Governor Mark Dayton signed into law nine of what he terms so-called budget bills — plus a tax-cut bill he strongly dislikes — to avoid a bitter showdown in June that could have caused state government shutdown, but there’s still a dispute about other issues that Republicans say could end up in court. Because of Dayton’s veto last year, GOP lawmakers put a provision in this year’s tax cut bill that would shut down the state’s tax collecting functions July 1st unless the governor signed the tax cut bill. Dayton calls it “a reprehensible sneak attack which shatters whatever trust we achieved during this session.” He retaliated by vetoing operating funds for the legislature after July 1st, and says the only way to forestall it is if Republicans eliminate tax breaks for tobacco, big business and wealthy estates, and get rid of new teacher licensing laws and a ban on drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. House Speaker Kurt Daudt responds Dayton is saying “he won’t fund the legislature unless we agree to reverse things that he specifically, from his lips to my ears, agreed to through negotiations. That means that the governor is the one that can’t keep his word.”
Dayton says to Republicans at the legislature, “If they want me to sign a bill that provides their funding for the next four years, then they have to pass a bill that I can accept and agree to sign.” Senate Republican Majority Leader Paul Gazelka responds it’s an issue of separation of powers: “I don’t know how he [Dayton] can possibly de-fund the people’s voice, the legislative branches, and say that you cannot function.”
Constitutional law expert David Schultz with Hamline University says about the dispute that “legal issues that are being raised now demonstrate either profound ignorance of the state constitutional requirements or b) they are the pretext for some very intense political negotiations — and I want to hope that it is the latter.” Schultz says the threat of litigation is a bargaining chip because, while the Minnesota Constitution may seem clear, it’s difficult to predict how a court might rule. He says Republicans likely have the better legal argument — that Dayton is encroaching on separation of powers by vetoing the legislature’s operating funds — but Schultz points out, “Still, the legislature would have to go through the courts, would actually have to fight this out, and exactly what their victory might be — assuming they got one — might not be completely to their liking.”
Much more in Bill Werner’s interview with Prof. Schultz: