Capitol Letter for March 7

LWVMN members are Fired Up! (shown below). We continue to Take Action by showing up, contacting our elected officials, and engaging others in the struggle for our democracy. Please read for important updates over the past week and upcoming actions.

This past Tuesday, we were part of a national effort to shine a "Light for Our Democracy" during the President's address to Congress. We used this moment of reflection, solidarity, and action to host a Know Your Rights training with ACLU MN! You can download the Know Your Rights presentation and access printable resources from ACLU MN’s Immigrants' Rights page. We shared community resources from local groups here, and the event was co-sponsored by Common Cause MN, Jewish Community Action, and National Council of Jewish Women MN.

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!

As Congress begins their recess next week, Leagues across the country will be turning up the heat to encourage members of Congress to engage with constituents. LWVUS has tips, tricks, and resources in its Congressional Recess Guide for Action, and our next members-only Fired Up Friday call will be on March 14!

News Coverage Relating to Federal Action

 

LWVMN Advocacy and Observer Reports

Election and Redistricting Policy Coordinator Paul Huffman provided testimony for LWVMN in three Committees this week:

At our monthly Climate Change Task Force meeting on March 5, Lucas Rhoads from the Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) gave a presentation on Neonic Pesticides in Minnesota. NRDC’s factsheet on neonics can be found here and additional resources discussed on the call including action alerts, past event recordings on data centers, mining, and cumulative impacts, and upcoming lobby days related to climate and environment can all be found here.

  • LWVMN Observer & Lobby Corps Member Cathy Thom

    HF1447 (Quam - R - Byron) The bill requires stricter disclosure requirements for donations to candidate and ballot referendum campaigns from donors who reside outside the district that the candidate represents or to which the ballot referendum is subject. A DE1 Amendment adds a funding provision for the agency that will oversee its implementation. Jeff Sigurdson from the MN Campaign Finance and Disclosure Board spoke to the software technical aspects this would pose, as well as funding effects. He testified that there would have to be some double checking done by the MNCFDB staff to make certain that campaign treasurers have gotten donors' districts correct, but it would not have a large cost if most treasurers were accurate in their work. Rep. Quam noted that there are district search tools that assist treasurers to do this very quickly. Rep. Liz Lee (DFL) noted that there is currently no one at MNCFDB to write this script for all candidates to use that shows this information on all of their reports - that would require a funding appropriation. An amendment to add a fiscal note failed on a party line 5-6 vote. An A3 amendment posed by Rep. Emma Greenman (DFL - Minneapolis) to limit this extra reporting to donors from outside the state of Minnesota. She said that complex inter-district lines for very small donations make this very onerous for the mostly volunteer, part time campaign treasurers to have to record unless MNCFDB has this embedded into the software in a way that automatically fills in district information from the address of each voter - and that would require a fiscal note. The A3 amendment failed on a voice vote. The DE1 bill passed to be laid over for possible inclusion without a vote.

    More coverage from MN House News

    HF1496 (Quam) Voter verification required before mail delivery of an absentee ballot for voters who have signed up to be on the permanent absentee ballot registry.

    TESTIFIER & MEMBER DISCUSSION: Nicole Freeman from the Secretary of State's office testified in opposition to the bill because it is unnecessary. These updates already happen on a regular basis. They are done at initial registration and when requests for absentee ballots are received. DVS & Social Security databases are updated and cross-referenced with voter registrations monthly, the USPS provides regular change of address data, and the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) system provides cross-state registration data. Monthly death records are updated from the MN Dept of Health and the Social Security Administration. Change of name and guardianship records are received regularly from the courts, as well as the prison system sends updated information in regard to those who are incarcerated and/or have been released from custody. It was asked if the bill includes a fiscal note. Rep. Quam replied that there is no fiscal note because "all of this should already be being done" - it is worth noting that Ms. Freeman testified that it is being done. Rep. Quam cited some examples where he felt that these things were not being done and that an "if it indicates" loophole for cross-checking from this list makes the further safeguards this bill necessary. Rep. Mike Freiberg (DFL) reiterated that Ms. Freeman already explained that all of this is already being done. Rep. Greenman (DFL) asked Ms. Freeman to describe the permanent absentee ballot list maintenance process. Ms. Freeman stated that ERIC is a very good way to find out when people have moved to a new state (although not all states participate in ERIC). The post office changes of addresses are good for people who have moved into MN from other states, and/or from people who have moved within the state of MN to a different precinct or district. Annual list maintenance that drops people from the rolls if they have not voted for four years drops them from the list automatically. Automatic voter registration law passed in 2023 also automatically requires the DMV to notify the SOS's office when someone changes the address on their driver's license or state ID. Ms. Freeman also said that the bill misunderstands that the Social Security Admin and the DMV confirm a person's identity but not necessarily that they actually live where they live - other means are used to confirm that by the SOS's office.

