Capitol Letter for March 8, 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

This week, LWVMN members and staff submitted written testimony on various proposals in the Elections Committee and on the need and opportunity to better recycle electronic waste. The bipartisan e-waste bill sailed through both its Senate and House Committees, check it out! We also voiced our support for the ERA at a reproductive freedom rally and showed up to support a State Voting Rights Act and ending the concerning practice of prison gerrymandering. Other written testimony submitted by LWVMN this week included support for modernizing the PCR program and the End of Life Options Act. For next week: we’ll learn more about two statewide redistricting proposals, what a small donor match program could look like in Minnesota and more before the House and Senate deadline to act favorably for bills to advance by 5 pm on March 22.

Observer Reports

House Capital Investment Committee - Monday, March 4

LWVMN Observer Corps Member Cathy Thom

PRESENTATION: 2024 Governor's bonding recommendation for MN Housing Finance Agency. Minnesota needs tens of thousands of housing units, especially for those with the lowest incomes. Homelessness and housing instability is unacceptably high as supply is squeezed and costs rise for both rents and mortgages. The proposal would put $50 million towards housing infrastructure bonds - 95% of housing in MN is privately owned. These bonds would be limited to various types of publicly owned lands or units only - building, preservation (particularly of federal assistance units), renovations, and expansions. Covers everything from single family to high density housing types. The proposal also proposes $7.5 million to renovate current publicly owned housing. To date, 64% of public housing funds have gone to greater Minnesota. All of the new funding proposed is in addition to the $200 million appropriated last session, some of which was eligible for federal matching funds.

HF4194 (Howard) - This bill expands the different types of projects for which housing infrastructure bonds can be used (including cooperatives) and provides for the additional issuance of housing infrastructure bonds this session. Testifiers included nonprofit developers who are trying to maintain and increase the amount of affordable housing across the state. The bill was referred to the House Housing Finance and Policy Committee via a voice vote.

HF4271 (Howard) - Housing: This is a definitional and ownership correction and clarification of what constitutes the term "public housing authority" and "public housing" in order to maximize federal dollars available to Minnesota's local housing authorities. This is necessary because of a unique requirement within the MN State Constitution that limits certain types of state public bonds to entities "wholly owned" by the state. Local testifiers explained how much more federal and state funding (particularly certain types of bonds) for which they can qualify if these clarifying changes are made.

House Floor Session - Monday, March 4

LWVMN Observer Corps Member Cathy Thom

HF3489 (Frazier and others) - Modifies the grounds for the use of reasonable force in schools, defines the duties and establishes minimum training requirements for school resource officers, requires the development of a school resource officer model policy and appropriates funds for implementation. This bill was a high bipartisan priority this session - the prospect of a special session was even floated last year to make sure that the concerns of law enforcement could be addressed and clarified so that SROs could get back into schools in which their departments had withdrawn them out of liability concerns. Comments from Republican lawmakers centered on the fact that public safety committees were not allowed to weigh in on the original bill last session, and that they are glad that the issues with the bill finally got fixed. There were also comments criticizing other disciplinary policies passed last year, such as the ban on suspensions for grades K-3 and other restrictions that one commenter claimed "tie educators' hands." More coverage from MPR: Minnesota House advances change to school resource officer law

Senate Energy - Monday, March 4

LWVMN Observer Corps Member Amy Caucutt

SF3949 (McEwen) - "High voltage transmission lines siting and relocation provisions modifications" was amended, discussed and passed onto the Transportation Committee. This bill allows high voltage lines to be erected in the right-of-way on Interstate as well as state highways. The author hopes this will make siting faster, easier and less destructive to citizens than the current system of eminent domain and easements across fields etc. The amendment requires MNDOT to pay for any relocation along interstate highways if highway improvements require. On other highways, utilities pay the relocation costs. Utility testifiers support. MnDOT testifier was neutral, noting Federal Interstate highways at one time forbid this, and that MnDOT does not pay for relocation on any right of ways currently. Most interesting testifier in support was Randy Satterfield from Next Gen Highways who noted that Wisconsin has allowed high voltage poles along I-90/I-94 for over 20 years and there has never been a need, despite construction, of moving these poles. He also spoke to the need for much more transmission capabilities (if the state is to meet the carbon neutral goal passed last session).

