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.

Observer Reports

LWVMN Observer Corps Member Carol Ball
This Committee Meeting heard a report from the MN Department of Commerce on the findings of “an actuarial study on establishing a public option” for health insurance in Minnesota from Milliman (Background for legislators & written testimony with the Department of Human Services). The Commerce Department also gave the same report to the relevant Senate Committee that afternoon and answered questions from Committee members. The overview from the Commerce Department stated that the results of the study are “encouraging and create a framework for discussion.” And that “there are still many important decisions that need to be made…” During the question/comment section the presenters were clear that this was an actuarial study and that specific information about overall costs, especially to the State, could not be determined until a specific bill is before the legislature.
Questions and concerns from the legislators fell into several overall areas: The effect on the Section 1332 Waiver that is currently in place and that relates to the federal funding that comes to Minnesota to help fund our health insurance programs.; Reimbursement levels to providers. Members in both the House and the Senate pointed out the current crisis in EMS services and hospitals in rural Minnesota due to low reimbursement rates from Medicaid and Medicare.; The effect of the implementation of a public option on those who continue to buy health insurance in the private market.; The limitations of the assumptions made in the study and how relevant the findings would be in a real world implementation. There may have been other concerns. Overall, the study indicated that a public option could be very beneficial for consumers but that we can not be sure of the cost to the State and the sustainability of such a program from this study.
LWVMN Observer Corps Member Jody Anderson
Milliman’s report presented two public option design models: Model 1 allows households with incomes above 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL) to "buy in" to a product that is identical to the state's existing Minnesota Care plan. Model 2 establishes a qualified health plan (QHP) at platinum, gold and silver levels that would be sold on MNsure, the state's health insurance marketplace. This version of a public option would allow Minnesotans with incomes over 200% FPL to purchase a platinum level QHP that closely resembles what is available via MInnesotaCare both in terms of benefits covered and what people must pay towards their medical costs. In this model, people may also be eligible for federal or state premium subsidies. Both models rely on private insurers to deliver this coverage, but they leverage existing state processes, oversight and infrastructure differently. Importantly, neither model impacts the eligibility, operations or structure of the MinnesotaCare Program. There will be other meetings for further discussion on this topic before any action is taken. Additional Coverage from MN House News.
LWVMN Observer Corps Member Sherry Hood
HF3326 (Hemmingsen-Jaeger) - MERCURY CONTAINING LIGHTING BANNED. Eric Fowler, Fresh Energy, testified that fluorescent bulbs are still being sold. LED bulbs are more expensive to purchase but cost is recovered within a month, and LED use reduces peak lighting demand on the grid. There are special exceptions in this bill like mercury in photocopiers. Bill adopted as amended and re-referred to Commerce Finance & Policy Committee.
HF3577 (Jordan) - PACKAGING WASTE AND COST REDUCTION ACT established. 17 people testified: from Ramsey County Commissioner Victoria Reinhart to Peter Glessing, Policy Advocate for Medical Alley, to Tony Kwilis, MN Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Kwilis testified against the bill, saying that what we are currently doing is fine, that the structures in place are adequate for our state. He said that our state is ranked 9th or 12th in the nation for recycling. The other testifiers supported the bill or most of the bill, saying that recycling in MN has been stuck at 40% for several years. The unrecycled waste goes into landfills, and landfills and incinerators are bad for us. They said that the solution is to generate less waste and deal with what we have. The producers of the product waste should pay and be responsible for the end product. Amber Buckhaus of National Waste is opposed to the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) system. She does not think the producers should run this. Motion that HF3577, as amended, be re-referred to the Committee on Commerce Finance and Policy. There were 9 ayes and 7 nays.
