Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v. Dayton | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Full case name | The Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate, The Ninetieth Minnesota State House of Representatives v. Mark B. Dayton, In his official capacity as Governor of the State of Minnesota, Myron Frans, In his official capacity as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Management and Budget |
Decided | November 16, 2017 |
Citation(s) | Case no. 62-CV-17-3601 903 N.W.2d 609 |
Case history | |
Appealed from | Ramsey County District Court |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea, Barry Anderson, David Lillehaug, Natalie Hudson, Margaret Chutich, Anne McKeig |
Case opinions | |
Decision by | Lorie Skjerven Gildea |
Dissent | Barry Anderson |
The Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v. Dayton, (903 N.W.2d 609), was a 2017 Minnesota Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that Governor Mark Dayton's line item vetoes of appropriations for the Minnesota Senate and Minnesota House of Representatives were a lawful exercise of his authority granted by the Minnesota Constitution. The Court also ruled that since the state legislature had access to other funding to continue operating as a fully functioning and independent branch of government, the governor's vetoes did not effectively abolish the legislature and thereby violate Article III of the state constitution. The Court also ruled that the judicial branch did not have the constitutional authority to order funding without a corresponding budgetary appropriation. The Supreme Court's ruling overturned an earlier ruling by a Ramsey County District Court judge. The case marked the first time in which the Minnesota Supreme Court was asked to resolve a lawsuit brought by one branch of government against another.
The Minnesota Legislature adjourned its regular session in 2017 on May 22 [1] with a significant amount of unfinished business; it had failed to pass any omnibus spending bills establishing the state's budget for the next two years. [2] Legislative leaders came to an agreement with Governor Mark Dayton to call a special session immediately following the adjournment of the regular session to address this unfinished business. [2] Just before the conclusion of the special session, the legislature passed a series of appropriations bills for the state's budget. [2] After the four-day special session had adjourned on May 26, [3] Dayton allowed the bills to become law, but vetoed line item appropriations funding the legislature. [2]
Dayton issued a letter explaining his vetoes; he sought to avoid a government shutdown while convincing legislative leaders to renegotiate provisions of the budgetary bills. [2] This conflict represented one instance of a lengthy dispute between Dayton, of the Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party (DFL), and the Republican-led Legislature over the scope of the state government. [4] Among the budgetary bills was a bill containing a package of tax cuts totaling $650 million that Dayton opposed. [4] However, the bill was worded in such a way that if Dayton had vetoed it, the Minnesota Department of Revenue would have been defunded—a situation that he wished to avoid. [4] Legislative leaders refused to negotiate and sued Dayton, arguing that his vetoes had the unconstitutional effect of abolishing the legislature. [2]
In late June, prior to making a final ruling on the case, Ramsey County District Court Chief Judge John Guthmann issued a temporary order that the Legislature continue to be funded at previous levels through October 1. [5] (The Legislature's funding had been set to expire on June 30 with the end of the state's fiscal year. [5] ) On July 19, Chief Judge Guthmann ruled that Dayton's vetoes were unconstitutional in that they violated the Minnesota Constitution's Separation of Powers clause by effectively abolishing the legislature. [6] Guthmann indicated that a main reason that Dayton's vetoes were problematic was that he did not actually object to the appropriations themselves; the purpose of the vetoes was to convince legislators to renegotiate other appropriations and policies unrelated to the legislature's funding. [6] Upon news of the ruling, Dayton immediately indicated his intent to appeal the decision. [6]
On September 9, the Minnesota Supreme Court made a preliminary ruling that when Dayton vetoed appropriations for the legislature, he did not violate his constitutional authority to make line item vetoes for budgetary appropriations. [7] The Court also ordered the parties into talks with a mediator. [7] It also strongly encouraged the parties to find a political solution to resolve this dispute. [7] The Court did not remand the case back to the lower Ramsey County court, thereby giving it the ability to make a further ruling if the attempts at mediation were unsuccessful. [7]
Both parties met with mediator Rick Solum over the course of two days (September 21 and 22), but he determined that the legislative leaders and Dayton had irreconcilable differences and that their impasse could not be overcome without a further ruling by the Court. [8] Following the impasse, Dayton claimed that legislative leaders had "lied to" Minnesotans and the Supreme Court about the legislature's ability to finance its operations until the start of the upcoming legislative session to begin in February 2018. [8] One week later, the Supreme Court ordered legislative leaders to submit a full report of their current financial situation regarding funding on hand and their ability to continue to function. [9]