Republican Senators Green, Weber, and Matthews worried that local governments would lose control, and/or houses next to highways would be impacted. Sen Matthews A-4 amendment gave local governments veto power. Sen Dibble, also chair of the transportation committee, spoke against this unprecedented expansion of local power, but said he would like to revisit who pays for utility relocation for construction projects in his committee. The amendment failed. Before the vote to recommend passage and send it to the transportation committee, Chair Frentz said he wanted this bill to travel on its own. He prefers no omnibus energy bill this year, but "there are discussions".

House Elections Finance & Policy Committee - Wednesday, March 6

LWVMN Observer Corps Member Cathy Thom

HF3527 (Greenman) - Minnesota Voting Rights Act. The bill prohibits actions that result in voter suppression or vote dilution made by political subdivisions or officials/entities with responsibilities relating to election administration. It establishes a civil cause of action for violations, requires a notice prior to a claim, and establishes remedies. It codifies the provisions of Section 2 within the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 into MN law and guarantees Minnesotans the right to challenge racially discriminatory practices that inhibit their access to exercise their right to vote. A recent federal court decision stripped the right of individuals to sue on their own behalf in regard to voting rights, and this bill would restore that right and streamline and clarify some of the systems and processes involved. Voter data shows that minority voting rates are lower than white voting rates, and they have fallen significantly since the 2013 Shelby v. Holder SCOTUS decision. Six other states have already passed state voting rights bills.

TESTIFIERS: Sec of State Steve Simon - Testified in favor of the bill and gave a historical account of the Voting Rights Act and its recent erosion by federal and SCOTUS decisions. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act gave everyday people the right to challenge discriminatory voting laws and practices. Since 1965 no one ever questioned the private right of action. The recent federal 8th Circuit court decision denied this right to private citizens and nonprofit groups - said that only the Attorney General of the US could bring such suits. MN is currently leading the effort to challenge this decision, which will likely reach the SCOTUS. If SCOTUS upholds the 8th Circuit decision, then a MN Voting Rights Act will fill that gap. He said that there will likely be more fine tuning of the bill but emphasized its necessity because "inaction is not a safe option."

Michael Pernick - NAACP Legal Defense Fund - Echoed Secretary Simon's statement that the federal courts have "chipped away" at the protections within the 1965 Voting Rights Act, making a state voting rights act necessary. Discriminatory gerrymandering and barriers to the ballot such as polling place closure, vote dilution, failure to provide language assistance, and increased complexity built into voting processes have all been deemed acceptable practices.

Lata Nott - Campaign Legal Center - Testified in favor of the bill, with emphasis on how the bill clarifies the terms under which plaintiffs may sue and which remedies would be appropriate.

JaNaé Bates - Testified that her ward suffered, without adequate notice, her voting location changed from 10 minutes away to one that was 45 minutes away. Without access to a car, many residents of her ward, most of them members of minority communities, would have been inhibited from voting by this change.

Khalid Omar - Community Organizer - Testified that many members, particularly elders, of the Muslim community who were eligible to vote were not supported because of language barriers at polling places and decided not to vote as a result. The federal voting rights act would take away the private right to sue over such violations.

Alex Hassel - League of MN Cities - Testified that LMC is not opposed to the bill but would seek some changes in order to limit the violations liability for cities with what they cannot control in regards to election law and administration.

Matt Hilgart - Association of MN Counties - Echoed the support for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and also the concerns of the League of MN Cities. Of special concern is the bill's emphasis on outcomes over actions by local governments. He stated that they really like the pre-notification of action, which can possibly provide remedies without actual legal action.

