“Operating budget,” "capital budget," "bonding bill." What do those phrases mean and how do they fit into the overall state budget process?

In January of the first year of a biennial legislative session, the governor is required to submit a budget message and a proposed budget to the Legislature (Minnesota Statutes 16A.11).  Much of the work in the first year of a session revolves around creating an "operating budget" that will fund state government for the next two fiscal years. But that statute also requires the governor to submit a "capital" budget in January of the second year of the biennial session. However, a bonding bill was not passed during the 2024 legislation session and Governor Walz has proposed a  $887 million "infrastructure plan" for the 2025 legislative session, in addition to the FY 2024-25 Operating Budget.

Minnesota's capital budget finances the acquisition, construction, and maintenance of public lands, state buildings, and infrastructure such as highways. Minnesota’s Constitution (Article 11, section 5) details the specific types of projects that may be considered. The projects can be financed with direct appropriations or through borrowing mechanisms such as state bonds. A recent House Research Information Brief, Capital Investment and State Bonding, sheds light on this somewhat complex issue.

The Legislative Library has many original budget documents as well as information and data about the state's current and historical budgets. Our State Budget guide highlights some of those materials, including:

• Minnesota Governor's Proposed Capital Budget
• Minnesota Governor's Proposed Biennial Operating Budget
• Major Appropriation and Finance Bills and Laws, 1995-present
• Major Capital Investment and Bonding Bills and Laws, 1963-present

The Minnesota Legislature Digital Accessibility Policy was adopted by the Legislative Coordinating Committee on October 15, 2024. This policy helps guide Minnesota legislative employees’ understanding of how digital accessibility impacts their work. Please visit Accessibility Services to learn more about the legislature’s commitment to accessibility. The Legislature also hosts a Frequently Asked Questions on Accessibility.

To support the efforts of the Legislature, the Library recently added two books on accessibility. Dark and Silent Office: A Digital Accessibility Guidebook for Inclusive Communication in the Workplace, focuses on changes you can bring to your organization to make it more accessible. The author offers several accessibility tool and technologies such as screen readers, braille displays, magnification software, captioning and transcription services, and visual and vibrating alert systems. The book contains tips and checklists on how to make physical and digital meetings and communications more inclusive. Dark and Silent Office is written for everyone from community members to human resources managers.

The second addition to the Library’s collection, Demystifying Disability: What to Know, What to Say, and How to Be an Ally, is a real-world guide book on speaking about disabilities and good disability etiquette. “This book is a 101 on certain aspects of disability for anyone seeking to deepen their understanding and be a stronger ally, regardless of whether they identify as disabled. Use it as a reference, a resource, a jumping-off point, or a conversation starter.” The book starts with a table of 'say this' and 'not this' phrases and terms in conversing on disabilities and ends with a list of resources for additional information.

Learn the names of the brand new legislators and refresh your memory on the returning members by taking the Minnesota Legislator Quiz! Can you get a perfect score?

It took ten days for the Senate to organize in 1971. The days were filled with parliamentary maneuvering, the chief justice refusing to administer the oath, legislators storming out of the chamber, two secretaries of the Senate, two versions of the Journal, and a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling. What caused this turmoil in the Senate at the start of the 1971 session?

The election

In 1971, there were no party designations, but legislators chose to caucus with either the conservatives or the liberals. Conservatives had controlled the Senate chamber since at least 1913, the year legislators began being elected on a nonpartisan basis.

The results of the 1970 general election indicated that there would be 33 conservatives, 33 liberals, and one independent in the Senate. Prior to the election, the one independent, Richard Palmer, had said he would caucus with the majority, but the election results left the Senate without a clear majority party. Despite attempts by both caucuses to woo Palmer to their side, he eventually announced he would side with the conservative caucus when the legislature convened.

Then, more complications arose when Palmer’s opponent in the general election, Francis LaBrosse, filed an unfair campaign practices charge against him. This stirred up discussion before session convened over whether or not Palmer would be seated and, if seated, whether he could participate in the organization of the Senate.

On December 31, 1970, the Attorney General issued an opinion that explained that the oath of office may be administered to anyone who has an election certificate and that the Senate would need to consider the question of the eligibility of its members. The opinion also indicated that all senators could vote on organizational matters.

The first day of session

On January 5, 1971, the 67^th Legislature convened. Lieutenant Governor Rudy Perpich, a former senator and DFL party member, called the session to order as President of the Senate, which was the custom at the time. Despite being the presiding officer of the body, he was not a member of the body and, therefore, it was presumed that he could not vote as a member.

Much parliamentary maneuvering ensued to attempt to keep Palmer from being seated. Perpich surprised the chamber by presenting only 66 names to be sworn in that session, blocking Palmer from being seated. Chief Justice Oscar Knutson insisted that all 67 senators-elect who hold an election certificate be sworn in. When Perpich refused, Justice Knutson left the chamber without swearing in any senators at all.

The Senate then called on Mr. Patrick O’Neil, a notary public, to administer the oath, with the hopes that he would swear in all members except Palmer. He refused, but then rushed forward to administer the oath individually to Palmer. (Some media reports at the time credit Palmer as being the first senator sworn in that session.) Rep. Jack Fena, a DFL House member who was standing in the back of the chamber, was then called forward to administer the oath to all except Palmer, but Palmer stood anyway and took the oath a second time with the rest of the chamber.