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

    HF554 (Quam) Counties and cities required to have written procedures that are available to the public. An A1 Amendment clarified the difference between public and private data. An A2 amendment limited this to cities over 10,000 in population, and counties of over 40,000 population.

    TESTIFIER: A representative of both the League of MN Cities and the Organization of MN Counties testified against the bill, citing that cities already work very hard to make information available to residents, and said that it would be very onerous to implement even with the exemption of the smallest cities and counties from the requirements.

    MEMBER DISCUSSION: Rep. Coulter (DFL) pointed out that residents in smaller cities and counties have as much right to that type of information as larger ones do, and arbitrary cut-off numbers based on population are often problematic. He stated that this should not be dependent on population or staff capacity if it is worth doing. Rep. Quam replied that he could lower the numbers even more if that would help [which to me seemed to miss the point of Rep. Coulter's comment]. Rep. Virnig (DFL) suggested perhaps having it based on staffing capacities rather than dependent on population. Rep. Quam replied that he chose the number 10,000 because he felt that cities of that size and larger would indeed have the staff capacity. Rep. Quam said that he would think that many cities already have this, or something close to it - they would simply have to add to what they already have. Rep. Coulter asked about the requirements for "fees or assessments" information - would everyone's individual assessments have to be published? Rep. Quam replied that just the calculators would need to be published. Rep. Coulter pointed out that is not what the bill says. He also pointed out that child support information is also among the info that is to be published. Rep. Quam insisted that the policy for calculating it is the only thing that would be required to be published. [He kept saying that "cities" do this, even though it is counties and the courts that set child support amounts.] Rep. Coulter reiterated that the bill is worded too broadly for the way that Rep. Quam is interpreting it. He also echoed the concerns that it is onerous. Rep. Virnig asked what it would mean to "maintain" and update policies - how often? Rep. Quam did not answer the question - instead he answered it as if the question was whether or not maintenance should be done, saying it would be "negligent for them not to maintain and update their policies." No timeline for how often it should be done was proposed.

    The bill passed for re-referral to the Judiciary Committee by a party line roll call vote of 6-5.

    Analysis: Rep. Quam missed a few good opportunities for simple amendments to be made to the bill right there in committee to assuage some of the most serious concerns members had with the bills.

  • LWVMN Observer & Lobby Corps Member Amy Caucutt

    HF1627 and A-1 amendment by Chair Heintzeman was presented, discussed with much emotion and passed on to the Commerce committee on a party line vote. 11 testifiers, many family members or former friends of Amara (for whom the underlying bill about to be amended was named), were in extreme opposition to this bill, which provides a delay and carveout to commercial uses for the PFAS ban. Also speaking in opposition were several environmental and clean water groups as well as MPCA.  Supportive testimony came from various trade groups who said that compliance on the current timeline (or ever) would be onerous. DFL committee members in opposition had many comments. Rep Jordan, who noted her stakeholders were children, said that "this is not a bill that will make America healthy again." Rep Hansen provided a list of public costs in his community alone to clean up PFAS in the water supply. He commented this is always the case that environmental cleanup is left to public coffers. Rep. Pursell said she is concerned about workers who will remain exposed in “commercial and industrial uses." She commented, "once we know better, we must do better.'"

