Bluestem Prairie

House okays $4.3 million bump for Attorney General's office to assist county attorneys

At Session Daily, Mike Cook reports in House OKs $4.3 million bump for AG’s office to assist county attorneys:

If a high-level crime occurs in parts of the state, the local county attorney’s office can be looking for more advanced knowledge — or simply an extra hand — to aid in the prosecution.

A bill on its way to the governor would provide additional assets to a constitutional office to help.

Sponsored by Rep. John Huot (DFL-Rosemount) and Sen. Erin Murphy (DFL-St. Paul), HF29/SF33* would provide $269,000 in the current fiscal year and $2.02 million in each of the next two fiscal years to the Office of the Attorney General “for enhanced criminal enforcement and related initiatives.” The funding is expected, but not required, to fund seven full-time equivalent attorneys and two full-time equivalent legal assistants.

The bill was passed 73-55 Monday, one week after Senate passage occurred via a 35-32 vote.

“It’s not a yes to the AG’s office; it’s a yes to victims; it’s a yes to communities; it’s a yes to people who are looking for justice,” Attorney General Keith Ellison said before members got together.

“We’re backlogged. We need to hire people,” Huot said. Ellison hopes to have new hires on board within the next couple of months.

[WATCH: Pre-session House DFL news conference]

While a county attorney office in the state’s most populous areas can have myriad legal eagles, the numbers are much different in more rural areas. Ellison said about 44 of the state’s 87 counties have three or fewer county attorneys.

Yet, in addition to their regular everyday duties across a variety of issues, these attorneys are expected to handle cases throughout the legal spectrum, including complex, high-level crimes such as murder, sexual misconduct, arson, human trafficking, drug operations and financial crimes. And unlike the larger county offices, these smaller offices often do not have lawyers who practice in such specific areas.

State statute specifies the attorney general’s office as the backup prosecutor for all county attorneys. But that assistance must be requested.

County attorneys have been asking for this, said House Majority Leader Jamie Long (DFL-Mpls). He estimates 70-80 additional cases could be added with the requested funding.

“We stand ready to assist,” Ellison said.

Rep. Harry Niska (R-Ramsey) unsuccessfully offered an amendment to require an annual report to the Legislature on assistance requests, response to each request and an explanation for why any requests were denied.

Republicans also unsuccessfully offered or withdrew amendments specifying crimes for which additional hires should focus, including “violent crimes and crimes that financially harm consumers and businesses,” “organized gang crime, organized drug crime, and organized retail theft," and “investigation and prosecution of waste, fraud, and abuse in government;” and to ensure funding is only for enhanced criminal enforcement, not the vague “related initiatives.”

Here's the Minnesota House Information Services YouTube of the floor debate:

The passage of the bill was praised in a news release from the Attorney General's office:

 Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison’s longstanding request for seven more full-time criminal prosecutors in his office will finally become law after the Minnesota House of Representatives passed HF 29, authored by Rep. John Huot, on a bipartisan vote this evening. On January 28, the Minnesota Senate passed companion bill SF 33, authored by Sen. Erin Murphy, also on a bipartisan vote. The bill now goes to Governor Tim Walz, a strong supporter of this request, for his signature.  

The current legislative session marks the fourth time Attorney General Ellison has requested funding for these positions from the Legislature. In 2019, 2021, and 2022, the House of Representatives passed his request after Governor Tim Walz included it in his proposed budgets, but each time, the Senate refused to act on it and the proposal died. 

The funding will bring the number of full-time prosecutors in Attorney General Ellison’s office from the current three to 10, up from just one when Attorney General Ellison first took office in 2019. The request has had the strong support of county attorneys and the Minnesota County Attorneys Association each year Attorney General Ellison has proposed it, including formal support this year from the county attorneys of Clearwater, Cook, Cottonwood, Freeborn, and Winona Counties and the Minnesota County Attorneys Association.  

“The final passage of this bill is a long time coming. It is a yes to county attorneys, communities, and victims who need justice and closure. It’s a yes to the people of Minnesota. I’m very grateful to Representative Huot and Senator Murphy for authoring the bill, to Speaker Hortman, Majority Leader Long, and Majority Leader Dziedzic for making a priority of it, to Governor Walz for his steadfast support for the last four years, and above all to county attorneys for the trust they place in us and the partnership we’ve built together. With these resources, I’m looking forward to greatly expanding our partnership and helping them bring more justice to our communities,” Attorney General Ellison said. 

“It is up to us to make sure we have working systems in place to hold offenders accountable and ensure safety for all Minnesotans,” said Representative John Huot, author of the House bill. “With today’s bill passage, we’re one step closer to closing critical funding gaps needed to address and prosecute violent crime.” 

Minnesota’s 87 county attorneys have original jurisdiction over the charging and prosecution of almost all felonies in Minnesota. Under Minnesota Statutes Sec. 8.01, however, a county attorney may refer a criminal case for review, charging, or prosecution to the Attorney General. It is primarily county attorneys from greater Minnesota that ask the Attorney General’s Office for this help when serious crimes take place in their communities, as more than half of county attorney offices in Minnesota — 44 out of 87 — have staffs of three attorneys or fewer and may lack capacity to prosecute a relatively rare serious violent crime when one occurs in their communities. 

Since 2019, Attorney General Ellison’s office has accepted 47 cases of serious violent crime from 22 counties — all but two in Greater Minnesota — for review, charging, or prosecution when those counties requested the Attorney General’s help under the law. To date, the Attorney General’s Office has not lost a single one of those cases. 

Twenty-five years ago, the Criminal Division of the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office had 12 full-time prosecutors who were able to prosecute not only cases of serious violent crime upon the request of county attorneys, but other cases of drug crime, gang crime, white-collar crime, and environmental crime as well. That number of full-time prosecutors had been whittled down to one, however, by the time Attorney General Ellison took office in 2019, which meant that over time, county attorneys had simply stopped asking the Attorney General’s Office to assist with any but the most serious violent crimes. In the last four years, Attorney General Ellison has used existing resources to raise the number of full-time prosecutors from one to three, but a legislative appropriation has been necessary to restore the capacity of the Office to meet county attorneys’ needs and bring justice to crime victims. 

This staffing trend in the Criminal Division mirrors overall staffing trends in the Attorney General’s Office: 25 years ago, the Office had about 510 staff, of whom 260 were attorneys, while today, the Office has about 350 staff, of whom 150 are attorneys. Relatedly, the current General Fund appropriation to the Attorney General’s Office is worth only 65 percent of the General Fund appropriation to the Office of 30 years ago in real, inflation-adjusted dollars.  

Photo: Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison.  Photo: Abbie Parr/AP.

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen@gmail.com as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

MNHouse passes lands bill containing provisions embedded in omnibus bill stalled in 2022

It was more than frustrating watching omnibus bills and budget agreements stall in as the 2022 Minnesota legislative session drew to a close. Environmental and conservation measures seemed particularly hit in budget targets and conference committee negotiations.