After this tumultuous swearing in process, Perpich further surprised the body by continuing to deny Palmer’s presence or recognize his vote when members were deciding who would serve as Secretary of the Senate. The conservatives’ nominee was George Goodwin, whose election included Palmer’s vote. Instead of the vote going in the conservatives’ favor, in an unprecedented move Perpich ruled that he could vote to break what he deemed a 33-33 tie in order to vote in the liberals’ choice for Secretary of the Senate, Pat Flahaven. Goodwin and Flahaven were each given the oath of office. However, as Flahaven was given the oath, the conservatives left the chamber with promises to file a lawsuit. It was reported that Goodwin then received the oath of office in the corridor outside the Senate chamber.

The Senate is organized

For the next few days, there were two versions of the Journal of the Senate, with the liberal’s Journal ignoring the presence of Palmer. The unofficial transcripts, the Journal, and the alternative journal text show how the question of Palmer’s seating and the question of how many votes were counted for each motion were debated at each daily session.

On January 13^th, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the Senate had the responsibility to determine Palmer’s eligibility, and that the Lieutenant Governor does not have the authority to break a tie and could not exclude Palmer.

The January 14^th session opened with continued quibbling about whether there were 66 or 67 senators in the body as Senators discussed points raised by the court ruling. Eventually, the body successfully voted to amend the Journal of the Senate of the preceding days to acknowledge that Palmer had been seated. The Senate commenced further organization and was ready to proceed with legislative business.

For further reading:

Sources listed in chronological order. If you would like to request any of these sources, please email the library at library@lrl.mn.gov.

• Op.Atty.Gen., 280E, Dec. 31, 1970. - This Attorney General opinion concerns the seating of a Senate member.
• "Editorials: Seating of Legislators.” The Minneapolis Star, January 1, 1971, p. 8.
• Oath of Office Controversy, Minnesota Journal of the Senate, January 5, 1971, p. 5-11.
• “Legislature in Lengthy Debate Over Palmer.” The Duluth Herald, January 5, 1971, p. 1.
• “Senator-elect Palmer Vows to Take His Seat.” The Austin Daily Herald, January 5, 1971, p. 1.
• “Palmer Hassle Rocks Senate.” The Duluth News Tribune, January 6, 1971, p. 1 & 3.
• “DFL takes Senate Control: Conservatives Vow Court Fight.” Star Tribune, January 6, 1971, p. 1.
• “Battle of Journals Shapes Up.” St. Cloud Times, January 6, 1971.
• Senate Journal, January 5-8, 12-14, 1971
  • January 5, 1971
  • January 6, 1971
  • January 7, 1971
  • January 8, 1971
  • January 12, 1971
  • January 13, 1971
  • January 14, 1971
• Alternative Senate Journal, as written by the liberal caucus's Secretary of the Senate, Pat Flahaven, January 5-8, 12-14, 1971.
• Unofficial Transcripts from the Senate Floor Session, January 5-8, 12-14, 1971.
• State Ex Rel. Palmer v. Perpich, 1971, 289 Minn. 149, 182 n.W.2d 182. - Decision dated January 13, 1971.
• “Coleman Says Court Didn’t Resolve Dispute.” Saint Paul Dispatch, January 14, 1971.
• Pahl, T. L. “Minnesota.” Midwest Review of Public Administration, Vol. 5, no. 1, February 1971.
• Dornfeld, Steven. "Legislature's Opening Day 20 Years Ago Hard to Top for Political Chaos." St. Paul Pioneer Press, January 6, 1991.
• “Two Secretaries of the Senate – in 1971,” Memo by the Legislative Reference Library, January 2009.

State constitutions are amended much more often than the U.S. Constitution, and Minnesota’s is no exception. Since 1858, Minnesotans have considered 217 constitutional amendments, with 121 approved by voters. The most recent amendment "to extend the dedication of lottery proceeds to the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund” passed with overwhelming support in November 2024. The Library’s State Constitutional Amendments Considered web page provides more detail on all Minnesota's constitutional amendments and provides links to related publications, such as this collection from the House Research Department: Constitutional Amendments.

The State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School debuted an incredibly useful resource in 2023: 50constitutions.org. Their goal is to aid the work of academics, judges, legal practitioners, policymakers, and journalists by providing easy access to the text of all 50 state constitutions in readable form and allowing users to search within and across states.

Last week, the Initiative launched new features for the Minnesota Constitution. Users can now view the Minnesota Constitution as it stood on any date in its history, compare different versions of amended provisions, and read about significant amendments and historical moments. This feature is also available for nine other states, and additional features will be added for more states on a rolling basis.

Selected Resources from the Library's Collection

Minnesota Constitutional History:

• A History of the Constitution of Minnesota: With the First Verified Text (1921)
• Constitutional Commission of Minnesota (1947-1948)
  • Report of the Constitutional Commission of Minnesota (1948)
• Constitutional Study Commission (1971-1973)
  • Minutes: Minnesota Constitutional Study Commission (1971-1972)
  • Final Report and Committee Reports: Minnesota Constitutional Study Commission (1973)
• The Minnesota State Constitution: A Reference Guide (2002) 

Constitutional Law:

• State Constitutional Law in a Nutshell (2003)
• Hidden Laws: How State Constitutions Stabilize American Politics (2021)
• Who Decides: States as Laboratories of Constitutional Experimentation (2022)
• The Law of American State Constitutions (2023)

Please contact us with questions or for research assistance: library@lrl.mn.gov or 651-296-8338.