Mary Ellen Otremba has decided to retire rather than stand for reelection later this year, giving us a total of 14 State Representatives who are leaving open seats.
The Senate has some retiring leaders too, but let's be honest, the Senate really isn't a problem right now. The DFL has a huge majority, and could lose about 9 seats and still maintain that majority.
But the House is a different animal -- the DFL is close to a veto-proof majority right now, and probably will lose some seats regardless of retiree numbers. But how many?
A pretty solid report indicates that State Rep. Cy Thao (D-St. Paul) won't run for reelection.
Thao's seat is a pretty safe one, so the report indicates that there's talk of delaying the endorsing convention to give candidates more time to campaign. In a city district like this one, the DFL endorsement likely means a win in the general election, though recent events out east indicate that that's no reason for an endorsed candidate not to work hard.
More on the district and the race to succeed Thao as we get more info.
In all the kerfuffle of Netroots Minnesota this weekend, I didn't get a chance to read the amicus brief filed by the House of Representatives in the lawsuit accusing Tim Pawlenty of overstepping his gubernatorial authority by using unallotment earlier this year.
The amicus brief stands on several main points:
1.) Defendants' Own Actions Led to the Budget Shortfall That They Have Used to Justify Their Unallotment Actions.
2.) Defendants Unallotted State Spending Using Projections from the February Forecast.
3.) Defendants' Unallotment has no Precedent in Minnesota History.
And then their argument is summarized as follows:
1.) THE NECESSARY CONDITIONS TO REDUCE ALLOTMENTS UNDER THE UNALLOTMENT STATUTE HAVE NOT BEEN MET FOR THE 2010 - 2011 FISCAL BIENNIUM.
A.) Defendants Have Not made the Required Statutory Determination that "probable receipts * * * will be less than anticipated" as required by ยง 16A.152.
B.) The Unallotment Statute may only be used after the Biennium has begun.
2.) IF THE UNALLOTMENT LAW ALLOWS NEGATING OR REDUCING APPROPRIATIONS BASED ON CIRCUMSTANCES KNOWN WHEN THEY WERE ENACTED INTO LAW, IT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DELEGATES LEGISLATIVE POWER TO THE EXECUTIVE.
A.) The Minnesota Constitution Provides Means for Resolving Disputes between the Legislature and the Governor in Order to Adhere to a Balanced Budget.
B.) If the Unallotment Law Authorizes the Executive Action Taken in This Case, Then the Unallotment Law is Unconstitutional.
C. Rukavina v. Pawlenty Has Limited Application to This Case.
D. Invalidating the Executive Action in this Case is Consistent with the Case Law in Other States
There's a lot in there, but basically the House appears to be saying this: the conditions intended to trigger the possibility of unallotment were not met when Tim Pawlenty said he was going to use the power. He used it incorrectly (by improperly using the February budget estimates, and the way he tried to unallot -- by signing an appropriations bill but not a tax bill, and then slashing appropriations to fit his fancy, despite the fact that he already knew what tax revenues were going to look like -- is unconstitutional.
Unallotment is intended -- by law -- to be used once a budget biennium has begun, and tax receipts are lagging behind what two-year-old projections indicated they would be. Instead, Pawlenty unallotted a future appropriations schedule before any of those conditions had been met, essentially rewriting the laws passed by the legislature in doing so.
The point about Rukavina v. Pawlenty is an interesting one. I'm not familiar with the case itself, but this amicus brief makes it sound like the issue in that case was whether unallotment as a whole was even consitutional. The court held that it was, but the House appears to be getting ahead of any counter-argument that might use that 2004 case to argue in favor of Pawlenty's unallotment.
If you look at color-coded maps of Maple Grove from recent elections, it doesn't exactly look like fertile ground for progressive DFLers.
That isn't stopping David Hoden and Katie Rodriguez.
Hoden and Rodriguez are taking on entrenched incumbents in the area's two State House districts (32A and 32B, respectively). Hoden faces Republican Joyce Peppin, who won 66% of the vote in 2008 in a district that sent 57% of its votes for John McCain in last year's presidential race. Rodriguez is taking on Kurt Zellers in 32B, which was an even split in the presidential race, but gave Norm Coleman a 12-point margin and reelected Zellers with 53% of the vote.
On the face of the numbers, it seems like Rodriguez has a better shot at flipping her district than Hoden does his. Rodriguez is a well-known DFL activist in the area, and has done a lot over the past four years to expand the DFL base in the northwest Metro. Hoden, however, appears to be taking a slightly different tack: I've spoken to several folks in the area, and while Rodriguez brings solid party credentials to her race, Hoden sounds like he knows and is well-known by everyone who's anyone in his community -- church, the school system, the small business community.
With both campaigns having kicked off in the past week, it seems we could be in for a very interesting ride in the march toward 91 veto-proof votes in the State House.
Last week the House of Representatives DFL caucus introduced our budget framework to close our record $6.4 billion deficit. In these difficult times, our budget responsibly invests in the priorities that will lead us toward a strong and prosperous future.
Education is our best long term tool to bolster our economy and this budget maintains our commitment to our students and schools. Through the use of some federal economic stimulus dollars, as well as smart fiscal planning, early education, K-12 schools, and higher education all are spared the kind funding cuts that would cut teachers, increase class sizes or spike college tuition.
Deep spending cuts are required to close this deficit and it's important to be straightforward about the impact of these cuts. We have proposed $1.6 billion in spending cuts and attempted to allocate these cuts fairly with a focus on job protection and creation. Looking inward, state government (that includes the Legislature) will receive the largest percentage cut. We attempted to minimize the damage these cuts will have on our most vulnerable citizens such as seniors and the disabled and have proposed far smaller cuts than the Governor in the Health and Human Services area of the budget.
