MN 2040 law was well vetted. Nevertheless, the bill passed 8-7 on party line vote to the General register (House floor).

  • LWVMN Election and Redistricting Policy Coordinator Paul Huffman

    SF 1911, Establish Minnesota Civic Fund (Sen Boldon), proposed creation of a fund to be used to provide credits from the state to candidates and political parties on behalf of registered voters and those eligible to vote in Minnesota. If passed, the Minnesota Civic Fund would replace the existing Political Contribution Refund (PCR) program. The author stated that the program proposed would make it easier for voters to direct funds to the candidate or party of their choice because they would not have to spend their own money, and then request a refund from the state.

    Testifiers included King County (Washington State) Council Member who had run for Seattle City Council using its “Democracy Dollars” program; an individual (Martin Malecha) testifying regarding the desirability of the program to increase voter participation and impacts on elections; Kathy Peterson from Duluth Unitarian Universalist Congregation; Hannah Merrill who organizes young people; and Beth Shimek from the Campaign Legal Center.

    Questions and challenges to the bill primarily came from Sen Koran (R) and Sen Lucero (R). Key points included: • Appears to be the same as “Democracy Dollars” program introduced in 2024; • Could groups or organizations “harvest” dollars from voters; • Does not benefit Republicans because they do not have the large campaign organization; • Need to focus more on local elections rather than state; • Are corporations, as opposed to high spending individuals, making donations to elections and is it an issue;

    • A corporation by law cannot make direct donation to a campaign or candidate; (Note donations are typically done through corporate political action committees)

    Sen Port added comments to emphasize the issue with large dollars coming into Minnesota elections and that some on the committee do not think this was an issue. The bill was laid over for potential inclusion in a larger elections bill.

    SF 1996, Campaign Finance Provisions, was presented by Sen Marty. The bill makes several changes to existing statutes regarding the identification of campaign messaging and campaign coordination through online media such as websites and social media. This includes expanding the definition of “media” for the purpose of campaign finance from print and broadcast media, to include streaming, websites, and other online publications. An additional item specifically added is “red boxing” where suggested campaign messaging is provided in a box on a website or social media to coordinate campaign activities indirectly.

    Sen Koran and Sen Limmer had the most comments: • “Red boxing” seems very subjective and could be hard to identify; • Not clear how the requirements would apply to small campaigns, small groups, or individuals; • Text specifications on signs seemed too large depending on the size of the sign; • Disclaimer language appears overly prescriptive.

    The bill was also laid over for possible inclusion in a Senate elections bill.

  • LWVMN Observer & Lobby Corps Member Amy Caucutt

    HF2013 (Nash) which seeks to limit "aesthetic" zoning requirements was supported by testifier Mark Foster of home builders, Housing 1st MN. He thinks that aesthetic mandates are economic redlining. There is a massive market for starter homes that cannot be addressed. Co-author Howard said that we need to center on people. Amendments have been made after discussions with cities (historic districts are removed). Jill Hutmacher representing Eagan and 3 city organizations testified to situations where aesthetics are needed. Author Nash closed by saying aesthetics have nothing to do with safety and we need to put people into houses like we did post WWII. Bill easily passed and sent to Government Operations committee.

    HF1987 (Igo, Howard et al) "Minnesota Starter Home Act" is carried by the housing chairs in both Senate and House, so it probably is headed for passage in some form. The A-1 amendment deletes sections 2 and 3 and makes slight changes to ADUs (accessory dwelling units like granny flats) and density. Included major state mandates to local zoning codes to decrease building costs and increase affordable homes like smaller lot sizes and allowing town houses and duplexes in R-1 zones. Co-author Howard rebutted city testimony, which said that they are all trying to address affordable housing but oppose state interference in local zoning by saying, "The status quo isn't working. People with median incomes in EVERY COUNTY IN MN are unable to purchase a median priced home." Chamber of Commerce, Housing First Builders, Winona Habitat for Humanity, AARP, and Americans for Prosperity (a progressive group) all testified in favor. Several Cities and city organizations worried about specifics. Rep. Meyers offered several amendments which were voted down: remove cities under 10,000, delay implementation date, removal of language prohibiting parking requirements. Already amended are provisions for shoreland, floodplain and historic districts said Rep. Howard. Rep. Nash said the bill allows in-fill development only if infrastructure can accommodate. Rep Johnson (Cottage Grove) wondered about his city's requirement for parkland dedication. A very convoluted non-answer was supplied quoting a supreme court decision. Bill passed on a voice vote and was sent to Government Operations committee.

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