    More coverage from MN House News

  • LWVMN Observer & Lobby Corps Member Amy Caucutt

    Senator Marty's full Finance Committee met to discuss the annual appropriations from the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund. This year the $103m for 124 projects is in SF506 authored by Sen Hawj. The bill has already passed the Environment Committee. This bill is the result of the decisions made by the 17 members of LCCMR (11-1 with other abstentions or absences among the House, Senate and citizen members of the group). This bill in the past was a slam dunk! But in the last 5-10 years some legislators have attempted to substitute favored projects for some chosen by the LCCMR. After committee member complaints about "carry-over" funding and the number of 'studies' rather than actual projects, Sen Jasinski offered the A-2 amendment to move some money from a project to "3-D" water quality projects in: Fergus Falls, Rice County, and Blue Earth County. Author Hawj asked that members follow the LCCMR project choices in the bill and submit an application this month for next year's bill. Sen Frentz (DFL) from an affected county, joined the Republicans in voting for the amendment, because he says "The LCCMR has too little representation from agricultural areas." Sen. Champion noted that he tried to do such an amendment for his favored project last year and was voted down. However, his project is now funded. The amendment failed on a 6-6 vote. On a 10-2 vote the unamended bill was sent to the floor.

  • LWVMN Observer & Lobby Corps Member Amy Caucutt

    Rep. Torkelson's redistricting Bill HF550 was back in this committee. Rep. Liebling was disbelieving that there was no fiscal note...no court impact. She imagines that this bill will lead to gridlock on redistricting, sending the job at the last minute to the Supreme Court. Rep Curran worries about putting this partisan language into the Constitution. Bi- partisan is "not how Minnesotans see themselves," she said. Rep. Finke said she thought the created board sounds like a conference committee, leading her to assume that the real work will take place behind closed doors. Rep Engen (R) thinks he heard "substantive debate" concerning the make-up of the commission and wonders if Rep. Torkelson is open to some changes? Rep West, not the chief author, was presenting the bill in Rep. Torkelson's absence, and had no answer to this or Rep. Fraser's question if the chief author was working with Rep Long and Rep Klevorn who also had redistricting bills last year.

    Same testifiers as last committee with the addition of LWVMN's Paul Huffman who did a GREAT JOB outlining what is missing: locations and timing of hearings as well as principles...need to use what Supreme court used at the very least. He also advised the committee on the troubled experience of states like NY and VA that have tried this model and deadlocked. He ended his testimony by saying "the major stakeholders, the voters, are not in this bill."

    Bill sent to the Rules committee.

  • LWVMN Observer & Lobby Corps Member Cathy Thom

    HF877 (Mueller - R - Austin) - Read Act amended, and CAREI appropriations cancelled after June 30, 2025. The bill more narrowly defines Minnesota's literacy training programs to be based solely on the "science of reading," and more clearly defines what that is. It also removes all diversity and cultural language in regard to reading curriculum. In addition, it severs the relationship with CAREI earlier than planned because the author feels their helpful role has been completed, and their reports are confusing in regard to clear curricular rubrics, and keeping the original timeline would be a waste of funding. Finally, the bill requires that all who graduate from an elementary teacher prep program must pass an exam or other demonstration of proficiency in teaching the science of reading in order to achieve Tier 3 and Tier 4 licenses. Current teachers would be grandfathered and waived from this requirement - schools will be making sure these teachers become fully trained in the science of reading.

    TESTIFIERS: Dr. Justin Killian - Education Minnesota - Testified that although teachers are in favor of moving towards the science of reading for most students, it is not appropriate for all students, particularly English language readers. They are nervous about confining teachers to using just this one teaching tool for literacy. He also asked to reinstate the culturally responsive curricular review, because it has been proven that some of the materials being used have been blatantly outdated and/or racist. He gave an example where a Civil War book meant for 5th and 6th graders made it onto the approved list despite referring to slaves by outdated, derogatory names.