With the DFL hitting the trifecta of power in the governor's office and both chambers of the legislature, some measures, like authorizing the Department of Natural Resources to buy or sell land --which has historically been noncontroversial and routine, as Session Daily says in the article below, are moving along.

While minority party lawmakers shriek about Democrats only being interested in "woke" issues (whatever the heck that means), that's not accurate. 

Though the bill is now waiting action in the Senate, where it's been "Referred to Rules and Administration for comparison with SF75, now on General Orders."

From Session Daily:

House passes lands bill containing same provisions that failed in 2022
By Margaret Stevens

Authorizing the Department of Natural Resources to buy or sell land has historically been noncontroversial and routine. But the 2022 legislation was in an omnibus bill that failed to make it into law.

Rep. Rick Hansen (DFL-South St. Paul) hopes the House gets back in the habit of passing an annual lands bill. He’s part of the way there this year.

Hansen sponsors HF50, which includes provisions from last year’s proposal. It was passed 128-0 by the House Thursday and now goes to the Senate.

Several sections would authorize the DNR to divest small parcels that are too isolated, cut off from other DNR managed land or no longer have a use. The amount of land ranges from less than one acre to nearly 60 acres. Some are private sales, some public. Proceeds are estimated at $1.6 million.

Other provisions in the bill would:

• allow the DNR to waive application fees for preparing an easement when the transfer of land benefits the DNR or another division; 
• add 11.5 acres to Myre-Big Island State Park in Freeborn County;
• designate land from Cloquet Valley State Forest as part of Riverlands State Forest;
• allow St. Louis County to deposit the proceeds from the sale of tax-forfeited lands into a land acquisition trust fund; and
• clarify that some state leases are permitted even when they don’t apply to recreation trails.

Hansen suggested the House will see another lands bill later this session to get back on course to passing annual lands bills.

Let's hope that's part of the new normal.

Here's the Minnesota House Information Services YoutTube of the floor action:

Related post

• MNHouse environment & natural resources committee passes public lands bill

Screengrab: State Representive Rick Hansen, DFL-S. St. Paul, presents the bill.

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen@gmail.com as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

In torturous floor debate, House GOP fails to discipline, punish DFL, Restore the Vote passes

Once upon a time, I shared an apartment in West Philadelphia with a criminology grad student enamored of the work of  French philosopher Michel Foucault. He has since gone on to a career as an artisan woodworker.

I thought of him and Foucault more than once during Thursday's Minnesota House floor debate on New Hope DFLer Rep. Cedrick Frazier's bill HF28, known as Restore The Vote.

At the Minnesota Reformer, Grace Deng gives a flavor of the debate in House passes bill to restore voting rights to people released from prison:

The Minnesota House passed a bill to restore voting rights to people still on parole or probation. The bill heads to the state Senate for a vote.  

“People for years and sometimes decades have no stake, have no investment, have no way to be heard,” said Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon at a press conference ahead of the vote. “After this bill passes, they will have that voice. They will have that power. They will reclaim that for themselves.”

More than 50,000 Minnesotans would be able to vote if the bill (HF28) is signed into law. Current Minnesota law allows formerly incarcerated people to vote after finishing every part of their sentence, including probation, parole or any form of supervised release. Minnesota has one of the lowest incarceration rates in the country but some of the longest probationary periods of any state. . . .

Republicans talked about crimes, and said that the people who committed them should not be allowed to vote. Democrats spoke about their own friends or people they met who are on parole or probation. 

Republicans attempted to pass an amendment that would prevent people on parole or probation for murder or sex crime convictions from voting, calling themselves victim’s rights advocates. Chief author Rep. Frazier said restricting “one-off” situations was not in the spirit of the bill. 

“I heard the testimony from the domestic violence organizations and whatever that the victims are for this,” said Rep. Peggy Scott, R-Andover. “I would like to know what data they used to say that. Did they interview all the victims? What about the dead victims? They aren’t getting a voice in this.” 

Several victims’ rights groups — including the Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault — are in support of restoring the right to vote for anyone on probation or parole. [emphasis added]

Republicans also introduced amendments related to voting fraud — a common GOP talking point that is rare in practice — including an amendment to prevent people from voting if they’re still on parole or probation for elections or voting-related felony convictions. 

“We should choose to protect the sanctity of our vote,” said Rep. Anne Neu Brindley, R-North Branch. “It is a red herring to say that somehow this is shaming people. Well I’m sorry, you’ve already gotten a felony conviction. You should maybe be a little ashamed of the behavior you engaged in to receive that felony conviction.”

The bill passed 71-59.

So much for squelching the vote.

At the Minnesota House Session Daily, Mike Cook reports in House votes to restore voting rights to felons post-incarceration:

People once incarcerated for their felonious misdeeds should be able to have a say in what happens on the outside. 

So says the majority of the House.

Sponsored by Rep. Cedrick Frazier (DFL-New Hope) HF28 would restore the right to vote to individuals convicted of a felony once they are released from incarceration, rather than their completion of a sentence, including probation. Written notice and a voter registration application would be provided by the Corrections Department to an individual upon release from incarceration.

Passed 71-59 by the House Thursday, it now goes to the Senate.

Because Minnesota is a low-incarceration, high-probation state, former inmates can remain under the watchful eye of local or state corrections officials for years — or even decades. Minnesota is one of at least 16 states where any probation, parole or supervised release must be completed before a person’s voting right is restored. Policies vary across other states. Twenty-one states allow what this bill would do. . . .

Some Republicans expressed concern about a one-size-fits-all model.

“Members on this side of the aisle are all for second chances, but with limits,” said Rep. Peggy Scott (R-Andover).

Amendments were offered — and ultimately withdrawn — by Republicans to keep current law in place for offenses related to murder or criminal sexual conduct; elections, voting or the conduct of campaigns; making terroristic threats, stalking, or the harassment of public or law enforcement officials. The same was true for one to require the payment of fines, fees, penalties, and other restitutions before a voting right is restored.

Rep. Paul Torkelson (R-Hanska) said nothing in the bill would stop someone who committed felonious voter fraud from voting in the next election. “We should choose to protect the sanctity of our vote,” said Rep. Anne Neu Brindley (R-North Branch).

Never one to underestimate the power of a poll tax, that Republican House leader.

Here's the Minnesota House Information Services YouTube of the Debate:

At Minnesota Public Radio, Brian Bakst reports in Voting-restoration bill gets House OK; Senate action due soon:

. . .Minnesota wouldn’t be the first to take the step to speed up voting eligibility. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 21 states automatically restore voting rights upon a person’s release from prison. Others do so after a waiting period. Only 11 carry an indefinite revocation or require completion of all aspects of a sentence.

DFL lawmakers noted the importance of the bill’s passage at the start of Black History Month.

Frazier said Minnesota’s current practice disproportionately affects people of color and is a form of racial discrimination.