LWVMN Observer Corps Member Cathy Thom
HF4009 (Kraft - DFL) - Called the "missing middle" housing bill. Rep. Kraft explained that Minnesota needs at least 100,000 more homes, but we need to build the right type, in the right places, in the right way in order to have enough affordable housing for the current and future population and to tackle various environmental needs, including climate change. His bill sets a minimum density level for cities over a certain size, limits parking space to 1 per unit and limits the amount of high-density housing near transit areas that would require a high number of on-street parking spaces. The author thanked Rep. Nash (R) for working on this issue for several years and for partnering to make this bill a truly bipartisan effort. He said that local control is usually a good thing, but housing is a systemic statewide issue that requires a more uniform approach to some of the most basic barriers to affordable housing across the state. Rep. Kozlowski (DFL) is sponsoring the "right to affordable housing" portion of the bill. This addresses historical exclusionary zoning and neighborhood covenants that disallow any multi-family housing in certain areas, which inhibits growth, often discriminates, and makes housing unaffordable for those who need it most and who would benefit from being able to live in these areas. The bill would implement a review process that still allows a lot of choices for cities in regard to their zoning ordinances. Rep. Kozlowski emphasized that it does not "ban" single family homes nor mandate the building of any particular types of multi-family homes; it just legalizes more options. Coverage from MinnPost: Housing density bill opposed by Minnesota cities, but has broad support including the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, the social justice group ISAIAH, home builders, and Sierra Club.
Testifiers in Support: Cristen Incitti - CEO Habitat for Humanity of MN - Emphasized the history of racial discrimination in housing policy and zoning in many areas of Minnesota. This allows more affordable choices for those who struggle to find housing in this time of quickly rising housing costs; Kormasah Deward - SEIU Healthcare MN & IA - Many service workers have a very hard time finding housing they can afford. Even renting, let alone ownership, is extremely expensive and consumes too high of a percentage of the incomes of lower income people.; Steve Gottwalt - Central MN Builders Association - Legal and cost barriers must be changed or other types of efforts will remain to be piecemeal and inadequate.; Ben Whalen - Richfield City Council Member - The city has done much to try and increase affordable housing within its own borders, but one city can only do so much. Says that they are nervous about overriding local control, this is a good use of that state authority.; Eliot Altbaum - ISAIAH - Multi-family homes expand the definition of what community means, and can provide more support for residents who live within neighborhoods.; Paul Eggert - MN Realtors Association - Realtors across the state struggle to find affordable options for their clients in a time of exceedingly low supply. Local zoning ordinances are a huge cause of this problem. Only 10% of residential land in MN allows for the missing middle housing that the bill seeks to encourage; Sarah Larson - Landon Group - Stressed the overly complex and onerous nature of city processes that throw up significant barriers to affordable housing developments, particularly in regard to land use approvals. The appetite for affordable housing options is uneven across various communities.
Testifiers in Opposition: Daniel Lightfoot - Metro Cities Board of Directors - The bill is overly broad, encompassing cities that are too small.; Bradley Peterson - Coalition of Greater MN Cities - Emphasized that city officials are working hard across the state to try to build more housing, yet they still oppose this bill.; Evan Vogel - Cambridge City Administrator - This is not a solution and works through mandates that can inhibit local innovation and solutions, and does not take into account local demographics, geography, and current and past housing unit development, as well as infrastructure adequacy in various areas within cities; Aaron Berg - Cambridge City Council Member and former Planning Commissioner - Sees this as another layer of state agency and complexity and forces them to abandon their Comp Plans. Scott McMahon - Greater MN Partnership - The cost to produce a new unit of housing is greater than what the property will appraise at, and in greater MN this is a failure of the market rate, not a failure of communities to provide it nor a result of communities putting up barriers to affordable housing; Julie Wischnak - City of Minnetonka - Concerned about public input and local control being preempted.