    Shelby Arnold - Elementary teacher who is concerned about the testing requirement in the bill. She has test anxiety, and the amount of test prep is overtaxing for what is often actually on the test. She questions their necessity, saying that "tests do not define teachers," but instead how well they actually teach all students to reach their full potential is what defines a good teacher. 

    Cindy Russell - Director, Reading Center/Dyslexia Institute of MN - The reading center she directs uses three different facets of the science of reading to teach literacy training to teachers. The bill limits approved curriculum to just one science of reading pathway. All three methods are necessary to effectively teach all students. She offered an amendment to reflect this desired change. She said that the more in-depth training her center provides is very relevant to special education teachers, who must tailor their techniques and curriculum much more to help their students.

    Bobbie Burnham - MN Department of Education - Explained that this bill would greatly impact the progress that has been made over the past two years to implement evidence-based literacy instruction across the state. Changing the term to "science of reading" is too broad and can actually undermine the curriculum quality that the bill seeks to preserve. She also stated that CAREI has been a valuable partner in implementing the Read Act, and severing the partnership with them early would mean that MDE would need a lot more funds than already allocated to do that work on its own.

    Karen Sonday - Reading Academy of MN (Rochester) - Like Ms. Russell, Ms. Sonday's organization was founded to help implement the science of reading curriculum as that science developed. It emphasizes practicum experience, which the current bill's curriculum requirement omits. She said it's like omitting behind the wheel training from driver's training or clinical training for nurses.

    AMENDMENTS: A3 Amendment (Jordan - DFL) - Offered an amendment due to concerns that adding another test that teachers must pass for licensure, particularly one that is not clearly defined, places another barrier in place that inhibits putting teachers into classrooms at a time of teacher shortages. Rep. Mueller replied that the bill includes a "performative assessment" alternative to a test, which should help to alleviate testing concerns. She said that adding mastery of skill demonstration to licensure requirements shifts the burden of teaching literacy training to MN teachers falls to teacher prep programs rather than retroactive training by public schools themselves. She also had concerns with the diversity and culturally responsive language being omitted. She said that she has seen books approved for 1st graders that show all Natives living in teepees, riding horses, etc. - basically reinforcing the old "wild west" stereotypes. The A3 amendment failed via voice vote.

    A4 Amendment (Green - DFL - Edina) - This amendment would reinstate the language that literacy curriculum should be diverse and culturally responsive to match the demographics of our students. Rep. Mueller replied that she wants to make sure that this responsiveness goal is met, but with different, less politically charged language that is less restrictive and provides local teachers more flexibility and better emphasizes rigor. She stated that she believes that if they work together, they can come up with different language upon which all could agree, and that work is happening now in a bipartisan group.

    MEMBER DISCUSSION: Rep. Jordan asked Ms. Burnham from MDE to explain how guidance for teachers is developed and implemented. She explained that it is developed via the Regional Literacy Centers by collecting local school district curricular data and literacy team member rosters, so that they have a starting point, a way to track progress with transitioning to evidence-based literacy programs, and final assessments. She stated that CAREI has been instrumental in assisting with and leading this process, particularly data assessment and curricular development. She said that if CAREI is cut out of the process early, MDE estimates it would need to hire more FTEs to cover those tasks, particularly ongoing curriculum and intervention review processes. Rep. Jordan thanked Rep. Mueller for working so hard on the bill, and that she looks forward to further discussion to make the Read Act better. Rep. Mueller added that there may be a need to reassess the staffing levels of MDE - how many employees do they need to fulfill all of their roles in which they serve Minnesota's schools. She said this is particularly true in regard to literacy, which has been previously neglected.