“High felony disenfranchisement rates among communities of color dilutes representation in our state's political system,” he said. “And as a system set up on representation, if we can't all participate we can't truly be representative of everyone in our state.”

It's not often that fancy theory from my days at Penn come to mind, which is probably a good thing.

Photo: Stillwater Prison.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen@gmail.com as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

Brookings guy revealed as neo-nazi podcaster

Brookings, South Dakota, is just about an hour's drive down Interstate 29 from Bluestem Prairie's world headquarters in sunny Summit.

But there's one fellow in Brookings with whom Bluestem won't be spending time.

Via Vice Bluestem's editor read in the Anonymous Comrades Collective article, Achtung! Amerikaner’s “Gordon Kahl”: Riggin Scheer of Brookings, South Dakota:

In our last installment, we exposed a network of neo-Nazi home schoolers called the “Dissident Homeschool,” led by Upper Sandusky, Ohio couple Logan and Katja Lawrence, who used the aliases “Mr. and Mrs. Saxon.” The Lawrences were good friends with “Gordon Kahl,” host of the neo-Nazi podcast Achtung! Amerikaner and leader of a network of neo-Nazi podcasts under that umbrella. In fact, a significant portion of the information that led to the identity of Logan and Katja Lawrence was gleaned from their guest appearances on the Achtung! Amerikaner podcast. Since “The Saxons” got exposed, we thought that ol’ Gordon might be feeling a little left out on all the fun. Far be it from the Anonymous Comrades Collective to deny a Nazi a chance to be exposed! Today we introduce to you Riggin Lynn Scheer of Brookings, South Dakota, otherwise known as “Gordon Kahl” of Achtung! Amerikaner.

The Neo-Nazi Coordinator “Gordon Kahl”

Gordon Kahl is the the pseudonym for the administrator of Amerikaner.org, a website that serves as the home for the podcast Achtung! Amerikaner, as well as a number of other podcasts popular with white supremacists like Full Haus, The Godcast, Hate House and The Eagle’s Nest, among others. While facilitating coordination between various neo-Nazi groups across regions, Gordon Kahl has been quietly building a rival platform to the largest network of white nationalist podcasts, The Right Stuff (TRS), led by Michael Peinovich, aka “Mike Enoch.” Though still the largest of the neo-Nazi podcasting networks, TRS has of late been experiencing attrition due to allegations of “secret” Jewish heritage and to the fact Peinovich and TRS have been seen by other white nationalists as using their platform to milk cash from their listeners and from members of the affiliated “National Justice Party” (NJP), which Peinovich also runs.

As such, TRS/NJP have alienated huge segments of their “movement,” which is fine by us. We love to see Nazis not play nice amongst themselves. The most recent scuff-up in this Nazi soap opera has been the revelation that neo-Nazi small press Antelope Hill Publishing, which we have reported on numerous times, has been exploiting their employees, while at the same time earning big bucks, enough to purchase a luxurious $750,000 house in Harleysville, Pennsylvania to use as their “headquarters.” Further fueling the critics, Antelope Hill Publishing’s editor-in-chief Sarah Cucchiara, wife of the boss Vincent Cucchiara, has been accused of having (*gasp*) Jewish ancestry. “Gordon Kahl” has expressed his criticism of this alleged Jewish ancestry, invoking the “one drop rule” (as in “one drop” of “Jewish blood” makes one Jewish), declaring himself staunchly in opposition to the National Justice Party and Antelope Hill Publishing.

Gordon Kahl was at one time, however, affiliated with TRS/NJP, being a “life guard” at their “pool parties.” “Pool party” is code for small local gatherings that require vetting of its participants to prevent infiltration, and “life guards” is code for organisers of these get-togethers (yeah, these code words are dumb; bear with us). But this past summer Gordon Kahl was fired by TRS leaders, stripped of his responsibility in the midst of a TRS money grab, which brings us to his current situation.

Prior to his humiliating demotion, “Gordon Kahl” was a key regional figure, responsible for vetting Nazis for inclusion in several different organizations besides TRS/NJP, like “The Mannerbund,” and Patriot Front. Calling himself “Gordon Kahl” after the real-life far-right extremist and murderer, he is mentioned several times by his pseudonym in the leaked Patriot Front internal communications provided by Unicorn Riot, as the “go-to” guy in the Dakotas. In one incident, a newly recruited member of the violent neo-Nazi psycho organization Patriot Front was perhaps just a little too psycho and violent and was scaring his Nazi associates. “Gordon” was called in to fix the problem. . . .

There's plenty more in the article. At Vice, David Gilbert digests the riches in Meet the Neo-Nazi Podcaster Who Helped Promote Ohio’s Nazi Homeschoolers.

And here we thought Brookings, South Dakota's fourth largest city, was just a pleasant college town, home to the Jackrabbits.

Related posts

• Oath Keepers: SD state senator Jim Stalzer joins Phil Jensen again in news reports about alumni 
• South Dakota state rep Phil Jensen back in the news for ties to insurrectionist Oath Keepers
•  So SD state rep Mulally, a sheriff & a county commish will host Sheriff Mack in Rapid City
• Baldurshof: Third Hof of the Asatru Folk Assembly setting up in Murdock, Minnesota 

Screenshot: “Gordon Kahl” on Twitter as archived by the Wayback Machine. Via Anonymous Comrades Collective article, Achtung! Amerikaner’s “Gordon Kahl”: Riggin Scheer of Brookings, South Dakota

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen@gmail.com as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

Bill would establish new $22 million aid program for local soil & water conservation districts

From Session Daily:

Bill would give conservation districts a dedicated funding source
By Rob Hubbard

Hear the word “Bowser” and some will picture a friendly, gallivanting dog, while others call to mind that dinosaur-esque nemesis in the Super Mario Bros. games. But, around the Capitol, it’s an abbreviation for the Board of Water and Soil Resources, the state agency responsible for distributing funds to local soil and water conservation districts.

Finding the money to help those local environmental “boots on the ground” conservation advisors do their work has been something of a hot potato in recent years, being passed from one category of the state budget to another. Currently, its $12 million annual budget comes from the Clean Water Fund.

But Rep. Liz Reyer (DFL-Eagan) has an idea for how to give them a consistent funding source.

She’s the sponsor of HF735, which would use General Fund money to establish a new $22 million aid program for the state’s 88 soil and water conservation districts. On Wednesday, the House Property Tax Division laid the bill over for possible consideration in the division’s report to the House Taxes Committee.

Soil and water conservation district staff work primarily with private landowners on voluntary, incentive-based conservation programs. Here’s how the bill’s $22 million annual outlay for their work would be distributed:

• 70% equally among all districts;
• 20% according to each district’s proportional share of nonpublic land; and
• 10% based on each district’s population.

The provision would be effective beginning with aids payable in 2023.

“District by district, they’re starved for resources,” Reyer said. “They’re scrambling. They’re losing people. That 70% is going to raise all boats. It’s going to give them the stability that they need. The ability to attract and retain the talent that has built trusted relationships in their communities.”