Member Discussion: Nash (R) - Rethinking our housing types and other cost barriers here in MN is a way to create more homeowners of lower incomes and expand the ability to create equity and generational wealth. Stated that the bill is good and necessary, but it's not yet finished, and so he urged members to work on it with the authors rather than outright oppose it. Calls this a "property rights" bill; Rep. Johnson (R) - Stated that we have too many homes being built that are between $350,000-$800,000 in price. We need more starter homes, which are also often for older adults when they downsize, so they are the "book ends" that we are currently lacking when it comes to single family homes, particularly with millennials and baby boomers searching for these options increasingly at the same time; Chair Howard (DFL) - Summarized that he has never seen such a broad coalition that is providing input into and partnerships in regard to crafting this bill.
A6 Amendment (Johnson - R) - Exempts the minimum population number from 5,000 to 10,000 for cities to be covered under much of the law. Small cities are struggling to keep up with the infrastructure needs for the housing that they already have. Rep. Kraft agreed with this change, but certain other requirements, such as for duplexes, would still apply at the lower number. The amendment passed unanimously on a voice vote. The bill as amended passed to the next committee via a unanimous voice vote.
LWVMN Observer Corps Member Paul Huffman
SF3942 (Boldon) - This bill would authorize local governments (cities, towns, counties) to establish a local public financing program for local candidates, funded by local tax dollars and managed locally. Discussion from both majority and minority members reflected that more work was needed. Minority members (Sen Koran and Sen Matthews) identified concerns with the bill’s purpose bill (what is the problem); too little on how this would be implemented at a local level; places more burden on local government similar to HF3645 [below]; and concern that the amount available is only minor. Sen. Rest (majority member) indicated she would vote yes, however expected significant change for future votes. Sen Calrson (committee chair) wondered about the administration. Sen Bolden agreed to have "ongoing conversations on the language". The bill was passed by the committee on party lines (8-6) to be referred to the Senate State and Local Government committee.
SF3616 (Mitchell) - This bill would add a provision to the temporary polling place bill passed in 2023 to require that a county provide a polling place for at least 1 day on a college campus if requested by a post-secondary educational institution or that institution's student government organization if meeting a threshold of 1500 students. There were several testifiers from colleges (LEADMN and a student from Carlton College) supporting the bill. Their points were primarily related to improving accessibility of a polling place for students who may lack transportation. There were significant challenges to this bill both by committee members and from groups representing county election officials and cities (MACO and LMC). The core of the local government group’s objection is that there is already a mechanism to request a polling place, and counties and cities are best able to determine how to manage elections.
Sen Rest asked if there was either a fiscal note or local impact note. Since this would not be a state expense, there is not a need for a fiscal note. When asked why there is not a local impact note, the author stated that it would take 3 - 6 months. (Without this, Sen Rest said it appeared to be an unfunded mandate.) Sen. Limmer (R) expressed times that he was concerned that there would be "more than 1 polling place in a precinct". He asked Senate Counsel if there were examples of this without being able to get an answer then. This would be an early voting location and so is not specific to a single precinct. Sen Limmer kept repeating this concern and also expressed concern that this would "maximize participation in one area over another based on additional measures to enable students to vote. Several other amendments were offered by the minority including one by Sen Matthews to add churches to the institutions that could request a polling place but this was defeated. Sen Koran offered two amendments: one to require the educational institution to pay for the polling place and a second to require a petition signed by 5% of the students to have a polling place; also defeated. Notably, Sen Rest voted for the amendment to have institutions pay for the additional polling place, and the last amendment was defeated 8-7 with Sen Rest voting, "pass". Sen Matthews noted that this bill was explicitly to encourage voting by people favorable to DFL voters. The bill was passed from the committee to Higher Education with a vote of 8-7 with Sen Rest again voting "pass".
LWVMN Observer Corps Member Fern Panda
HF3200 (Jordan) - Program established for BEVERAGE CONTAINER RECYCLING REFUNDS. Refundable beverage container: all bottles and cans made of glass, plastic or metal less than a gallon. Refund value: 10 cents for beverage containers less than 24 ounces, 15 cents for containers over 24 ounces. Rep. Jordan presented a modification to the bill to remove aseptic containers, cartons, and juice boxes as depositable beverage containers. Retailers are not required to have redemption centers.