Munira Mohamed - ACLU MN - Testified in support of the bill, echoing the comments made by Secretary Simon, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and the Campaign Legal Center. The ACLU has provided support to many private parties to bring suits under the 1965 federal Voting Rights Act.

MEMBER DISCUSSION: Rep. Quam (R) offered the DE2 Amendment - Requires provisional ballots at polling places in certain circumstances. Stated that federal HAVA law requires it. Rep. Greenman urged members to vote no, saying that it would delete the entire bill, and Minnesota has had election day registration since 1974 and meets HAVA requirements. Rep. Torkelson said that provisional ballots are not always all counted, for good reason. Rep. Greenman said that provisional ballots are disenfranchising because they often require qualified voters to come back and prove their eligibility. Same day registration is a better system and has the same types of requirements as provisional balloting. Rep. Davis (R) claimed that same day registration is the "easiest way to cheat." Rep. Altendorf (R) said that MN is an outlier in regard to not offering provisional ballots. Rep. Greenman stated that we had hours of testimony last session regarding same day registration versus provisional balloting, and this bill is not about that - it is about providing remedies to those who believe they are subject to discriminatory laws or practices. Rep. Bahner (D) - Emphasized that this amendment is about completely eliminating the language that would guarantee the right to vote and sue for discriminatory practices in favor of simply inserting a new voting restriction. The amendment failed via a voice vote.; Rep. Quam said that he was surprised that there was polling location elimination and language assistance issues within the city of Minneapolis. He said that we need to eliminate these practices while still "complying with federal law" and "sufficiently provide language to avoid confusion and issues." Rep. Greenman stated that this is a statewide bill and protects all MN eligible voters. Reiterated that this bill seeks to address the weakening of federal law, which can decrease the cost of litigation.; Rep. Bliss (R) - Asked about a clause that recognized "two or more protected class groups." Rep. Greenman said that it protects standing for actions brought by coalitions of protected class groups. Rep. Bliss asked about the clause "racially polarized voting." The rep. from the NAACP Legal Defense Fund explained that it is taken directly from federal law. It is a voting pattern where racially aligned voting patterns are very clear and distinct from each other, and historically that pattern has been used to draw districts to dilute minority voters' impact - via gerrymandering via cracking or packing, or at-large local representation so that minority populations' votes are diluted. Asked how redistricting next cycle would affect this law, and vice versa - would it bring on a flood of voter suppression/dilution cases? Rep. Greenman said that historically that has not been the case due to the high standards of proof needed to win such a case.; Rep. Torkelson (R) - Asked about the concerns of cities and counties in regard to having outcomes rather than actions used against them. Rep. Greenman said that the language is in line with current state and federal election law standards. The pre-suit notice can help prevent many lawsuits based on outcomes from going forward. She said that she would be open to suggestions, but the bill is not intended to change the entire US system of how we litigate voting rights cases. The bill was re-referred to the Judiciary Finance & Civil Law Committee via a voice vote. Coverage from MN House News

HF4043 (Agbaje) - "Prison gerrymandering bill." This bill would reallocate census data of incarcerated persons based on their last known address in Minnesota rather than within the district of the prison itself. It would require the Department of Corrections to collect the last residential address of an inmate before incarceration. Incarcerated persons are not allowed to vote or otherwise participate or use the services offered within the communities outside of the prison, and it is considered a "distortion" (Sec. of State Steve Simon quotation) to count them as actual residents of that community.

TESTIFIERS: Sec. of State Steve Simon - Testified in favor of the bill, stating that unlike students, prisoners are not allowed to participate within nor use the services within the community where the prison is located. 11 other states have already passed prison gerrymandering bills.

Lata Nott - Campaign Legal Center - Testified in favor of the bill, echoing what Secretary Simon stated, and added that it artificially inflates the electoral representation of prison communities, and deflates the incarcerated persons' home district representation.