There is at least one district in each of Minnesota’s 87 counties, except for Hennepin and Ramsey. Three of the state’s larger counties have two districts: Otter Tail, Polk and St. Louis. Hennepin and Ramsey counties have special legislative authority to carry out soil and water conservation district functions and would therefore be included in aid payments.

“Our staff and elected board members are able to help landowners work through conservation programs from start to finish,” said Chuck Rau, president of the Minnesota Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts. “State funding over the past several years, however, has been a struggle.

“The funding proposed would provide a more efficient, predictable and longer-term funding mechanism, allowing SWCDs across the state to support implementation of conservation projects. This new path would also allow us to more adequately leverage federal conservation resources.”

Here's the Minnesota House Information Services YouTube:

Related post

• Blue Earth County Soil and Water Conservation District shares some dirt on farmer's tale of woe

Photo: A buffered ditch. Via the Blue Earth County Soil and Water Conservation District.

If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen@gmail.com as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

Who knows who'll benefit from which tax breaks after South Dakota legislature gets through this

When I moved to South Dakota, I was surprised to pay sales taxes on food, as food isn't subejust to sales tax in Minnesota. Eliminating that tax was a late-campaign promise by Governor Kristi Noem. 

Will it happen? 

For South Dakota News Watch, Stu Whtiney and Bart Pfankuch report in Tax break likely for South Dakota residents in 2023 — but who benefits and by how much?:

A bipartisan consensus has emerged in the South Dakota Legislature that the time is right for some form of tax relief to be passed as part of budget negotiations in Pierre.

But questions about which tax is reduced, and who will benefit, are still in debate and will be resolved largely on political inclinations and differing perceptions of whether the recent surplus of state revenues is temporary or a trend of continuous growth.

On a basic level, three possible tax reduction proposals are in play in the 2023 legislative session, though lawmakers have said it is likely only one is affordable at this time without cutting programs or adding other taxes or revenue streams:

•  A full or partial removal of the 4.5% state sales tax on groceries, which would collectively save shoppers up to $120 million a year.
• A reduction in the overall state sales tax from 4.5% to 4%, which would save residents and visitors an estimated $150 million a year.
• A reduction in property taxes on single-family homes that would save homeowners an estimated $85 million a year.

Of course, each measure that provides a savings for taxpayers would result in a corresponding reduction in government revenues – and that is where lawmakers face difficult choices. The GOP-led legislature must also consider how a tax cut would fit into Republican Gov. Kristi Noem’s campaign promise to eliminate the South Dakota food tax.

Weeks before being re-elected in November 2022, Noem made a public pledge to preside over “the largest tax cut in state history,” a full repeal of the 4.5% grocery tax. The fiscal impact of that move is not written in stone, with the governor’s team saying the repeal would save taxpayers $102 million annually and the Legislative Research Council – in a fiscal note attached to a proposed ballot amendment – estimating that the state would lose $124 million in annual revenue by cutting the food tax.

Noem touted South Dakota’s favorable economic outlook in announcing the plan, pointing to double-digit increases in sales tax revenue in 2021 and 2022, a budget surplus last year of $115 million and $423 million in reserves.

Some legislative leaders are more cautious, however, due to concerns that the state fiscal prospects are temporarily boosted by pandemic-related federal stimulus and infrastructure funds and by sales tax receipts augmented by record inflation. Other than federal revenues, South Dakota state government and programs are funded primarily by sales taxes.

“When it comes to cutting tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in ongoing revenue that our hospitals, nursing homes and schools and state employees depend on, we don’t make those decisions easily,” said House Majority Leader Will Mortenson, R-Pierre. “Fools rush in … so we’re going to be taking our time and scrutinizing these proposals on the policy merits.”

The grocery tax, which repeal supporters say has a disproportionate impact on low-income families because food expenditures represent a higher percentage of their household budget, has been a target of legislative reform for decades, mostly by Democrats. South Dakota is one of only three states that tax groceries without offering targeted credits or rebates for low-income residents to compensate for the added cost, though some low-income residents do qualify for the federal food stamps program.

House Bill 1075, the Noem-supported food tax elimination sponsored by Rep. Mary Fitzgerald, R-Spearfish, and Sen. John Wiik, R-Big Stone City, passed out of the House Taxation Committee Jan. 26 and was referred to House Appropriations for further study. Jim Terwilliger, commissioner of the South Dakota Bureau of Finance and Management, echoed Noem’s sentiments about conditions being favorable for a significant tax reduction. Municipal food tax rates would not be affected by the House measure.

“This tax cut allows more money to stay in the pockets of taxpayers, plain and simple,” Terwilliger said during committee testimony. “It does so in a fair and transparent way, with every trip to the grocery for every family in South Dakota. Even with this cut, there is still $208 million in new ongoing revenue for investment in other areas. We have not abandoned our conservative approach to how we manage our state budget.”

While legislators have not yet received state revenue estimates, Terwilliger said that collections over the first six months of the current fiscal year were $146 million higher than projected in the legislative budget, or 13% above the estimate. 

“This tax cut is affordable for us,” he told the committee, adding that there is no need for other taxes or revenue replacement to offset the repeal.

Nathan Sanderson, executive director of the South Dakota Retailers Association and a former policy director under Daugaard, testified against HB 1075 and expanded upon his testimony in an interview with News Watch. He said it is critical to determine whether South Dakota’s recent windfall is a one-time source of revenue – boosted by federal stimulus and inflation-impacted tax receipts – or an ongoing source.

“We tend to believe that these are largely one-time sources of revenue,” said Sanderson. “If you think that they’re one time in nature, then it doesn’t make sense to cut the sales tax or reduce sales tax on food, because the chickens will come home to roost, and you’ll end up seeing tax increases in the future. Our interest is in ensuring that any tax reductions that we offer are more one time in nature than ongoing, because the last thing we want is a structural deficit.”

Sanderson points out that national inflation averaged 8.0% in 2022, twice as high as any inflationary year in the past two decades other than 2021, which was 4.7%. Higher prices mean more sales tax revenues for the state. South Dakota also received $3.5 billion in federal funds in 2021 and $2.6 billion in 2022 after averaging $1.4 billion a year from 2014-2109.

“What is abundantly clear is that we got a boatload of federal money over the last few years and we’re seeing extraordinarily high inflation,” Sanderson said. “You can’t just ignore that when you’re having this conversation.”

Family of four would save $600 a year with no food tax

According to U.S. Department of Agriculture data, an average family of four in South Dakota spends roughly $1,100 a month on food purchased at a store and prepared at home. Eliminating the 4.5% tax on food would save that household $54 a month, or nearly $600 a year.

Eric Figueroa, an analyst for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington D.C., said that eliminating the grocery tax is a good way to advance racial and economic equity for low-income residents, but that states should pursue full repeals of the tax with caution if they don’t have a plan to offset the revenue.