This bill was heard with time running out in the Committee. There were many testifiers and most spoke out against the bill. Those that spoke in support were Plastic Recyclers, Can Manufacturers Institute, Eureka, Recycling Partnership, Clean Water Action, and MN Pollution Control Agency. They all spoke the same storyline that we need to increase our recycling rates and reduce our trash. With a deposit on containers, people will redeem litter for money. Those that spoke out against: Grocery association says they are not waste haulers. Dirty bottles and cans bring rodents and bugs and they will need extra staff for a redemption center. Retailers worried about border communities, which don’t have a deposit system and losing business to them. Teamsters local working for Pepsico thought increasing prices on beverages would hurt business. Restaurants worry about how to handle inventory purchased before containers are marked for deposit. Also most restaurants don’t need more things to handle. Most resistors cited how well Minnesota does in recycling and that we are 7th in the nation. Rep. Gillman worried about redemption centers in rural areas. Final Action: Bill was laid over.
LWVMN Observer Corps Member Cathy Thom
HF3632 (Huot - DFL) - Under current law, the county board must appoint someone to fill the vacancy left by a sheriff or county attorney. This bill allows the option to call a special election if desired. County Boards may still appoint someone to the office (as is currently the case), but this just gives them an electoral choice. Laurie Halvorson - Dakota County Commissioner - testified in support of the bill. Her county had a 30-year County Attorney retire, and it was a surprise to learn that the board was required to appoint rather than call a special election. She stated that the current process takes an important decision for two prominent county positions out of the hands of constituents and artificially creates an incumbent for the next election. Member Discussion: Quam (R) - Asked if the A1 Amendment allowed for alignment of similar rules for local offices, such as school boards. Rep. Huot replied that it does; Rep. Davis (R) - Asked why the bill does not include County Commissioners. Nicole Freeman from the Sec. of State's office replied that the current law already provides for a special election option under certain timeline circumstances for them. The bill passed for recommendation to the general register via a unanimous voice vote.
HF3645 (Coulter - DFL) - The bill would require the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board (CFB) to oversee campaign finance reporting requirements for political committees, political funds, and party units engaged in campaign activity in local elections on behalf of local candidates and ballot initiatives. Julie Green - Edina resident and recently retired Edina school board member testified that this will bring more accountability and transparency for the local elections. Right now there is no requirement for outside PACs (which often outspend local candidate campaigns) to register with the CFB. The lack of that requirement means that even when violations occur they often go undiscovered and/or unreported. Member Discussion: Quam (R) - Stated that he likes the intent of the bill but thinks that improvements need to be made before he can support the bill; Davis (R) - Emphasized that Education Minnesota spends a lot on local school board elections, and asked if that spending would be curtailed. Rep. Coulter replied that it would require them to register with the CFB and report all local spending. Rep. Davis also asked how much workload this would add to the CFB. Director Jeff Sigurdson said that it would add about 60 additional registrations to process and monitor, but the small fiscal note should take care of it because the addition of an online registration instead of a current paper system would offset increased costs; Torkelson (R) - Asked if the $750 threshold for reporting requirements matches up with current law. Rep. Coulter replied that it does. Torkelson said that this amount likely needs to be raised given increasing campaign costs at all levels. The bill was laid over for possible future inclusion.
HF3557 (Freiberg) - Clarifies the student identifying documents provision for voting to include other documentation such as the residential housing list provided by the institution, strengthens the provisions for language translation requirements, allows for descriptions of residences or P.O. Boxes for residences that do not have an actual street address (such as on tribal lands) to be used as proof of residence. Various technical changes to comply with the letter and spirit of last year's election/voting law changes. Many of the changes were requested by local election judges and county election officials.
