Capitol Letter for February 16, 2024

The Capitol Letter™ is a recurring publication that provides reports from LWV Minnesota volunteer Observer Corps and Lobby Corps members on what is happening in the current legislative session.

 

LWVMN Advocacy

As the League celebrates its 104th birthday, we are reminded that the Equal Rights Amendment has been a priority of ours for over 100 years! The persistence and determination of advocates has expanded the fight for equal rights. We are so grateful for well over 100 League members who drove and bussed from across the state to be part of this important day to raise our voices for Equality for All! On Feb. 12, 2024, we rallied for the ERA with 24 other organizations and hundreds more supporters, and four Minnetonka High School students spoke on behalf of LWVMN during the rally (12:55).

Additional Rally Coverage from WCCO

The 2024 Minnesota Legislature will consider a bill that would ask voters:

  • Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to say that all persons shall be guaranteed equal rights under the laws of the state, and that the state shall not discriminate against any person on account of race, color, national origin, ancestry, disability, or sex, including pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, reproductive freedom, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation?

Action Alert: Ensure the ERA is a 2024 Legislative Priority!

Observer Reports

House Health Finance and Policy Committee - January 25

LWVMN Observer Corps Member Kathleen Oganovic

HF1930 (Freiberg) - End-of-life option established for terminally ill adults with a prognosis of six months or less, otherwise known as Medical Aid in Dying (MAID). 73 people signed up to testify, of those 53 were in support of the bill. Proposed Amendments and Concerns raised by GOP Representatives that were all defeated by a party line or voice vote: Rep. Jeff Backer - All data relating to requesting MAID should be documented; Rep. Anne Neu Brindley - A checklist form prepared by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDA) should be completed to ensure that the Act is implemented correctly; Rep. Debra Kiel - The two health care providers required to confirm that the person is terminally ill should be two Doctors. The bill indicates that it can be one physician and one other health care provider such as an Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) (Response from Rep. Freiberg - This proposal would be unfair to citizens living in areas where two physicians would not be readily available to make a determination in a timely manner.); Rep. Duane Quam - The bill should include a MN residency requirement (Response from Freiberg & Attorney Thaddeus Pope - Several states have dropped their residency requirements because there have been constitutional objections); Rep. Quam - Concern that there was a correlation between Oregon’s Legislature passing the law to eliminate their residency requirement and the increase in the number of prescriptions issued (Response - this theory was rejected); Rep. Joe Schomacher - The current bill does not require a pause of 15 days between the first and the second medical opinions that confirm that the person is terminally ill with a prognosis of 6 months or less live, is mentally capable, and is not being coerced (Response from Pope - Keeping the pause requirement could in some cases be to the disadvantage of a person close to death who need timely relief); Rep. Backer -concern that this would legalize medical aid in suicide (General Response - Suicide is an act that is often spontaneous and involves some sort of violence and is self-inflicted secretly. Medical Aid in Dying is an act that has professional healthcare involvement and is thoughtfully planned over a period of time); Rep. Anne Neu Brindley -concerns related to someone who is not board certified making the wrong diagnosis (Response from Dr. Cory Carrol of Colorado where MAID has been legalized since 2016 - The diagnosis is made according to medical protocols including medical history and additional testing as required by two healthcare professionals to make a determination). Representative Neu Brindley left the meeting in frustration before the final vote. The vote to approve the bill was 10 YES / 5 NO. The bill will be heard next by the House Public Safety Committee.

MN House News Coverage

House Elections Finance and Policy Committee - Wednesday, February 14

LWVMN Observer Corps Members Paul Huffman & Cathy Thom

HF1064 (Hollins) - A resolution to ask Congress to pass a constitutional amendment that only "natural persons" are people under the First Amendment related to free speech and campaign donations, and exclude corporations. This bill is intended to counter the effects of Citizens United which effectively removed limits on campaign spending by corporations. Testifiers from both the metro area and rural MN testified in favor of the bill. Republican Representatives (Torkelson, Altendorf, Quam, Davis) argued for an amendment to explicitly include unions and nonprofits in the text of the bill. This change was argued against by Rep. Greenman (DFL); as the bill states, "corporations" would include nonprofits and trade unions. Rep. Hollins (Author) indicated openness to additional discussion on the bill but opposed the amendment which was defeated on party lines. Rep. Quam subsequently raised a concern that noncitizens are part of labor unions and NGOs and more should be done to exclude them from influencing elections. The bill passed on a party line vote.