Figeroa noted that several states use refunded tax credits for low-income brackets in which consumers pay the full sales tax rate on food but recoup some of those added costs by claiming a credit when they file their taxes.

“That’s sort of the safe route for a lot of states, to provide targeted relief without taking a huge hit to the general fund,” Figeroa told News Watch. “Tax credits are good, but there are barriers to filing for those refunds and not every family sees the benefits, for all kinds of reasons. There’s more complexity to doing something proactively, checking the right box and knowing how to file properly, as opposed to taking a basket of goods to the cash register and getting the immediate benefit of a tax being removed.”

Idaho Republican Gov. Brad Little pushed for a full food tax repeal in 2022 but couldn’t get it through the state legislature. Lawmakers instead passed a $20 increase in the amount that Idaho residents can recover on taxes paid on food through the grocery sales tax credit, from $100 to $120 for people under 65 and from $120 to $140 for people 65 and older.

Idaho’s sales tax rate is 6%, while South Dakota’s is 4.5%. South Dakota is also one of only eight states with no personal income tax. Sanderson said that’s an important distinction when considering long-term policy changes that impact budget revenues.

“If you’re a state that has no sales tax on food but a 7% sales tax on everything else and an income tax, is that preferable to South Dakota’s approach? Maybe, maybe not,” he said. “Most South Dakotans don’t want an income tax, so if you take that off the table from a policy perspective, what is left? Sales tax. That’s why we’ve been supportive of a very low but broad-based sales tax for a long time; it’s not as volatile as other types of revenue. Our approach has been not to grant a whole bunch of exemption for the sales tax. It’s been to tax everyone relatively uniformly but keep that rate as low as possible. It’s simple for people to understand and has provided us with a reliable source of revenue for years and years.”

Failing to repeal food tax would be ‘failure’ for Noem

The Cato Institute, a prominent Libertarian think tank, gave Noem a grade of ‘C’ in its Fiscal Policy Report Card for 2022, saying that the “middling grade” was based on “a lack of tax cuts during a period when many other states passed large tax cuts.”

Neighboring Republicans governors Kim Reynolds of Iowa and Pete Ricketts of Nebraska both received ‘A’ grades for their tax reduction policies, with Reynolds described as a “lean budgeter and dedicated tax reformer since entering office in 2017.”

During his testimony for the food tax repeal, Terwilliger mentioned other states catching up to South Dakota in terms of livability by offering lower taxes. Noem’s status as a potential GOP presidential aspirant in 2024 made her “largest tax cut in state history” announcement at a Rapid City grocery store in September 2022 a potentially beneficial headline for political reasons as much as for policy purposes.

The question is whether the political benefit is negated if the measure fails to pass. Though budget talks are still weeks away from resolution, Sen. Reynold Nesiba, D-Sioux Falls, said he has not seen much evidence of Noem actively trying to build support for the food tax repeal.

“I’ve been a little frustrated that the governor announced her efforts at repealing this, but then she doesn’t seem to be using her staff or herself to be making phone calls to legislators to get this done,” said Nesiba, a member of the Appropriations Committee and an economics professor at Augustana University. “She used this as a campaign stunt and now she’s missing in action. Perhaps it’s going on behind closed doors, but my sense is that she’s not personally working this as aggressively as I had hoped.”

Rick Weiland, founder of Dakotans for Health, which is proposing a 2024 ballot measure to repeal the food tax if it doesn’t happen during the 2023 legislative session, sounded incredulous that Noem was struggling to push through the most noteworthy plank from a campaign platform that saw her re-elected with 62% of the vote.

“There are only 11 Democrats in the entire state legislature, the rest are Republicans and she’s a Republican,” Weiland told News Watch. “She made the commitment and she’s the governor of the state of South Dakota, so you would think she’d be able to get this done – unless it was an empty promise.”

Nesiba noted that there are “compromise” bills proposed to lower the food tax rate to 3.5% or 2.5%, depending on the pace of progress of the original legislation to fully repeal the tax. He noted that Democrats may actually help Noem if one of their compromise bills is able to pass after a full food tax repeal effort stalls.

“I’m a Democrat in the South Dakota Senate who simply wants us to do something for state taxpayers this year,” Nesiba said. “If we can take off one cent or two cents, which amounts to $25 million or $50 million annually, and leave that in the pockets of South Dakota food buyers, I think that would be good stewardship of public resources. But make no mistake: If we do not get a full sales tax repeal on food, it will be a major political failure on the part of Governor Noem.”

Supporters say property tax relief plan won’t hurt schools

In Sanderson’s estimation, there is more support in the House for food tax reform and more appetite in the Senate for property tax relief, but there’s a long way to go. Most legislators want more information on economic forecasts before sharpening their stance on major issues that will stretch into the final days of the session.

“Overall, I think most of us would love to do a tax cut; which one, that’s got to be weighed out through the process,” said Senate Majority Leader Casey Crabtree, R-Madison. “We have to know what this thing looks like in the future, before we can make those decisions before we lay out the obligations, the priorities and the tax cuts. We’re going to be conservative and prudent in our decision-making. I know that’s not a flashy headline, but that’s how South Dakota has been governed for years, and we don’t want to make a mistake now.”

House Bill 1043 would create an exemption from property taxes on the first $100,000 of the value of an owner-occupied, single-family home. The concept originated in a summer taxation study completed by the legislature last year, according to Rep. Mike Derby, R-Rapid City, who chairs the House Appropriations Committee.

“Most of us legislators, when we’re on the campaign trail, the number one issue we hear about is skyrocketing property taxes,” Derby said.

School districts, which rely largely on local property taxes for revenue, “would be held harmless” under the bill, Derby said. The idea is to reduce the taxes homeowners pay, and then use ongoing general fund revenues to “backfill” the money school districts need to operate, he said.

The benefit of the property tax reduction compared to eliminating another sales tax revenue category is that lawmakers could readdress the property tax reduction and change it if financial conditions changed from year to year, Derby said.

At this point, there is no mechanism in place to determine what impact such a tax reduction would have on school districts, or a method to ensure schools receive the funding they would lose in property tax collections. Also, unlike a reduction in the food tax, a property tax cut does not benefit renters or other residents who do not own a home.

Nesiba said it would be difficult and unwieldy and require significant new programming to determine how to redistribute state general funds back to school districts that see reduced property tax revenues.

“The state is going to set up a brand-new government bureaucracy to redistribute sales tax and other general fund revenue and backfill these things forever?” Nesiba said. “For somebody who is in favor of efficient government, just starting up a whole new program to do that is a non-starter.”

If lawmakers don’t repeal food tax, voters might

Adding to the political calculus in Pierre is the fact that if the governor falls short in her public bid to repeal the food tax, South Dakota voters might do it themselves.

Dakotans for Health, the grassroots organization pushing for policy change through citizen initiatives, plans to gather signatures for both an initiated measure and a constitutional amendment on the 2024 ballot to mandate that the state “may not tax the sale of anything sold for human consumption, except alcoholic beverages and prepared food.”