On November 16, the Court issued its final ruling and upheld Dayton's vetoes. [10] The Court also stated that the Legislature had access to sufficient funding to continue to exist until the beginning of the next legislative session; consequently, Dayton's actions remained within his constitutional authority. [10] The Court's ruling was issued by a 5–1 majority; Justice Barry Anderson dissented, and Justice David Stras recused himself from the case. [10] Additionally, in the Court's ruling, Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea stated that the judicial branch had no authority to appropriate funding without a legislative counterpart. [10] The Court declined to take a stance on the matter of whether Dayton's veto of the legislative funding was coercive; the Court determined that the legislature would be able to continue to operate until the next legislative session. [10]
In the majority ruling for the Court, Chief Justice Gildea acknowledged the unprecedented nature of the case saying, "For the first time in Minnesota history, we are asked to resolve a lawsuit brought by one of our coordinate branches of government—the Legislative Branch—against our other coordinate branch of government—the Executive Branch." [11] Since the governor's line item veto power was established in 1876, [12] the case was only the sixth instance of litigation involving the power in Minnesota history and only the third instance in which such litigation reached the Minnesota Supreme Court. [13]
Governor Mark Dayton applauded the Supreme Court's ruling and cast blame on Republican legislative leaders for initiating the lengthy and expensive legal dispute. [10] The final costs of legal fees borne by Minnesota taxpayers totaled $768,000. [14] Republican Speaker of the House Kurt Daudt disputed suggestions that the Court’s ruling was a winning proposition for Governor Dayton; he saw the matter as unsettled. [10] Paul Gazelka, the Senate Majority Leader, expressed dismay at the news of the Court’s ruling, saying that the Legislature would be forced to take extreme measures to keep itself funded, and suggested that this put the Legislature and the State of Minnesota in a precarious situation. [10] Daudt said that this unprecedented financial situation put the Senate at risk of defaulting on scheduled debt payments for the Senate’s office building. [10]
Following the Supreme Court ruling, the Minnesota Legislative Coordinating Commission (LCC)—a bipartisan group of leaders from both houses of the Legislature—agreed to provide the Legislature with $20 million from its carry-over funds and 2019 appropriations to continue regular operations until the beginning of the next regular session. [15] These funds supplemented cash reserves from the House and Senate as well as temporary funding approved by the District Court. [2] After the Legislature reconvened its regular session in 2018, it voted to restore the funding which Dayton had vetoed. [16] On February 26, Dayton signed the bill into law. [17] In addition to reinstating funding for the Legislature, the bill provided for the LCC to have its payments to the Legislature reimbursed. [18] Although Standard & Poor's had "put a 'negative' watch" on the state's otherwise high credit rating while this case proceeded through the courts, [19] the company ultimately upgraded the state's credit rating to AAA in July 2018, after the case and the Legislature's funding uncertainties were resolved. [20]
The Associated Press described the Supreme Court ruling as "a major legal victory" for Dayton, [21] and the ruling definitively established the governor's power to exercise the line item veto power for any purpose. The Legislature prevailed from a policy perspective, however, as none of the changes to tax policy that Dayton sought were legally enacted. [22] The Legislature's session in 2018 was marked by continued discord between the Republican and DFL parties; [23] [24] many of the most significant bills from the session were ultimately vetoed by Dayton, including bills regarding tax reforms and further budgetary appropriations. [23] Pursuant to the results of the 2018 Minnesota elections, Minnesotans elected a new governor from the DFL party and installed a DFL majority in the House of Representatives; the Republican party maintained a narrow majority in the Senate. [25]
In United States government, the line-item veto, or partial veto, is the power of an executive authority to nullify or cancel specific provisions of a bill, usually a budget appropriations bill, without vetoing the entire legislative package. The line-item vetoes are usually subject to the possibility of legislative override as are traditional vetoes.
The governor of Mississippi is the head of state and head of government of Mississippi and the commander-in-chief of the state's military forces. The governor has a duty to enforce state laws, and the power to either approve or veto bills passed by the Mississippi Legislature, to convene the legislature at any time, and, except in cases of treason or impeachment, to grant pardons and reprieves.
The governor of Wisconsin is the head of government of Wisconsin and the commander-in-chief of the state's army and air forces. The governor has a duty to enforce state laws, and the power to either approve or veto bills passed by the Wisconsin Legislature, to convene the legislature, and to grant pardons, except in cases of treason and impeachment. The position was first filled by Nelson Dewey on June 7, 1848, the year Wisconsin became a state. Prior to statehood, there were four governors of Wisconsin Territory.