HF3447 (Pursell) - At least one temporary early voting location on campuses serving 1500+ students must be provided for at least one day by counties if requested by the institution. Nicole Freeman, Office of the MN Secretary of State, supports the bill, noting that many students are first time voters and can get in-person guidance as they vote, especially voting absentee, which can be more complicated due to its two-step nature. Two student representatives testified that research shows that students often don't vote due to class & work scheduling conflicts and lack of transportation to distant early voting locations. Notably, MACO (MN Association of County Officials) submitted testimony opposing this bill because it would mandate that local election officials support requests for a polling place rather than allow discretion by local election officials. The MACO testimony also identified that among the many election administration changes passed in the 2023 session was a provision to allow local election officials to establish temporary polling places. Similar concerns were raised by minority committee members related to the impact on local election officials and the burden and logistical complexity of supporting the implementation. Other concerns raised: this is an unfunded mandate for counties to implement (Response - Nicole Freeman - how many polling locations and for how many days, both beyond one each, would be up to counties, not the institutions to decide - Rep. Bahner (DFL) - there was Voter Fund money appropriated last year to help counties with costs like this); early voting already allows an opportunity for students to vote at a time convenient for them; limiting the student population to 1500 students or larger eliminates some smaller, potentially more conservative institutions (Response from Rep. Pursell: This was a cost-benefit balance decision and that she is open to resetting the number, perhaps to 800 students); the bill is biased towards liberal perspectives by favoring students; and diverts students from voting at their home by absentee ballot or early, to voting at their college where they might have less connection to the community. HF3447 passed on a voice vote.

HF3435 (Virnig) - Modification of Census Access to multifamily housing. A subtle but important bill was passed in the 2023 session that required multifamily housing facilities (apartment and condominium buildings) to allow access by Census enumerators. The bill provided for only a limited period of applicability (January 1 - July 1 in the decennial census year) which turned out to be too narrow. This bill would expand to all activities related to the decennial census and passed on a voice vote  The ranking minority member (Rep. Torkelson) noted that this would be the first of many bills to repair rapidly moved bills from the 2023 session.

Senate Education Policy Committee - Wednesday, February 14

LWVMN Observer Corps Member Cathy Thom

SF3534 (Westlin - DFL) - Retains the general ban on deadly restraints but removes "imminent" from the reasonable force standard for school employees in regard to such restraints. Removes SROs from the definition of "an employee or agent of the school district" as it relates to the use of prone restraint and certain physical holds. Requires that school resource officers complete minimum training requirements. Mandates a school resource officer model policy and contract development standards for school districts. Coverage from MN House News on Companion Bill

Testifiers: Senator Westlin stresses that most districts do not have SROs - it is a local control decision whether or not they are necessary or desired. But there is currently a lack of uniform SRO training and contract model standards across the state, and this bill seeks to remedy that as well as to alleviate concerns about overly broad and vague disallowance of the use of prone and other types of physical restraints by SROs.; Public Safety & Dept of Education Commissioners - Testified in support of the bill. Stated that in a 2022 survey, 94% of students favored having SROs in their schools. Both like the training and model policy requirements, as well as the legal clarification of current practice that SROs are law enforcement officers and are not responsible for enforcing school district disciplinary policies. DOE Commissioner Willie Jett II also emphasized that the SRO role, like those in all educational settings, is relationship-based and should foster the development of connections and trust with students, staff, and the district community.; Erike Misselt - MN Board of Peace Officers Standards & Training - Spoke in favor of the bill, said that the new requirements are not new, they are simply best practices that are now being mandated into law. Emphasized that "policy never overrides statute," and so that will prevail in regard to both policy development and implementation within the schools themselves as SROs do their jobs.; Maren Christenson Hofer - Multicultural Autism Action Network - Points out that 10 children with ASD have died in MN from deadly force restraints. Objects to the change that appears to "exempt" law enforcement from legal restrictions on prone and other types of restraints, which could be deadly to certain students and seems to prioritize the concerns and rights of law enforcement over the safety of students.; Taylor O'Shay, Deer River High School student - MN Youth Council - Says that the SRO at her school does not attempt to develop relationships, nor do they foster two-way communication. She is in favor of the bill, and even would like to see SRO accountability expanded when it comes to fulfilling the more relationship-related aspects of their roles.; Mary Jane Iteghete, Park Center High School student - MN Youth Council - Testified that student voices must be amplified by the addition of a student advisory council in schools when it comes to SRO policy and accountability so that SROs must be held properly and consistently accountable to those they are sworn to protect - including and especially students. As a student of color, she and her peers want to make sure that legislators know that the relationship that they have with law enforcement is often tenuous and mistrustful.; Matt Shaver - EdAllies - Testified that prone restraints do not belong at schools, and even SROs should not be allowed to use them. Any holds that inhibit calling for help or the ability to breathe should not be used except in extremely extraordinary and rare circumstances. This statute does not clarify exactly when such holds can be used, which is needed, rather than backing off on SRO restrictions on using them.; Terry Morrow - MN School Board Association - Pointed out that the bill as worded does not help to clarify whether or not school employees can reasonably physically intervene to stop damage to school property because the word property has been removed from the legal definitions of what situations are "reasonable."; Erin Sandsmark - Students Not Suspensions - Spoke in opposition - "deeply disappointed" that air restrictive holds will now be allowed once again by SROs. Choke holds and prone restraints are different, but both can be air restrictive. This bill still severely restricts the use of choke holds, but it contracts the restrictions on prone restraints and other air-restrictive holds that are not outright choke holds. Pointed out that BIPOC students and students with disabilities are most often subjected to these types of holds.; Jessica Webster - Legal Services Advocacy Project - Strongly opposed to the bill. Feels that it backs off too much on the restrictions when air-restrictive holds like prone restraint can be used, especially by SROs. Prone restraint holds can turn into severe air-restriction holds without being technically classified as "choke holds," particularly if a student struggles to free themselves. Emphasized that prone restraint and other types of holds are demeaning and traumatizing for children, particularly those with disabilities.; Roger Aronson - MN Association of Secondary School Principles - Testified in support of the bill, especially the deletion of the word "imminent." He says that it is a good compromise bill, as evidenced by the fact that no stakeholders are completely satisfied with it, but yet it has much bipartisan legislative support.; Ryan Boevers - Licensed Social Worker, soon to be an attorney. Testified in opposition to the bill. As an employee in a social service setting, he used restraints over 100 times on children, but he *never* used prone restraints. He said that de-escalation, when done correctly based on a particular students' needs, is much more effective than restraints, particularly the more dangerous and demeaning types of restraints like prone restraint. Those who are most likely to be subjected to prone and other dangerous types of restraints are those most likely to be traumatized and harmed by them.