The group re-submitted language for the ballot proposals Dec. 7, 2022 after a conflict in interpretation of the food tax measures between the Legislative Research Council and then-Attorney General Mark Vargo. The new language clarifies that the measure applies only to the state grocery tax and has no impact on the taxing authority of municipalities.

Weiland said re-submitting the language set his group back “a good three months” and that he never received an explanation from Vargo as to why municipalities were included in the Attorney General’s ballot explanation despite not being mentioned by Dakotans for Health or by the LRC.

Dakotans for Health requested an expedited process with its second submission due to “the delay in our ability to begin collecting signatures caused by the Attorney General’s misinterpretation of our previous submission on this subject.” The LRC submitted a new fiscal note to Secretary of State Monae Johnson on Jan. 5, 2023, estimating that the state could lose $123.9 million in annual revenue by eliminating the state grocery tax if the measure passed. The Attorney General’s office, now occupied by Marty Jackley, has noted that under state law it has until Feb. 7, 2023 to file a draft title and explanation with the Secretary of State.

Under current law, the deadline to submit petition signatures is six months prior to an election for initiated measures and a year before the election for constitutional amendments. The number of verified signatures needed for initiated measures to make the ballot is 5% of the total vote in the last gubernatorial election (17,508 based on the 2022 turnout of 350,166), while constitutional amendments require 10% (35,016).

“They’ve made it very difficult for us with this timeline,” said Weiland, “but someone needs to hold (Noem and the legislature) accountable.” Even if the food tax is repealed in the state legislature, he said, there is the “gnawing question” of past statutory changes – such as minimum wage or ethics reform – passing through initiated measures or the legislature and then being altered or reversed by lawmakers.

Initiated measures can be repealed by the state legislature or referred to the statewide ballot for reconsideration, while constitutional amendments are entrenched in the state constitution and can only be addressed through court challenges or a superseding amendment on a subsequent ballot.

“That’s why a lot of us in the citizen initiative process have been forced to look at constitutional amendments, because of the legislature’s inclination to want to come in and thwart the will of the voters and change it,” Weiland said. “You could make the argument that there’s a reason regardless of what happens in Pierre that we get this in the constitution, not just in the law books. The question is whether we have time to collect enough signatures to get it on the ballot, because they’re running the clock out.”

STATE REVENUES ON STEADY RISE

South Dakota is operating with a large budget surplus due to rising annual state and federal revenues that include new federal money the state received during the COVID-19 pandemic. Here is a look at revenue growth in the two main ongoing categories of sales tax collections and federal revenue disbursements to the state over the past decade.

FEDERAL FUNDS RECEIVED

FY 2014 $1.40 billion

FY 2015 $1.35 billion

FY 2016 $1.37 billion

FY 2017 $1.41 billion

FY 2018 $1.40 billion

FY 2019 $1.43 billion

FY 2020 $1.83 billion

FY 2021 $3.53 billion

FY 2022 $2.65 billion

STATE SALES TAX COLLECTIONS

FY 2014 $823.4 million

FY 2015 $836.6 million

FY 2016 $860.9 million

FY 2017 $951.2 million

FY 2018 $988.8 million

FY 2019 $1.03 billion

FY 2020 $1.07 billion

FY 2021 $1.20 billion

FY 2022 $1.36 billion

Source: State of South Dakota

This article is republished with the permission of South Dakota News Watch.

Related posts

• A tale of two states, two sales taxes: Jensen and Noem share very different campaign promises
• SD lawmakers (like Dem gubernatorial contender Smith) tried cutting grocery sales tax before
• What the hell was that? Governor Kristi Noem butt of Saturday Night Live cold opening schtick
• Was the family wedding cancelled? After bailing on Alexandria anti-vaxxfest, Jensen attended Gophers' homecoming
• South Dakota man wants his image taken out of Governor Noem's latest divisive attack ad
• Jamie Smith will focus on South Dakota and shake hands with your dog while he's at it
•  SD Dem gubernatorial candidate Smith picks Eden lawmaker Jennifer Keintz as running mate
• While South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem looks for a job, Minnesota unemployment rate drops
• Fake state economy news: Noem for Governor digital ad marketed in Iowa, NH, & SC:
• Pants on fire at CPAC: Governor Kristi Noem claims "We kept kids in the classroom
• South Dakota ethics: Will lawmakers resolve Governor Noem's closed-door meeting with daughter violated public trust?
• SD Gov Noem blames Soros' money for pipeline protests; cuts tribes out of anti-protest bills talk 

Photo: Noem's announcement was made during a stop shown above in an image from South Dakota Public Broadcasting. Via The South Dakota Standard. Funny how she was against cutting or eliminating sales taxes on food until her second term--when she could have worked with the legislature to cut these taxes before.

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen@gmail.com as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

SD Searchlight: Senate censures Frye-Mueller

The senator's alleged comment about vaccinating children causing Down's Syndrome made us realize we're not in Minnesota anymore. People in the North Star State say whack-a-doodle things about vaccines, but we have yet to hear or read that one in our eastern neighbor.

From the South Dakota Searchlight:

Senate censures Frye-Mueller
By Joshua Haiar

PIERRE – The South Dakota Senate took swift action today and censured one of its members, eight days after she allegedly made harassing comments to a legislative staffer.

The Senate voted 33-1 to censure Sen. Julie Frye-Mueller, R-Rapid City. The action also lifts the temporary suspension against her that had been in place since last week, and limits her interaction with Legislative Research Council staff during the current legislative session to the director and the director’s designees. 

It was a Legislative Research Council staffer, whose identity has been withheld, who alleged that Frye-Mueller sharply criticized the staffer for having the staffer’s baby vaccinated. The staffer’s written complaint also said Frye-Mueller offered lewd advice about how the employee’s husband could help the staffer produce breast milk.

Sen. David Wheeler, R-Huron, chaired the Senate committee that investigated the complaint against Frye-Mueller and recommended a censure. The committee report said Frye-Mueller “engaged in harassment” that “had the effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual employee’s work performance and creating an intimidating working environment.”

Wheeler said Wednesday on the Senate floor, “We are here today to do a job that none of us want to do, or care to do, and that’s to pass judgment on one of our peers.”

Sen. Tom Pischke, R-Dell Rapids, cast the lone vote against the censure. He said Frye-Mueller did not harass the staffer.

“Due process is an absolute necessity,” Pishke said. “There is still more information to attain.”

Sen. Michael Diedrich, R-Rapid City, said the Senate must take its responsibility seriously to maintain a respectful and professional work environment.

“There was plenty of room for due process,” Diedrich said. “A legislative body has the authority to make its own rules regarding a code of ethics for our own body. It’s clear.”

A censure is essentially a reprimand, reflecting the Senate’s disapproval of the senator’s behavior. The Senate rules also allow for exoneration, discipline and expulsion. The last time the Senate censured a member was in 2007.