MEMBER DISCUSSION: Rep. Torkelson (R) - Took issue with the claim that they do not use local services - cited water and sewer as examples. Rep. Agbaje replied that it is also an issue of participation - they do not interact with community members nor their representatives. Inflating the representation of communities with prisons does not take this into account. She cited upstate NY, where many prisons are located even though it is one of the more sparsely populated areas of NY state. Rep. Torkelson said that impacts to the communities with prisons in regard to infrastructure funds qualifications, etc., should be considered. He also asked whether it may be difficult to determine the verifiable address of some prisoners. Rep. Agbaje replied that those cases would be handled by data provided by court records, self-reporting, just as most people do with the census itself. She said that the majority of prisoners tend to return to the communities where they lived prior to incarceration. Few are incarcerated long enough to justify being counted as a resident of the prison community for an entire 10-year census cycle. Rep. Davis (R) pushed the point that only all "legal citizens" should be able to have their votes counted. Rep. Greenman agreed with that statement. The bill was referred to the Judiciary Finance & Civil Law Committee via a voice vote.

HF4411 (Greenman) - This bill consolidates the money allocated to the Voter Fund last session so that everything, including voting operations, technology, and election resources is in one account.

TESTIFIERS: Secretary Simon - Testified in favor of the bill and emphasized that last year's bill was created to offset some of the rising costs associated with local election administration. $1.2 million from this fund was distributed across the state last year. This bill consolidates other similar funds to increase the general amount of money available for local use.

Matt Hilgart - Association of MN Counties - Testified in support of the bill. Stating that last year's bill is one of the most popular topics buzzing amongst county and city election officials, especially because it allows localities to spend the money as they see fit, without detailed mandates.

MEMBER DISCUSSION: Rep. Quam (R) - Raised concerns about localities gaining access to additional equipment if the increase in local polling places passes (such as on college campuses).; Rep. Torkelson (R) - Asked about the funds from which the money is being transferred. Rep. Greenman replied that those funds are more restrictive - the Voter Fund passed last year is much less restrictive, providing a flexibility that cities and counties need. Rep. Quam also asked about an additional $5 million allocated to the Voter Fund. It was replied that the $5 million is not "additional," it is also a transfer from various other older, less flexible funds. It is not "new" money. The bill was laid over for possible inclusion.

House Public Safety Finance & Policy - Thursday, March 7

LWVMN Observer Corps Member Kathleen Oganovic

(Content warning – this report mentions suicide.)

HF1930 (Freiberg - DFL) - End-of-life option established. This was the bill’s second committee and focused on Section 13 / Offenses, Penalties, and Claims for Costs Incurred & Section 14 /Construction. Representative Freiberg began by reading the Eligibility Criteria - Just like the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, to be eligible, a person must be: An adult, aged 18 or older; Terminally ill with a prognosis of 6 months or less to live; Mentally capable and making an informed healthcare decision; Resident of Minnesota. Individuals are not eligible for medical aid in dying because of age or disability.

TESTIMONY: Eric Berg / Retired Psychologist testified in support of the bill. Mr. Berg talked about his personal experience with the death of his brother by suicide, and the death of his father from cancer. Mental disorders, physical disorders, and substance abuse can be risk factors for suicide. Suicides can be the result of a mental health crisis where a person is cognitively impaired. The decision to die using Medical Aid in Dying (MAID) is an autonomous decision made thoughtfully over time with medical supervision to gain relief from suffering caused by an irreversible disease. Four other people gave public testimony: 1) Dr. Ellen Kennedy / Executive Director of World Without Genocide spoke in support of the bill because of her experience witnessing her husband’s death. Her husband died a very difficult death from cancer and his dying wish was the passage of HF 1930. She explained that Sections 13 and 14 deter abusers of MAID and that in the 30 years that MAID has been legal in Oregon and 10 other jurisdictions there have been no reports of abuse. 2) Greg Deckert / Estate Planning and Eldercare Attorney spoke in opposition to the bill because he believes that: The safeguards in Section 13 are a charade and would be difficult to prove in a court of law. The witness to the act of MAID could be a stranger with no medical experience. There is no oversight of the pills once they have been prescribed, opening the possibility of the pills being given to a vulnerable person. No witnesses are required to be present when the medication is self-administered. 3) Dr. Denis O’Hare / Family Physician for the elderly and disabled spoke in opposition to the bill because he believes that: MAID is suicide and the bill does not describe the medical process in plainly stated descriptive language. MAID is the same as Physicians Assisted Suicide (PAS) or Euthanasia. MAID is unethical behavior for physicians and will undermine prevention of suicide efforts. 4) John Mielke / Administrator at Presbyterian Homes spoke in opposition of the bill because he believes that it will cause the elderly to feel that their life is not worth living. The standard of care requiring doctors to inform patients of their options called informed consent is coercive in its nature.