    HF877 passed to be re-referred to the Education Finance Committee via voice vote

  • LWVMN Election and Redistricting Policy Coordinator Paul Huffman

    HF 1800, Voting administration provisions, including voter registration, vouching, election judges, polling places, ballots, and postelection review (Rep Quam). This bill includes a number of new requirements for documentation and retention of records by local election officials. The changes are too numerous to summarize, however the most significant include:

    • Creation of election “observers” who may be present in the polling place, take photos and videos of election activities, and then may publicly distribute the information after the election;

    • Makes the party affiliation of election judges public information;

    • Requires local election officials to have a list of alternate election judges by party if there is a shortfall in election judges;

    • Expand the Post Election Review (PER) from federal races to all races and questions on the ballot

    • Allow municipalities and school districts to opt to not use election voter rolls (pollpads or epoll books);

    • Requires retention of all election materials used in conducting the election, not just ballots and absentee ballot signature envelopes, for 22 months.

    • Requires creation of additional documented instructions/guidance for a number of activities such as voter registration activities at residential facilities; conduct of election judges at combined polling places; precinct maps and ballot information for polling places; an election judge advice helpline provided by the Office of the Secretary of State; ballot chain of custody procedures; and affidavit and penalty requirements for candidate residence.

    • The bill requires that district courts to provide a list to the Secretary of State of those individuals responding to a jury summons that they are a noncitizen for the purpose of ensuring they are not on the voter rolls.

    Written Testimony

    • Written testimony in favor of the bill was provided by 2 individuals from the Dakota County Election Integrity, 2 individuals from Rosemount, and the Anoka County Election Integrity Team.

    • LWVMN submitted testimony opposing the creation of election observers and making the party affiliation of election judges public (see above).

    • Minnesota Association of County Officers (MACO), representing county election officials, submitted testimony expressing concern for creation of election observers, allowing municipalities to opt out of using election voter rosters, and creation of additional resources and record retention requirements.

    • League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) and Association of Minnesota Counties (AMC) provide testimony citing concerns that the “proposed election law changes … would have a variety of logistical, legal, and cost implication while also creating potential intergovernmental conflicts. …. it is clear that the proposal would impact election administrability while adding staff time, costs, and new liabilities.”

    Committee Chair Quam is the author and presented the bill. He presented an author’s amendment, which was approved, that included 1) that the names and title of all ballot board members must be public information; 2) that each precinct must have at least 1 election judge from each major party; 3) extension of voting assistance to early and in-person absentee voting; and 4) exemption for towns less than 5,000 people for ballot chain of custody procedures. Rep Quam provided an introduction for the bill noting that the bills was intended to be a technical and clarifying bill. It is an effort to make election administration easier, more understandable, and more straightforward for everyone involved. He received input from at least a dozen election judges, and from city or town election staff. His intent is to improve confidence in elections by voters by reducing the incidence of court cases and issues during elections. Rep Quam stated that the details would be worked out between the house and the senate.

    Rep Acomb asked if there was a Senate author. Rep Quam stated that he is in discussion with several senators, including Sen Koran from the Senate Elections committee, regarding the bill. He also noted that OSS also has a technical changes bill.

    Nicole Freeman from the Office of the Secretary of State, was the only testifier. She started by stating that the Secretary of State opposes many of the provisions in the bill, and appreciated the offer of additional discussion. Freeman noted that the local and county election administrators are weighing in on the bill, and that we really need to hear from them. Specific concerns raised by Ms. Freeman included:

    • Administrability of changes;

    • Election Judge privacy and making affiliation public;

    • Voter privacy and disclosure of ballot records;

    • Local government flexibility in staffing ballot boards, especially for those activities that statutes do not require party balance;

    Ms. Freeman agreed with the author that:

    • There need to be clarifications of residential facility processes and requirements, though different than the author proposed;

    • Changes in administration of the election judge lists, including contacting parties for additional judges when needed;

    • Interaction between counties and parties when hiring election judges;

    • Retention of election materials;

    • Chain of custody plans, including documentation and detailed instructions;

    • OSS is open to receiving data from the courts; Need information about the reliability of court data, especially with individuals getting out of jury duty, as other states have found this this information to not be reliable.

    Rep Lee (DFL) had the following questions:

    • Potential impact on recruiting election judges with additional disclosure rules: Rep Quam noted that the parties identify election judges and they therefore already identify themselves with a party; Rep Quam noted that by law the election judges are required to come from the parties.