Member Discussion: Bliss (R) - Asked which Native nations do not have physical addresses. Nicole Freeman said that there are many, and it varies by community. She said that White Earth is one of them for certain, and will confirm others after double checking further. Rep. Bliss stated that he personally helped to correct that issue with the Red Lake community because it is a safety issue, and he would like to see it corrected in all Native nations.; Altendorf (R) - Asked "how can you look the MN public in the eye" and say that removing the physical address requirement makes our elections more fair, honest, and secure? Rep. Freiberg replied that homeless people do not lose their right to vote simply because they do not have a permanent physical address, and it is consistent with other voting rights laws in MN and other states. Nicole Freeman also added that this bill applies to the actual registration form, which is vetted by the Sec. of State's office to identify the location as being within a particular precinct. This is an attempt to allow the unhoused to also register without having to do so in person at the polling place.; Rep. Quam questioned the 20-day timing before an election for the educational institutions to provide their residential lists, stating that is after official polling place lists have already been generated and after early voting has begun. Nicole Freeman replied that the universities' lists are separate from a regular voting roster, and due to the fluid nature of student residential statuses during the first two months of the fall academic term, 20 days was reasonable for their lists to be more accurate.; Davis (R) - Asked how many people it takes to vouch for someone to vote within the State of MN. Nicole Freeman answered that only one person who lives within the same precinct, and that one person can vouch for up to 8 people. Rep. Freiberg replied to Rep. Davis’ follow up that the unhoused still have to register, and there are felony penalties for falsifying registration info, and for falsely vouching for someone else. Nicole Freeman replied that if someone who wishes to register themselves that day and then vouch for someone else, they must provide their own proof of residency to vote *and* a valid form of ID in order to vouch for anyone else afterward. MN law does not allow someone who has been vouched for to vouch for anyone else. Rep. Bahner (DFL) stated that there is only a very small subset of voters who ask to be vouched for within precincts in MN. She asked Nicole Freeman to provide those actual numbers. The bill was laid over for future possible inclusion.
HF3625 (Stephenson) - Deep fake election crime modified to clarify the definitions and timelines of our elections in MN, and to strengthen the definitions of and penalties for the use of deep fake technology to include the legal standard of "fundamentally and materially different understanding," and states that a convicted person can be disqualified from holding elected office.
Testifiers: MN Secretary of State Steve Simon - Deep fakes are a growing threat to the integrity of and trust in our elections. He says it can be as simple as misdirecting voters in regard to when or where to vote, or as complex as fake videos or audio to try to falsely discredit or defame candidates. This is a limited and controlled ban that conforms to our MN election schedule, and creates more serious penalties for deterrence to get out ahead of the issue before it becomes a more serious issue in this election cycle. He emphasized that changes in law are not enough, public education regarding reputable sources for information is crucial as well; Mary Hartnett - Clean Elections MN - Testified in support of the bill, stating that there is currently no truth in advertising provisions within federal election law, and state laws need to be as strong as possible. Emphasized this is a global concern, not just a Minnesota or US one.
Member Discussion on an Amendment from Rep. Torkelson (R) that questioned the "severe penalties for an issue we are just beginning to explore," and his proposal would amend the disqualification for office penalty out of the bill. Rep. Stephenson replied that last year's bill stated that violations could be a misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, or a felony depending on the nature of the violation. The addition of forfeiture of office or candidacy would be triggered only if a candidate is convicted of *knowingly* engaging in deep fake technology to mislead voters. In responses to Committee members, Rep. Stephenson stated that crimes would have to be proven in court with experts in the field and be proved that the candidate knew or should have known about what occurred. Rep. Torkelson stated that he still thinks this is a "step too far" at this point in time given what we know right now about AI and deep fakes; Quam (R) - Asked what current violations disqualify someone from holding office? House legal counsel replied that the Fair Campaign Practices Act lists things like bribery, false statements, and a few other provisions.; Torkelson (R) - Asked if there could be a "pro-candidate" deep fake violation. Rep. Stephenson that yes, there could be, such as a fake endorsement or lying about one's qualifications, experience, etc., using deep fake technology. The amendment failed on a party line roll call vote. The bill passed via a voice vote to be referred to the Judiciary Committee.
