Jared Shields contributed to this article.
At the end of a long budget battle, Governor Mark Dayton of Minnesota signed the state budget into law with only one small veto—the $130 million operational funding for the state legislature.
“The powers of government shall be divided into three distinct departments: legislative, executive and judicial,” reads the Article III, Section 1 of the Minnesota Constitution. Similar to the federal government, Minnesota set up a three branch government. None of the branches may effectively render any other branch of the state government powerless. The governor’s veto was highly suspect under this clause. Unsurprisingly, the legislature took the governor to the district court over the constitutionality of the veto.
During the court hearing, both sides agreed the acting governor has the constitutional authority to line-item veto. However, the legislature’s attorney, Doug Kelley, noted the Minnesota Constitution requires the governor state his objection with the item vetoed.
As it turns out, the governor’s explanation for his veto had nothing to do with objections to funding the legislature per se, but rather his opposition to a tax bill which he announced would be allowed to become law without his signature.
This tax bill lambasted by the governor includes a roll-back in tobacco taxes, an increase in the estate tax exclusion, and a broad commercial property tax freeze. Thanks to provisions contained within the previously enacted state government bill, all funding for the Minnesota Department of Revenue would be eliminated if this tax bill (opposed by the governor) were not enacted. In order to avoid this possibility, the governor announced his intent to allow this tax bill to become law without his signature. He followed this explanation stating, “Thus, I am line-item vetoing the appropriations for the House and Senate in FY 18/19 and FY 20/21.”
Because the governor’s reason for the veto of the legislature appropriations actually stemmed from his objection to this unrelated tax bill, Ramsey County Judge John Guthmann ruled in favor of the legislature, holding this particular line-item veto unconstitutional, thereby restoring $130 million in operational funds to the state Legislature for the next two years.
Unwilling to drop the case, the governor has decided to appeal the case to the state Supreme Court and continue the war. The date for the Minnesota Supreme Court hearing is August 28. Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka said, “The Governor should accept this verdict and allow the people of Minnesota to move on, instead of continuing to waste taxpayer dollars on expensive litigation.” Considering the shaky legal ground the governor stands on, perhaps the governor should heed his advice.
He then went on to demand that legislators reconvene in a special session that he would authorize only if they agreed in advance to a series of tax increases and other measures, in effect undoing most of the tax bill at issue.
The success of the legislature in court thus far provides reassurance that the governor cannot veto appropriations for a co-equal branch of government as a means to pressure the legislative branch into enacting governor-favored policies or to repeal other legislation. This is an unconstitutional abuse of the line-item veto power.
ALEC ranked Minnesota 45th in economic outlook in the 10th edition of Rich States, Poor States. In large part, this dismal outlook is thanks to the sixth highest personal income tax rate, corporate income tax rate and remaining tax burden. Prudent fiscal reform is needed; a governor threatening to withhold funding for legislative debate precludes such progress. The Minnesota Supreme Court now has an opportunity to ensure that Minnesota governors refrain from unconstitutionally compelling a legislature to act as a rubber stamp for the executive branch, granting the legislature a fighting chance at improving the economic climate.