Roy Asberry Cooper III is an American attorney and politician, serving as the 75th governor of North Carolina since 2017. A member of the Democratic Party, he served as the 49th attorney general of North Carolina from 2001 to 2017 and in the North Carolina General Assembly in both the House of Representatives and Senate between 1987 and 2001.
A concurrent resolution is a resolution adopted by both houses of a bicameral legislature that lacks the force of law and does not require the approval of the chief executive (president). Concurrent resolutions are typically adopted to regulate the internal affairs of the legislature that adopted them, or for other purposes, if authority of law is not necessary.
The government of Alabama is organized under the provisions of the 1901 Constitution of Alabama, the lengthiest constitution of any political entity in the world. Like other states within the United States, Alabama's government is divided into executive, judicial, and legislative branches. Also like any other state, these three branches serve a specific purpose in terms of power.
In response to court action in a number of states, the United States federal government and a number of state legislatures passed or attempted to pass legislation either prohibiting or allowing same-sex marriage or other types of same-sex unions.
The Budget of the State of Oklahoma is the governor's proposal to the Oklahoma Legislature which recommends funding levels to operate the state government for the next fiscal year, beginning July 1. Legislative decisions are governed by rules and legislation regarding the state budget process.
The 2011 Minnesota state government shutdown was a government shutdown affecting the U.S. state of Minnesota. The shutdown was the result of a fiscal dispute between the Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party (DFL) Governor Mark Dayton and the Republican-majority Minnesota Legislature, that was not resolved by the constitutional deadline on June 30. The Republican caucuses and their leaders demanded bigger spending cuts, and for the budget shortfall to be met without tax increases, while Dayton demanded some tax increases. The shutdown started at midnight on July 1, and ended after a budget bill was passed and signed on July 20.
Unallotment is a budgetary technique used by United States state governors to unilaterally make spending cuts to bridge budget deficit gaps. Unallotment was used by a number of governors in the wake of the economic recession of 2008, most notably by Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty in July 2009.
The acts of the 88th Minnesota Legislature includes all acts by the 88th Minnesota Legislature, which lasts from January 8, 2013, to January 5, 2015.
The eighty-seventh Minnesota Legislature was the legislature of the U.S. state of Minnesota from January 4, 2011, to January 7, 2013. It was composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives, based on the results of the 2010 Senate election and the 2010 House election. The seats were apportioned based on the 2000 United States census. It first convened in Saint Paul on January 4, 2011 and last met on August 24, 2012. It held its regular session from January 4 to May 23, 2011, and from January 24 to May 10, 2012. A special session was held on July 19 and 20, 2011, to complete the passage of budget bills. Another special session was held on August 24, 2012, to provide disaster assistance for the flooded areas of Duluth.
The Eighty-ninth Minnesota Legislature was the legislature of the U.S. state of Minnesota from January 6, 2015, to January 2, 2017. It was composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives, based on the results of the 2012 Senate election and the 2014 House election. The seats were apportioned based on the 2010 United States census. It first convened in Saint Paul on January 6, 2015, and last met on May 23, 2016. It held its regular session from January 6 to May 18, 2015, and from March 8 to May 23, 2016. A special session to complete unfinished business was held from June 12 to 13, 2015.
The Ninetieth Minnesota Legislature was the legislature of the U.S. state of Minnesota from January 3, 2017 to January 7, 2019. It was composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives, based on the results of the 2016 Senate election and the 2016 House election. It first convened and held its regular session in Saint Paul from January 3 to May 22, 2017, and from February 20 to May 20, 2018. A special session to complete unfinished business was held from May 23 to 26, 2017.
The Public Records Act (PRA) is a law of the U.S. state of Washington requiring public access to all records and materials from state and local agencies. It was originally passed as a ballot initiative by voters in 1972 and revised several times by the state legislature. The definition of public records, especially concerning the state legislature, was subject to several legal challenges in the decades since the law was passed.
The 105th Wisconsin Legislature convened from January 12, 2021, to March 1, 2022, in regular session. The Legislature also held two extraordinary sessions and six special sessions during the term.
In the United States, the president can use the veto power to prevent a bill passed by the Congress from becoming law. Congress can override the veto by a two-thirds vote of both chambers.
Michael, Joel (September 2018). "History of the Item Veto in Minnesota" (PDF). Research Department, Minnesota House of Representatives. Archived (PDF) from the original on May 31, 2019. Retrieved March 18, 2019.