    • Party affiliation is known by the county; Court found that ballot boards have party balance, however not all election judges are coming from the party lists. Ms. Freeman noted that not all election judges sign up through the parties. Rep Quam noted that election judges do not know the party affiliation of the other election judges in their precinct. He also stated that some counties staffed their ballot boards entirely from county staff or did not request any people from the party list provided to OSS. Rep Quam believes election law is not being followed by counties that are not using, and are possibly avoiding, using the part list.

    Rep Davis (R) questioned cast vote records and why raised; Per OSS, election equipment software was updated in 2022 or 2023 with the ability to identify when specific ballots were deposited, and the manner of voting. It is possible that using cast vote records and other data, someone could figure out who cast a specific vote. Rep Davis questioned if there were other ways to get this information, however Ms. Freeman stated there is not a better method to assure voter privacy than not making the cast vote record public. OSS continues to believe that ballot records should be private. Rep. Davis continued to press on making ballot images public, with date/time redacted. Rep Davis stated that he felt voter confidence in elections would be increased if ballot images were made publicly available.

    Rep Coulter:

    • Recognizes that some people do not want to be identified with a party, and making party affiliation public will deter some people from being an election judge;

    • Concerned about allowing some local jurisdictions to not use electronic voter rolls; this can cause a lot of chaos for counties in making voter roles; Rep Quam noted: 1) that a lot of school districts have elections outside of even years and should be able to run elections their way; 2) A lot of townships still use paper rolls, and some people prefer the paper.

    • It appeared the bill would ban transmitting preliminary results (from a precinct to the county); would all precincts be required to hand-carry the record to the county elections office? Rep Quam replied this would prevent printing out election results before the end of the election; he noted a 2002 (?) election in which a Head Election Judge destroyed or burned spoiled ballots and new ballots were cast. A court subsequently determined that the results would probably not be changed. Rep Colter noted that the response from Rep Quam did not address the wording in the bill which would prohibit transmitting the results after the polls closed.

    • Disclosure of extensive vote and voter information from voter records; Ms. Freeman noted that this is a concern for OSS and in some states release of this data has gone too far in jeopardizing voter privacy.

    Rep Quam offered an oral amendment that ballot images could be protected, non-public data. Rep Freiberg agreed the change would be helpful however would not make a difference in DFL support for the bill as a whole. The amendment passed 6 – 5 with 5 Republicans other than Rep. Quam voting against it.

    Rep. Acomb (DFL) also questioned the proposal to make election judge party affiliation. She noted that in her district (Minnetonka), the city would periodically place publish information asking for people to become election judges. She asked OSS (Freeman) whether those solicitations required people to identify a part affiliation. Ms. Freeman said that jurisdictions may not have adequate election judges from the party lists and go to the public for additional election judges. When those additional election judges are being hired, they either identify a party affiliation, or they identify themselves as not affiliated with either party. Rep Acomb said she opposed publicizing party affiliation based on the experience of her son being a student election judge. She did not want people who were merely trying to learn more about elections to be publicly labeled as a member of a specific party.

    Rep. Quam responded by stating that some activities in a polling place and the ballot board specifically require partisan balance by law. {Note, these are a very limited number of activities such as ballot duplication and assisting curb-side and disabled voters. Head and Co-Head Judges are aware of the party affiliation of election judges.} Rep. Acomb noted that school board elections are non-partisan and this injects partisanship into those elections.

    Rep Virnig (DFL) raised a concern with allowing local governments to opt out of using electronic voting rosters. She specifically raised an example where some precincts in her district include 2 school districts. Rep Virnig questioned how feasible it would be, or how confusing for voters, election judges and the county, to have some voters in the precinct checked in using electronic voter lists and some checked in using paper. Rep Quam stated that it was his belief that rosters indicated which school district voters in a precinct were part of and that it would be useful for voters and election judges to have a separate book for the school districts. Rep. Virnig disagreed.