The lifting of Frye-Mueller’s suspension allows her to resume her duties as a state senator. 

Frye-Mueller has filed a lawsuit in federal court against Senate President Pro Tempore Lee Schoenbeck, R-Watertown, alleging her right to free speech has been violated. Former South Dakota lawmaker Steven Haugaard is her attorney. 

“I disagree with the censure,” Frye-Mueller told South Dakota Searchlight after the Senate vote. She and her legal team will continue to fight, she said.

This article is republished from the South Dakota Searchlight under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Photo: Sen. Julie Frye-Mueller and her husband, Mike Mueller, stand outside the Senate chamber at the Capitol in Pierre during a vote to censure her on Feb. 1, 2023. (Joshua Haiar/SD Searchlight).

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen@gmail.com as recipient.

I'm also on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

After years of sponsors' efforts, turtle harvest legislation advancing in MN House and Senate

Just after the November election, Bluestem Prairie asked a question:  Can legislation protecting MN turtles from commercial harvest pass under DFL control?:

While environmental and conservation issues haven't popped up much in discussions of what a Minnesota legislature united under DFL majorities in the House and Senate, I'm hoping an effort to end commercial turtle can reach Governor Walz's desk.

For many years, Bluestem's been posting about efforts to end commercial turtle harvests. What's the problem? As Greg Seitz reported in 2021 at St. Croix 360, in Legislators seek to stop commercial turtle harvesting in Minnesota ...

. . . Wildlife advocates say the practice is outdated, and harmful to turtle populations. H.F. 387, introduced by Rep. Samantha Vang, would put a halt to it. The second-term lawmaker previously got the legislation through the House in 2019, but not the Senate. [emphasis added] . . .

Vang first authored a version of the legislation, HF0749. in 2019. The chief author of the Senate version back then was Shoreview Democrat Jason Isaacson; St. Paul Democrat Foung Hawj took over as Senate companion bill chief author in 2021.

The answer to Bluestem's question is emerging as a yes. Vang introduced HF234, which was heard and passed in the Minnesota House Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy Committee. Here's a video drawn from the House Information Services YouTube on the first hearing on January 18. It will scroll to the hearing on the turtle bill and begin:

On January 24, Vang's bill was amended and passed on a unanimous voice by the committee headed to the Minnesota House Ways and Means Committee, typically a last stop before a floor vote.

And the Minnesota Senate?

There's an update to the measure's progress in the Senate at the Minnesota Reformer. Christopher Ingraham reports in Bill would sharply curtail turtle harvesting for profit:

Minnesota is one of just a handful of states allowing wild turtles to be harvested, sold and exported for profit. 

But that could change this year if the DFL-controlled Legislature succeeds in passing a total ban on the practice that’s been decades in the making. 

“Turtles are one of the most vulnerable species in our state of Minnesota,” said Sen. Foung Hawj, chair of the Committee on Climate, Environment & Legacy and a lead author on the bill, during a Tuesday hearing. “Our turtle population can no longer sustain the pressure of commercial harvesting,” said Hawj, a St. Paul Democat. A companion bill is also in the works in the House.

Just 15 states allow commercial turtle harvesting, according to testimony prepared by Christopher Smith of the Minnesota Herpetological Society. And of those, Minnesota is one of six that allow unrestricted commercial harvest, which places no limits on the number of turtles a business can remove from the wild.

That harvesting is putting a strain on turtle populations in Minnesota, according to the Department of Natural Resources, which supports the bill. During testimony for a similar bill last year, DNR Assistant Commissioner Bob Meier said commercial harvesting operations are contributing to the “grave danger” facing the state’s turtle populations, particularly of painted and snapping turtles.

Studies, including one conducted in Minnesota, have found that turtle populations are lower in lakes that have been harvested recently. The animals are especially vulnerable to population pressure from harvesting because they take many years to mature and reproduce – in the case of snapping turtles, for instance, a female may take 15 or more years to lay her first clutch of eggs. 

“Turtles must live a long time” in order to successfully reproduce, Smith said during testimony. “Absent that, turtle populations will decline.”

Minnesota put a moratorium on new turtle harvesting licenses in the early 2000s, working under the assumption that the practice would gradually end as the existing licensees wound down their businesses. Today just 19 license holders remain, but the annual number of turtles they’ve harvested has steadily increased as the licensees have taken more turtles each year. 

In 2021, for instance, the 19 licensees captured and sold roughly 10,000 painted turtles, a number that’s tripled since the mid-2000s, according to DNR data compiled by Smith. Data on who’s buying those turtles doesn’t exist, but Smith said via email: “We assume most are exported out of Minnesota and that some likely end up overseas.”

Minnesota harvesters are upping their takes because recent moves to outlaw the practice by other states — like Florida and Missouri — have made it more profitable for them to do so, Smith said. Asia in particular remains a lucrative market for the wild turtle trade, with the animals being used in food and medicine as well as for pets. 

The bill would still allow individuals to capture limited numbers of turtles under a “recreational” license, similar to a typical fishing or hunting license. 

Republicans on the committee expressed some skepticism about the legislation. Sen. Nathan Wesenberg, R-Little Falls, raised concerns about the proposed $25 fee for a recreational license. Sen. Steve Green, R-Fosston, noted that he observed several snapping turtles laying eggs in his northern Minnesota driveway every year, and that solid data on turtle population trends in Minnesota is lacking. 

“Collection and sale of wild turtles for pets, meat, and traditional Asian medicines is one of the top threats contributing to decline and extinction of wild turtle populations across the world,” wrote the Center for Biological Diversity in support of the Minnesota bill. “This bill would stop a very small number of for-profit turtle traffickers from depleting the state’s great wild heritage.

We recognized Smith's slide show from a 2021 Bluestem post about an earlier hearing, Bill to ban commercial turtle harvest to be heard in MN House Environment committee on Feb. 9.

Protect Our Turtles posted on Scribd by Sally Jo Sorensen

We're glad to see these companion bills moving forward.

The Minnesota Reformer article is republished under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Related posts

• Can legislation protecting MN turtles from commercial harvest pass under DFL control?
• Bill to ban commercial turtle harvest to be heard in MN House Environment committee on Feb. 9
• Updated commercial turtle harvest numbers from DNR underscore need for HF387
•  Rep. Vang renews effort to ban Minnesota's unsustainable commercial turtle harvest
• Months after hearings, Star Tribune reports on commercial turtle harvesting concerns

Photo: In written testimony submitted to the Minnesota House Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy Committee in 2021, a family living on Stingy Lake Stingy Lake north of Nashwauk told the tale of the turtle Baby T that they caught and returned to the lake. 

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen@gmail.com as recipient.

I'm also on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

MN Reformer: Minnesota House passes bill to give driver’s licenses to undocumented residents

Driver's Licenses for All has passed in the Minnesota House. At Session Daily, Margret Stevens reports House gives go-ahead to 'Driver's Licenses For All."