Member Discussion & Votes: A10 Amendment (Senator Duckworth, R) - Would delete the entire SRO law that was passed in 2023. Sen Duckworth offered this amendment after expressing great appreciation for the bipartisan work being done on the bill before them that he seeks to amend. He said then they could start from scratch on a new bill rather than amend last year's bill. Senator Westlin said that she prefers to build on/amend last year's bill and opposed the amendment rather than completely undo the good things that were in last year's bill. The amendment failed on a party line roll call vote of 4-6. Senator Duckworth pointed out that the main points of contention in this discussion is what the word "reasonable" means in regard to restraint, in order to keep people (staff, students, community) safe. I thought this was a very good encapsulation of the main point of debate. Senator Erin Maye Quade (DFL) pointed out that the SPED Task Force over the past decade has already had these discussions and has helped codify existing statutes and all restrictions that have been passed in regard to how adults in schools can treat children. The focus in schools should always be on student safety, learning, and achievement. The bill passed for referral to the Judiciary and Public Safety Committee via a roll call vote of 5-4.

Additional Notes: This bill is being fast-tracked through both the House & Senate because law enforcement concerns from last year's bill had resulted in the removal of SROs from some school districts by local police departments. There were calls for a special session, which did not happen, but it was one of the first bills to be heard in committee and has bipartisan support, although in the House there has been Republican complaints of Democratic "foot dragging" when the bill was laid over in the House Public Safety Committee for 36 hours for further consideration before referring it to Ways & Means so that it could go to the floor for passage. Given that House Republicans are trying to get this bill to the House floor as fast as possible, Senator Duckworth's amendment to delete all of last year's bill and start again completely from scratch is interesting. There was also a lot of discussion about what parts of the bill were under criminal (Judiciary/Public Safety Committee) jurisdiction versus the Education Policy Committee.

Senate Health & Human Services Committee - Thursday, February 15

LWVMN Observer Corps Member Cathy Thom

SF610 (Boldon - DFL, Rochester) - as proposed to be amended by the A-1 amendment, allows child care centers and family child care providers to develop a policy regarding immunizations for children over two months of age. Because they are small businesses and not schools, the bill allows private childcare providers to not accept unvaccinated children within their businesses within the bounds of anti-discrimination laws. Senator Boldon stressed that the bill does not mandate vaccinations in all cases, nor does it limit parental choices. It does give risk management choices to private childcare providers, which they currently lack in law because they are treated in tandem with schools and must follow those same rules.

Member Discussion & Votes: A2 Amendment (Liske - R, Lonsdale) - The amendment would preserve conscientious objection and delayed vaccination schedules within the bill. Delayed vaccinations do not qualify for a medical exemption. Senator Boldon opposed the amendment because it undoes what the bill is intended to do, and notes that it would not "ban" children from all childcare centers, it merely allows childcare providers to make their own businesses regarding how they will keep the children in their care safe. Senator Abeler (R - Anoka) stated that he does not think the bill is necessary, and he stated that "conscientious objectors do not make up random beliefs." Does not think it is the role of the legislature to "take away the right of people to investigate and make their own legitimate, solid health care decisions." Claimed he is "not anti-vax, he is anti-coercion." Senator Utke (R - Park Rapids) supported the amendment because "rights need to be given back to parents," and "the past three years" have shown that "people no longer trust the system," and that "perhaps they shouldn't." The Amendment failed via a roll call vote of 3-5. The bill was laid over for possible future consideration.