LWVMN Observer Corps Member Paul Huffman
SF3868 (Morrison) - Ranked Choice Voting Local Option: Existing MN Statute on elections has no provisions for the conduct of elections using Ranked Choice Voting. The only units of government that have been able to implement RCV to this point are those with elections outside of state general elections. This bill (with the author's amendment) would establish definitions and requirements mainly for voting machine configuration and testing to conduct elections using RCV. Notably, the bill allows the use of RCV in local elections during state general elections. These changes would allow any local government to opt to use RCV for local elections.
There were many testifiers in favor of the bill, including Secretary of State Simon, city council members from St Paul, Minnetonka, and Bemidji, a Hennepin County Commissioner, and the Bloomington City Clerk. All expressed that the bill would assure the consistency of RCV elections, and provide an opportunity for local governments to choose the system of elections that worked best for them. Some testifiers stated that RCV is easy to understand, increases turnout, decreases polarization, increases civility in elections, and increases participation by new candidates for elections. One person testified regarding a common claim that RCV violates the principle of "one person/one vote". That testifier pointed to caucuses and primaries as an example of denying equal representation to those not being part of the nomination process. One person testified in opposition to the bill based on a concern that RCV vote counting would increase the potential for counting errors by the voting equipment. This testifier finished with concerns that adopting this new, complex method of determining a winner would further impact voter trust in elections at a time when the level of trust is already low.
Most of the committee concerns and opposition were provided by the ranking member (Sen. Koran). He stated first that there had not been a barrier to someone running for office until there were filing fees required to file to run. Sen Koran tied these filing fees to the implementation of RCV in the 5 west metro municipalities using it. (The fees he noted were $500 to run for mayor and $400 to run for governor.) Based on this, Sen. Koran offered an amendment to reduce and cap filing fees to run for public office. (The amendment was defeated on party lines.) Sen Koran also questioned the lack of detail on how ties would be resolved. Finally, Sen Koran noted specific studies that contradicted some of the claims by the supporters regarding benefits of RCV such as increased turnout, increase in minority and women in elected positions, and decreased polarization in politics and elections. The bill was passed out of committee on a party line vote (8-6) and will go to state and local government.
SF 3871 (Cwodzinski) - School District Pre-registration requirements. Existing election statutes related to voter registration in public schools (modified during the 2023 legislative session) requires that schools provide voter registration applications to all students who will be eligible to vote at the next election twice a year. SF3871 would require school districts to provide voter registration applications to all students who are eligible to pre-register to vote (16 and 17 year olds), not just those who can vote at the next election. The bill also requires offering voter registration applications 15 days in advance of a state general election. No additional cost is expected. Sen Anderson questioned how the eligibility would be verified for those registering both at the time they register and when they were added to the voter rolls, including if they were potentially incarcerated. Nicole Freeman from OSS addressed this as being consistent with current practices and processes to verify eligibility of new voters, including verifying they are not incarcerated. Sen Anderson also asked whether those under 18 who had submitted voter registration applications would be available to the public as part of the voter rolls. Nicole Freeman stated they would not as they would not be on the voter rolls until they turned 18, they would not be on any public reporting. This bill was laid over for inclusion in a broader election bill.
SF3875 (Mitchell) - This bill makes a minor change to a provision passed by the 2023 legislative session which required that management of a multi-unit housing facility must provide access to census enumerators. The bill which passed in 2023 limited that period to January 1 - July 31 of the years when a census is conducted (years ending in 0). This bill would require access to multi-unit housing for any census enumerator activities related to the decennial census. Dr Susan Brower, MN State Demographer, testified in support of the change. There was no discussion or objections. Sen Koran asked a separate question related to the actual MN state population based on the overcount in the 2020 census. Dr. Brower stated that the number communicated reflects the best estimate of the undercount and overcount from the census bureau. The bill was laid over.