MEMBER DISCUSSION: Representative Elliot Engen (R) Questioned the possibility of MAID increasing the number of suicides. Frieberg’s response was that the number of suicides was reported to have increased in Oregon the year the bill became law but the number of suicides increased in all states that year which shows that there is not correlation between the two events. Representative Athena Hollins (DFL) Supports passage of the bill due to witnessing her grandmother’s suffering prior to her death. Finds it simply inaccurate to believe that many evil people are waiting in the shadows to cause the death of elders. Receives hundreds of letters from her constituents who encourage her to support this bill. Representative John Huot (DFL) Received assurance that Section 13 DOES make it illegal to coerce someone into using MAID. Received assurance that Section 13 does NOT make it illegal for a pastor or other religious advisor to consult with a congregant who was considering MAID. Followed up his questions with a thank you to Representative Freiberg for his work on this bill. Representative Walter Hudson (R) Strongly believes that we need to worry about BAD actors. Has no interest in debating statistical data that supports the evidence that there has been no abuse. Believes our actions should always be centered on the value of human life. Believes that this bill promotes the idea that there is ONLY DIGNITY in “checking out of life willfully” rather than stoically waiting for a natural death. Representative Frieberg’s response: He thanked Representative Hudson for bringing up concern with the phrase “Death with Dignity” in the Oregon MAID law. He explained that The End-of-Life Option Act protects the autonomy of everyone to consider all options when making end of life choices including hospice care, palliative care or even Voluntary Stop Eating and Drinking (VSED). The bill does not harm choice, rather it protects choice. Representative Matt Grossell (R) Said that Life is a gift from conception to natural death. The Oregon MAID law which inspired the passage of the Canadian MAID law is a slippery slope to wider eligibility criteria for more situations other than a diagnosis of a terminal illness. A diagnosis of terminal illness probably causing death within 6 months can never be 100% accurate. Representative Frieberg’s response: Patterns of the progression of terminal diseases such as cancer or ALS are well-known by physicians. We need to have trust in our medical providers. Representative Elliot Engen (R) Questioned why the bill does not explicitly state that there must be at least one witness present when the medication is ingested. Representative Frieberg’s response: With 2 attending physicians approving the prescribing of the medication and hospice caregivers and family involved in the planning it is assumed that there will be witnesses. Representative Paul Novotny (R) Made a 2nd forecast for a potential slippery slope by questioning the review of all MAID medical documentation for a few years following passage of the bill to be followed by a review of a sampling of medical documentation. Representative Freiberg’s response: This procedure has found NO abuse in other states. Suggested that if all the Eligibility Criteria had been met for ending one’s life by the state approved way there would be no way to stop someone from using a method of their choice. There are many ways to commit suicide. When Representative Freiberg’s response did not satisfy Representative Novotny, Committee Chair Representative Kelly Moller recommended that the conversation stop, because it was clear that Representative Novotny would not accept any response. Representative Moller (DFL) called for a vote by the committee. 8 yes / 6 no. The bill was forwarded to the Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee

Capitol LetterLWV MinnesotaSF4039, HF4194, HF4271, HF3489, SF3949, HF3527, HF4043, HF4411