Capitol Letter for March 29, 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.
Observer Reports
-
LWVMN Election and Redistricting Policy Coordinator Paul Huffman
SF3994 (Champion) - Minnesota Voting Rights Act established. The Minnesota VRA codifies Section 2 of the 1965 federal Voting Rights Act, providing detail on how voter suppression and vote dilution would be identified and potentially resolved in Minnesota. The scope of activities which are potentially covered by Section 2 of the federal VRA are very broad, including voter registration, absentee voting, in person voting, organization of local elected governments, and state and local redistricting.
Under the federal Voting Rights Act, potential issues have historically been very time-consuming and expensive for both affected individuals and governments to address through federal courts. In addition, a ruling in November 2023 by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Minnesota, determined that only the U.S. Department of Justice, and not individuals, have the right to challenge potentially discriminatory election laws. That change, contrary to decades of precedent, significantly jeopardizes the ability to address racially discriminatory election laws. Relying solely on the Department of Justice to raise challenges leaves enforcement of the federal VRA vulnerable to the limitations on DOJ resources and to the values and priorities of any given administration.
Senator Champion stated that the bill provides a more efficient, responsive, and less costly approach to address potentially racially discriminatory election laws and activities than is available under the federal VRA. He shared persistent disparities in voting from Minnesota Census data and stated that it is imperative that voters have a private right of action and legal protection to voter suppression and vote dilution. Key elements of the bill:
1. Codifies protections in the federal VRA in state law against laws that would have the effect of suppressing or diluting the vote, while also simplifying and clarifying those protections;
2. Establishment of a private right of action for individuals impacted by potentially discriminatory election laws to bring action in state courts, and a process providing the opportunity to fix potentially discriminatory election policies or procedures without going to court; and
3. Ensures that the law is applied consistently (presumably by using past case law).
In testimony, Secretary of State Steve Simon reiterated Senator Champion’s points on the importance of the bill and expressed support for the bill.
Matt Hilgart, from the Association of Minnesota Counties (AMC) shared their support for the Federal VRA and a private right to action. AMC expressed appreciation for the effort by Sen. Champion and advocates to incorporate the federal VRA and private right of action in Minnesota statute. A key concern of the counties (and cities) is to distinguish between those policy items that are the responsibility of local governments and those policies that are established through the legislature. There were several other aspects of the bill that AMC had concerns with such as conformance to existing Minnesota laws, limits on cost to local governments for resolving pre-suit notices, and definitions and terminology. A delete-all amendment (the A5 amendment), which was adopted later in the hearing, addressed some of the concerns that the counties had (which were shared by cities and local election officials).
Michael Pernick, attorney with the Legal Defense Fund of the NAACP, shared that the Minnesota Voting Rights Act codifies, clarifies, and strengthens protections from Section 2 of the FVRA. An example would be the closing of polling places in communities of color. He also stated that the Minnesota Voting Rights Act builds on the success of a growing number of states with similar laws.
An informative discussion between committee members, the Office of the Secretary of State, and Senator Champion ensued on details of the bill and the A5 amendment (which incorporated the A7). Sen Kreun raised several questions related to the bill - one question raised was whether the bill as amended required both a demonstration of disparate impact and demonstration of historical and social context, which provides greater clarity for local governments and courts. The bill also included pre-2021 standards for defining protected populations and the protections, and provided examples for state courts and local governments to use. There was a question as to why there was not a bill to just address a private right to action. While some of the elements of the bill, especially voter suppression, are intended to address federal law as it was implemented before 2021, it is necessary to establish a structure for Minnesota’s VRA that can be used over time in Minnesota.
Notably, they discussed that in some cases a pre-suit notice under the MN VRA could be remedied as easily as adding or changing an early or absentee polling place or a making a change to an election day polling place. The bill passed via a voice vote to the Senate Floor.
LWVMN wrote a support letter for SF3994, including a provision that was not heard in this hearing which would allow statutory cities to establish wards without also establishing a city charter.
-
LWVMN Observer Corps Member Cathy Thom
HF4618 (Her) - Housing infrastructure program modification, and affordable housing assistance. In the Wilder Park (St. Paul) condominiums (237 units), mostly low-income owners who are seniors, many with disabilities are the owner-occupiers. Residents are in danger of foreclosure or having to sell their units due to rising mortgage payments, property taxes, and associated fees as the building ages, and the building does not qualify for other funding programs. This bill amends previous Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) legislative funding language that will qualify this building for both city and state funding and keep these homeowners in their condos by providing them immediate assistance with rent and association fees, as well as paying half the cost for a critical but expensive windows upgrade project. Testifiers included a MN housing legislative expert and the president of the Wilder Park homeowner association (HOA).
Testifiers were all in favor of the bill, and one warned that developers will often target the senior and disabled communities who can no longer afford their homes. They said that we need to find more ways to expedite funding to preserve communities like this that have, over time, evolved into naturally occurring affordable housing, but are now becoming unaffordable for their current residents.