    Rep. Greenman (DFL) asked the author to explain the election observer provision addition of the bill which would modify the existing election challenger rules, the difference between the existing challenger and the proposed observer, and to explain what he was “trying to get at with that change.” Rep Quam stated that the observer would have a different role and would provide an additional set of eyes on the activities of the election process both for absentee ballots and polling places. People are asking for additional observers to make sure things are being done properly.

    Rep Greenman asked who would appoint the observers. Rep Quam stated that candidates or parties could assign observers. This would allow candidates in nonpartisan elections to also ensure the fairness of elections. Rep Greenman stated that she had experience as an election “observer” in other jurisdictions, and that she would not have problem changing the name of the role to “observer” as she felt that more accurately represents the role. She does have a problem with adding an additional person to the polling place. Rep Greenman also expressed a concern that with multiple parties and candidates assigning challengers and observers, there could be a large number of additional people in the polling place. She wanted to avoid observers interfering with the conduct of elections.

    Rep. Greenman finally noted the section of the observer role allowing them to take photos and videos of the polling place. She questioned where the data would be stored and who would have the ability to disseminate this after the election. Rep Quam stated that he was open to language regarding the intent of the provision. He stated that there are local (city and school board) elections that can be very energetic and that people want information about what happened in the election. Rep Quam said he is very open to clarifying language regarding how this role would be performed. He agreed that there needs to be regard for data privacy in the conduct of elections, and also providing information to address people’s concerns.

    Rep. Greenman stated that the photo and video provision is particularly problematic. It is easy to take things out of context and the fact that there is a very complex process, with many things occurring more than once, people can draw incorrect conclusions based on limited information. Rep Greenman further pointed out that there have been huge privacy and election security concerns as a result of selective publication of election video footage in the past.

    The acting committee chair (Rep McDonald) noted that Rep Greenman brought up some valid concerns. He stated that the intent was to use installed cameras in the public places to identify any “tomfoolery”. {It should be noted that the words of the legislation specifically allow observers to take photos and videos and disseminate them after the election.} He stated that this was just a way for a voter, observer, pollwatcher, to identify a concern to be addressed later. Chair McDonald was not aware of any law preventing taking photos or videos in a public space, and that the intent of the provision is to protect the integrity of elections. Rep Greenman responded that 1) the language literally says the observer is allowed to take photos and videos, not an installed security camera, and 2) there are no limits on dissemination of the photos and videos, except that it cannot be disseminated until after the election. She also stated that there are laws preventing people from taking photos of other voters and ballots for a variety of privacy and security concerns.

    Rep Lee (DFL) asked for MN Association of County Officers (MACO) to explain how the exclusion of transmitting preliminary election results from precincts in rural areas such as St. Louis County, would work. Rep Lee noted that currently cities and polling places use federal and state certified systems to transmit data to prevent a delay in obtaining the preliminary election results. The MACO representative agreed that requiring the preliminary results to be delivered in person rather than be transmitted would result in a delay in getting election results.

    Rep. Freiberg summarized the minority party concerns and raised a concern with allowing photos to be taken of voters casting their ballot, coupled with the cast vote record, and date/time stamps on the cast vote records. He asked OSS (Nicole Freeman) if the combination of these factors would allow someone to determine how a particular voter voted. Rep Quam responded that the amendment making the ballot non-public would prevent knowing how a person voted. He stated that an amendment would be offered to prohibit taking a picture of a voter casting their ballot.

    Rep Freiberg agreed that the existing oral amendment was insufficient to address the concern. Rep. Freiberg noted that he appreciated the author’s willingness to work with others to modify the bill. He specifically quoted from the LWV MN testimony regarding the concern for photos and videos of election and the potential security concerns for election workers. He also noted concern with the prohibition on transmitting preliminary results, voter privacy concerns, making election judge party affiliation public. Chair McDonald noted that news channels take video of lawmakers voting, and that the only requirement is to clean up the language.

    The bill was referred to the public safety committee on a roll call vote 6-5 on party lines.

  • LWVMN Observer and Lobby Corps Members Rebecca Monson, Rita Mills, and Sherry Hood

    SF1690 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.