From the Minnesota Reformer:

Minnesota House passes bill to give driver’s licenses to undocumented residents
By Grace Deng

Minnesota House lawmakers passed a bill 69-60 to give driver’s licenses to undocumented residents on Monday after a decade of advocacy from immigrant rights groups. The bill now heads to the state Senate.

“We are filled with hope that we can once again drive without fear,” said leader of the Minnesota Immigrant Movement Jovita Morales during a press conference ahead of the House floor vote.

Before former governor Tim Pawlenty unilaterally barred undocumented residents in 2003, driver’s licenses were available to people living in Minnesota without legal authorization. Bills to reverse Pawlenty’s decision have floated through the Legislature since 2005, but the new DFL trifecta has brought life to the movement again — despite the bill stalling the last time DFL politicians were in control.

In committee hearings leading up to the House floor vote, lawmakers heard an outpouring of emotional stories from immigrants and their family members about how the bill, HF 4, would impact more than just the estimated 81,000 undocumented immigrants who live in Minnesota.

“If you lost one driver’s license in your family, what would that impact be?” said John Pacheco, president of the Latino Chamber of Commerce of Minnesota.

Kay Carvajal Moran of the Minnesota Immigrant Movement recalled watching her mother recite the Lord’s prayer behind the wheel every time she saw a police car.

Sarah Silva of the Minnesota Immigrant Rights Action Committee said she danced in the parking lot when she obtained a driver’s license because of the newfound freedom her family was afforded.

While the effort to bring driver’s licenses to undocumented residents has bipartisan support, Republicans say they’re concerned undocumented residents could use driver’s licenses to vote.

DFL legislators say there are safeguards in place to prevent non-citizens from registering to vote. They also point out that many residents with legal immigration statuses already have driver’s licenses.

Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon said in a letter to the Minnesota Senate that the proposal would not impact voting or voter registration systems.

Rep. Dave Baker, R-Willmar, offered an amendment that would mark driver’s licenses for undocumented residents with “not for voting”, suggesting that it would protect undocumented residents who aren’t aware they can’t vote from being deported by accident.

“This isn’t about trying to profile or shame anybody, because you know, it’s about protecting them, too,” said Baker.

Baker’s amendment — as well as several other Republican amendments to differentiate an undocumented resident’s license from a U.S. citizen’s in various ways — did not pass.

“There is no reason for this to be a second-class license,” said chief author of the bill Rep. Aisha Gomez, DFL-Minneapolis.

The bill is supported by a broad coalition of interest groups, including the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and law enforcement officials, who said giving driver’s licenses to undocumented residents would make their jobs easier and keep uninsured drivers off the road.

Advocates say issuing licenses to undocumented immigrants makes roads safer: Studies show hit-and-runs and uninsured drivers decreased in states that allow undocumented people to obtain driver’s licenses. Eighteen states, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico issue driver’s licenses or similar documents that offer driving privileges to undocumented people.

The bill establishes an implementation date of October 2023 and allocates $1.45 million to Driver and Vehicle Services for the next two years.

This article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Photo: Hundreds of supporters of HF4 rally in front of the House Chamber during debate on the bill Jan. 30. House members passed the bill by a 69-60 vote. (Photo by Andrew VonBank/ Session Daily.

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen@gmail.com as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

Please send this Minnesota Nice feel better card to Senator Nathan Wesenberg and his beard

Better Late Than Never Update, February 7: At MinnPost, Peter Callaghan reports How ‘Duck Dynasty’ and ZZ Top entered a Minnesota Senate debate on hair discrimination.vMore details on those mean emails Senator Wesenberg received:

“In the three weeks that I have been here I’ve gotten emails, I’m guessing from the opposite party, saying I look ugly and I should shave my face. That I should go back to Hicksville,” said first-term Sen. Nathan Wesenberg. The Little Falls Republican sports a long beard.

All the more reason to send Senate Wesenberg the feel better card. [end update]

At the Minnesota Reformer last Thursday, Grace Deng reported in Minnesota Senate passes CROWN Act to ban race-based hair discrimination:

The Minnesota Senate on Thursday passed the CROWN Act, which prohibits discrimination against hair texture and styles.

The CROWN Act, which stands for “Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act,” protects “traits associated with race, including but not limited to hair texture and hair styles such as braids, locs, and twists.” . . .

Sen. Nathan Wesenberg, a first-term Republican who recently called COVID-19 vaccines a “death shot,” trolled the bill, proposing an amendment to add beards to the list of protected hair. The Little Falls Republican said he’d received emails calling his beard — which cascades down his face “Duck Dynasty”-style — “ugly.” 

Sen. Bobby Champion, DFL-Minneapolis, said the bill is focused on protecting cultural hair, and he has not heard complaints about discrimination against people with beards. Sen. Eric Lucero, R-Saint Michael, said that beards are important to certain cultures, such as in Judaism and Islam. Sen. Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa, said the TV series “Duck Dynasty” “represents a certain culture” and that culture, as well as the Amish community, should be protected by the bill. 

“I know of only one race in the Amish culture, and that is being singled out and not included,” Drazkowski said. 

Champion said he respects all cultures and religions, but is attempting to address a specific issue with this bill. He said he was open to separate legislation to protect against other types of discrimination. 

Wesenberg’s amendment did not pass. The bill passed 45-19. 

Now, were Bluestem's editor a member of the Minnesota Senate (which would be rather difficult, given that I live in South Dakota), I'd have voted against Wesenberg's amendment.

Nonetheless, Bluestem feels sorry that Wesenberg has received mean emails calling his beard ugly. We'd tweeted that he could join some of our friends here in Summit to form a ZZ Top cover band:

I had no idea guys were discriminated against because of their beards. Three or four of my neighbors could form a ZZ Top Cover band with Sen. Wesenberg at Foggy's in Summit and no one would think the worse of them. #economicopportunity #mnsenate https://t.co/hZKs6zMqsE

— Sally Jo Sorensen (@sallyjos) January 27, 2023

We certainly hope he didn't take that as a negative tweet.

Whatever the case, Bluestem encourages readers to save the graphic--created by adapting Senator Wesenberg's campaign logo; we believe this reuse is protested under the 1994 Supreme Court decision invCampbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. -- and email the first-term legislator to let him know that lookism just isn't Minnesota Nice.

Attack his politics all you want, gentle readers, but picking on his appearance isn't very nice.

Besides, as one liberal suburban former state representative said, Wesenberg's beard is cool. If it's not to your taste, there's no arguing taste.

Please email the card above to Wesenberg's official Minnesota Senate email account sen.nathan.wesenberg@senate.mn, and let him know it's not his beard that's the issue.

Related posts

•  Action 4 Liberty's senator calls COVID-19 vaccines a ‘death shot’ at Capitol rally 
• Not all Action 4 Liberty candidates failed at the ballot box: the case of Nathan Wesenberg

Greeting card: Adapted from Senator Wesenberg's cool campaign logo.

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen@gmail.com as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6