Member discussion centered on the history of the Wilder building. It was built in 1978 by the Wilder Foundation as a senior condo building that could provide homes for older people who wanted to move out of their homes within the community. It was also required at that time to set aside 25% of its units for low-income residents. Although owned by the unit owners and the HOA, the condo building has been privately managed by various property management companies since its completion. Rep. Johnson (R) raised concerns in regard to the cost of the window replacement project. Rep. Johnson claimed that it breaks down to $10,000 per window, which was "three times cost." Rep. Johnson also said that since this bill was going to change HRA rules across the state, it should be sent to the State & Local Government Committee. Rep. Her replied that she is open to more discussion, however that she takes issue with the insinuation that these are not careful or responsible homeowners who did not properly plan for the window replacement project and set aside funds. She reminded the committee that these are low-income homeowners who take care of their own units, but larger projects simply have gotten out of their reach as costs have risen. We can either help them now, she said, or allow them to become homeless and then figure out how to care for them at that point. The bill was laid over for future consideration.
HF4614 (Norris) - Land Bank Twin Cities funding provided. Land Banks are proven means of developing affordable housing, but they require capital in order to work effectively. The bill would provide funding so that the LBTC can better compete for properties within the housing market at a time of sharply rising home prices.
TESTIFIERS: Tom Streitz - Co-Founder & President of the Land Bank Twin Cities - The LBTC was founded in 2009 as families were losing their homes at rapid rates to assist lower income and minority homeowners to stay in and buy homes. It also allows significant or historic buildings and businesses to remain with or acquire owners that will preserve their intent. He pointed out the increasing issue of investment firms buying up, most often with cash offers, private single-family homes and putting them into the rental market at often high rental rates. The Land Bank must compete against these often predatory companies with little regard for the stability of the communities into which they are buying. By contrast, the Land Bank buys homes, fixes them up, and helps low income and minority owners to purchase them. David McGee - Build Wealth MN - Non-profit developer that partners with capital investment sources such as the LBTC to restore, build, and subsidize homes that can be owned by low-income minority homeowners. They buy the homes, make the most expensive improvements, then resell them to a private developer who does the finishing rehabilitations, then sells the home to a qualified buyer, and then pays the LBTC back at 80%. Cities often help with some of the funding for the final purchase by the homeowner.
MEMBER DISCUSSION: Rep. Petersburg (R) - Asked about a fiscal note for the funding. Rep. Howard answered that since the bill is being laid over, that will be determined at a later date. Rep. Johnson (R) asked how many homes the LBTC owns. Tom Streitz said that they only hold them for a brief time - they create an LLC to buy the property (for nonprofit tax and liability reasons), and then resell it. Currently they hold 30 properties within their total portfolio, with 38 active LLCs. They've bought and sold thousands of homes, increased their values, which has in turn increased property tax revenues for local communities and equity wealth for homeowners who may not otherwise be able to attain homeownership. Rep Johnson said that during the recession, he served dozens of foreclosure papers, and that sometimes he felt sorry for the homeowners, but sometimes he did not because they had expensive "toys" like boats and cars that they decided to make payments on instead of their mortgages. He said that they had simply made poor decisions. Although he likes the concept, he was concerned about buying via the use of LLCs (makes him think "they are hiding something") and the lack of a fiscal note is concerning because there is not a lot of money available to spend this session. Tom Streitz invited Rep. Johnson to come to the LBTC and learn about why investors of all kinds use LLCs for liability reasons and to learn about the types of homeowners that they have helped. Rep. Ethan Cha (DFL) said that he was a mortgage broker during the mortgage crisis, and he wished that there had been a program like this to help keep people in their homes. He reiterated the problem of investment firms gobbling up homes, outbidding actual homeowners out of these homes. In some communities, as many as 25% to 30% of homes have been purchased by these companies. Rep. Maria Isa Perez-Vega (DFL) - Stated that many of her constituents have benefited from the work of LBTC - not just for homeownership, but also for entrepreneurship, collaborative efforts and community engagement to help community members invest in their own communities. Rep. Norris reiterated Tom Streitz's point that a 501-3(c) that invests in properties via an LLC is a well-counseled nonprofit entity, because that is the standard of how things should be done. The bill was laid over for future consideration.
-
LWVMN Observer Corps Member Fern Panda
HF3345 (Jordan) Prohibition on banning merchant bags removed. Rep. Jordan said that this bill does not enact a statewide policy regarding bags, but gives tools to cities and counties looking to combat waste, littering and the harmful effects of plastics.
First testifier was Avonna Starck of Clean Water Action in support of repealing the ban. The current law takes local control away from elected mayors, city council members and commissioners. While this legislation is not a ban on plastic bags, it allows communities to have sustainability focused conversations that are appropriate for them. This bill is not a call to ban bags, it is a call to untie our hands so that we can approach the issue of sustainability in a way that works for each one of our unique communities.