    Issues and tesitfiers in support of the bill:

    • All batteries are not being collected and embedded batteries pose fire risks, a hazard to both staff and facilities which impacts insurance rates and liability. Fire insurance rates are skyrocketing. (One facility reported having 2 fires a week.) There is an insufficiency of collection sites, particularly in rural areas and the uncollected batteries represent a loss of metals which could be salvaged. According to Maria Jensen, testifier and co-director of Recycling Electronics for Climate Action (RICA), batteries represent $3.1B worth of metals and only 20% of that is being captured. Recovering is less expensive than mining and manufacturing. Manufacturers of these electronics only cover about 1/3 the cost of collection and recycling and the burden is borne by Minnesotans. Air and water quality are impacted by toxins released from un-recycled batteries.

    • Kirk Koudelka, assistant commissioner at MPCA. He stated that we need to take responsibility for monitors, TVs, embedded rechargeable batteries and rechargeable batteries themselves.

    • Hennepin County Commissioner Debbie Goettel - She talked about fires in garbage trucks and landfills. She said the 1000 pounds of batteries and electronics are thrown into the garbage every day. (I do not know if she was talking about Hennepin County or the state.) She said that precious metals need to be recovered. There was a recent fire in the Hennepin County Library that was during the day and so could be extinguished by employees. She wants to hold producers responsible, which the bill does. And she proposes that producers make embedded batteries easily removable, recyclable, and re-usable.

    • Also testifying in favor were John Johnson, Itasca County Commissioner, whose county lacks e-waste recycling options; and Aaron Klemz, representative from MCEA who mentioned that the U.S. recycles 30% of copper products compared to 60% in Europe. Currently it costs consumers up to $100 to recycle their e-waste.

    • Lucy Mullaney, Eureka Recycling - She talked about the health and safety of their employees and of the increasing cost (re: insurance, etc.) She said it was tough to stay in business. She said there was a 41% increase in fires with their company in the past 5 years and a 5000% increase in insurance. 

    Issues and testifiers in opposition:

    • The most common issue in opposition was that the scope of products covered is too large because it even includes cables and power cords. Several testifiers suggested that there has been no meaningful stakeholder input into this bill to which Kupec asserts he has had an open office policy for any organizations wishing to discuss the bill. One testifier indicated they had been 'shut out' of 1690 development. Several testifiers suggested this bill will have a dampening effect on the competitive environment in MN and drive up prices to consumers. These testifiers all want amendments, especially around scope of products covered.

    • Tim Dunn, a rep from Best Buy, the largest electronics retailer in the nation. He talked in glowing terms about Best Buy’s free electronic recycling program. He said that B.B. recycled 170 million pounds of electronics this past year throughout the nation. He said the current bill went way beyond fixing the shortcomings of the current law. The bill includes recycling everything from circuit boards to plugs without any meaningful studies done to asses its environmental impact. No other program like this bill exists anywhere else in the country. 

    • Kelly Reilly for Consumer Technology Association - She said that the bill targets a huge score of products far beyond traditional electronic products.

    • Also testifiers against were a representative from the MN Retailers Association, a representative from the MN Chamber of Commerce, and George Kerchner of the Rechargeable Battery Association. He said the bill was too complex, expensive, and bureaucratic. He recommended that the situation be addressed in a separate bill. 

    Senator Steve Green had many questions about how 'collectors' will become designated, on what property collections will be allowed, and who the 'certifying' agency would be. Kirk Koudelka, assistant commissioner of MPCA said that PINK, a non-profit, would be the stewardship organization over-seeing the operation. It facilitates the efforts and a Board of directors sets the standards including the fees that will be charged to the producers. Opponents say the consumer will eventually pay because the producers will raise their prices. If not complying, the producer can be charged up to 3 times the cost. Senator Nathan Wesenberg indicated that the bill is not ready and needs more work

    Sen. Kunesh moved to approve the bill and the vote was 5 for & 4 against on a voice vote. The bill will now move 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