Senate Elections - Thursday, February 15

LWVMN Observer Corps Members Paul Huffman & Cathy Thom

Paul: SF3550 (Maye Quade) Strengthening Deep Fake Prohibitions - The purpose of the bill is to expand and strengthen the bill passed in the 2023 session related to use of AI deep fakes in conjunction with election activities. The 2023 bill was passed with nearly unanimous support. The changes proposed add 1) consideration whether the deep fake could cause viewers to have a "fundamentally and materially different understanding of the original content; 2) make specific that it applies both before a primary or caucus as well as before a general election; 3) provides a list of types of media that the law applies to; and 4) require that candidates found guilty of violating the law would be required to be removed from the ballot. The author maintains the changes are important both to make the bill more clear and to get ahead of technology and innovation in the use of technology. The minority members opposed the changes as subjective, encroaching on First Amendment rights, and raising the risk of removing candidates from the ballot which is a hot political issue nationally. They advocated for additional, bipartisan effort to develop the bill. Bill was passed from the committee on voice vote, along party lines.

SF 3481 (Westlin) Expanding doxing protections for election officials and law enforcement - This bill adds details to the personal information that cannot be shared, including home telephone number, cell number, personal email address, name of the official's child, photographs of the official's child, as well as the existing language related to home address and photos. The bill was passed on a unanimous voice vote. Cathy: David Maeda - Deputy Secretary of State & Director of Elections - Testified that safety was a much-discussed topic at the recent national convention for election officials, such as keeping Narcan around for fentanyl poisonings from mailings, and how to cooperate with law enforcement regarding how to handle potential swatting incidents. This points to the necessity of further legal protections and tougher penalties for violators. The turnover of election officials, particularly at county levels, is high. The protections for family members are essential because that is often a bridge too far that makes many election officials step down, particularly in regard to their children and grandchildren. Chair Jim Carlson stated that he has heard from constituents and local election administrators that local election workers/judges, who are our friends and neighbors, who are often older residents and are retiring early from election work out of fear for their own or their families' safety. He also says that we need to encourage more people with questions to ask their county auditors and other local election officials about how elections are run, go to trainings, and sign up to become an election worker themselves which can tamp down conspiracies and misinformation about election integrity.

Paul: SF3499 (Boldon) Consolidating political committee spending on local elections with the Campaign Finance Board - This bill would clarify definitions to be consistent with other legislation and federal law, make campaign spending limits consistent, and creates a single process for campaign spending oversight through the state Campaign Finance Board for both committees and parties rather than a range of local governments. The bill does not apply to candidates.  The bill addresses an issue identified by voters as a dramatic increase in outside spending on local elections, especially school boards. Members in the minority party challenged that 1) the current process works (no problem to solve) and local officials are not asking for this to be changed and 2) increasing partisanship and competition in local elections, especially school boards, is leading to efforts to constrain those bringing more competition into local elections to challenge "single party government".  This was passed on a voice vote on party lines. Cathy: Karen MacLaughlin - Rochester, MN Public School Board - Testified in support of the bill. There is tremendous value in transparency, and local elections should not be an exception, particularly in regard to the spending/donations of non-voting entities. It will also make it easier for the public to find all information in one place. Suggested that this be expanded to include all local candidates as well as political committees.

SF3501 (Boldon) Working group to examine whether local candidates should file campaign finance reports with the Campaign Finance & Public Disclosure Board. SF 3499 would require this for PACs, political committees, and political parties, but not for individual local candidates. This working group would explore the cost/benefits of extending this requirement to local candidates. Testifiers: Karen MacLaughlin - Rochester, MN Public School Board - Repeated that it is important to have complete local transparency, which includes extending this reporting requirement to individual local candidates as well. Different candidates file in different local jurisdictions, which makes their information cumbersome to find. They also often rely on informal, often incorrect advice from other candidates or overworked local officials that often do not work full time on election issues and administration. Requiring candidates to file with the CFB would better cue them to ask for advice directly from the CFB. Member Discussion & Vote: Senator Koran (R) - Asked for a fiscal note. Senator Boldon said that it is $34,000, plus $47,000 in per diems for working group members, for a total of $81,000. This was passed on a voice vote with a few "nos".

House News and Related Coverage

House News Week in Review: Feb 12-16

Please learn more at our 2024 Legislative Session Webpage.

Capitol LetterLWV MinnesotaERA, HF1930, HF1064, HF3447, fHF3435, SF3534, SF610, SF3550, SF3481, SF3499, SF3501