Second Testifier was Bruce Nustad of MN Retail Assoc. - A repeal should only be done when a statewide approach is adopted. A statewide solution is important for consumers as consistency is crucial for fairness and expectation. Consumers should not face varying regulations practices depending on their location. A statewide approach ensures that all consumers are treated equally and that they know what to expect, regardless of where they shop.
Third testifier was Steve Stauber - we all can agree that plastic bags are literally everywhere. He knows that plastic bags are a big problem in recycling centers causing them to clog up their machinery and to shut down to clear them. It is just a matter of changing our behavior right now.
Fourth Testifier was Jamie Pfuhl, President of MN Grocer Assoc. - Millions of pounds of plastic are recycled annually by your local grocers. City by city policy approaches create a direct market disadvantage to local businesses. Consumers will make choices that fit their needs and pocketbooks. Their number one concern is the effect of the patchwork of ordinances will have on our customers. Varying local laws will cause customers confusion.
Representative Joy thinks that we still need to keep this on the state level. If we do give it to local control, not all players are in the negotiations or talks at the table. He was a mayor in the past and not all city council members understand retail. Rep. Harder can't support the bill. She would like to see less littering and more local control, but the bill is anti-consumer and anti-business. If cities and counties enact different ordinances, she sees confusion. Rep. Nadeau thinks plastic is not the problem, waste management is the issue. The bill would remove options for consumers. Rep. Hanson supports the bill. He asked "Do we have options on how much plastics we're going to take in? Do we have stakeholder meetings on how much plastic we can consume? Rep. Nash was the author of the ban that the bill wants to repeal. He does not want the patchwork for retailers that might happen. Rep. Klevorn supports the bill. She lived in Sao Paulo, Brazil and Sao Paulo, a city of over 12 million people banned bags. Grocery stores still functioned. Everyone knew to bring a bag or box for their groceries. Bill was laid over for possible inclusion in a larger bill.
-
LWVMN Observer Corps Member Carol Ball
HF2791 (Pursell) Land, water quality, aquatic life, and wildlife protected from effects of using motorized recreational trails; environmental assessment worksheet required to construct or expand off-highway vehicle trails. Rep. Pursell introduced the bill and said that the purpose of the bill is to find better ways to balance the way we recreate outdoors and how we protect our natural environment. She pointed out the rapid rise in motorized recreational vehicles registered and in use in Minnesota. In addition, she discussed the large increase in the weight of some of these vehicles compared to those that have been used in the past.
Testimony in favor by Susan Schubert, a representative from the MN Public Lands Coalition. This was followed by Bruce Anderson, a retired natural resources manager who stated that this bill takes nothing away from legal motorized trail users and mitigates the impact on wildlife. Dr. John Nieber, a Hydrology professor at the University of MN explained how motorized vehicles impact water quality. A home owner from Eagles Nest discussed the impact of this type of recreation on her community and stated that this bill elevates the voice of the local community in the development of these trails.
Testimony opposed from representatives of multiple organizations including the MN 4 Wheel Drive Association, Twin City Trail Riders, ATV Association of MN, MN Trappers Association, MN Deer Hunters Association, and an Itasca County Land Commissioner. General themes in this testimony were that there is already a 7 step process for the development of motorized vehicle trails and that this bill “goes a little bit too far.” There were concerns about access, particularly from the Trappers and the Deer Hunters Associations. One testifier also stated that this is an “anti OHV bill” and that there are not these same restrictions on biking and walking path construction.
Bob Meier from the MN DNR testified that the DNR has some concerns about the bill but that they would work with the author regarding those concerns.
Member Discussion: In Opposition - Rep. Skraba stated that the current system seems “pretty strong”. Rep. Jacob pointed out that motorized vehicle recreation “gets kids off screens” and that putting these restrictions on development of the sport in our state will decrease our ability to compete with other states in attracting the growing number of people who want to recreate in this way. Rep. Heintzman agreed with the point regarding decreasing MN’s ability to compete by putting in place obstacles to the development of these trails. In Favor -Rep. Finke clarified that the bill does not impact existing trails and that, in view of the 175% growth in motorized vehicle recreation since 2012 and the increased weight of the vehicles, it seems reasonable to look at new ways of developing new trails for this purpose.
Rep. Pursell responded to member discussion stating that 4% of Minnesotans own ATVs/OHVs and that 30% of Minnesotans go to State Parks. She also stated that she has 2 letters from former DNR employees stating that the lack of signage for OHV trails north of Hwy 2 makes it very difficult to manage the trails in that area. The bill as amended was laid over for possible inclusion in a future bill.
House News and Related Coverage
House News Week in Review: March 25-27
What’s the fairest way to reduce nitrate contamination in Minnesota?
Please learn more at our 2024 Legislative Session Webpage.