Library News - Legislature

“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

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.

When was this particular phrase added to the criminal code, and why? Why did the Legislature remove this word from statute, only to reinstate it the next year? When was the first time the Legislature introduced a bill to legalize sports betting, and what happened that year?

The Legislative Reference Library regularly receives these kinds of questions, and legislative history research can help answer them. But this research process can be time consuming and complex.

Last January, the Office of the Revisor of Statutes hosted a CLE that was presented by reference librarians from the Legislative Reference Library on this topic, breaking down the process with real-life examples, and outlining how research methods and tools vary across years.

If you missed the presentation, or are interested in learning more about conducting this kind of research, you can view an archived version of the CLE presentation and access handouts from the presentation.

A few highlights of the Legislative History Research CLE include:

• The Library recently digitized House and Senate Journals from 1973-1996.
• All audio and video from 1991-present is available online.
• Senate videos in the Legislative Media Archive include searchable captions.
• Senate committees began submitting official minutes in a digital format to the Library in 2022.

Photo: This image from the 1980s, included in our photo collection, was scanned from the files of the Minnesota Senate Photographer with the generous help of the Minnesota Digital Library.

About 90 high school juniors from across Minnesota participated in the House of Representative's High School Page Program during the course of the 2023 legislative session. This highly regarded program was established in 1975. After a few years' hiatus during the pandemic, we were glad to see these students at the Capitol again!

Each week, the students' schedule is packed, ensuring they learn about every aspect of the legislative process. Students meet with legislators and other government officials, serve as pages on the House floor, conduct research in the Library, and hold a mock committee hearing.

Tom Holien, who has coordinated the program for the past few years, works tirelessly each week to create an enriching and informative experience for each group of pages who participate!  

The Legislative Reference Library is pleased to have Star Tribune photographer Glen Stubbe's engaging photographs of the Senate and the Capitol on display in the Library's Senate location.  Come see them soon--or stop by during a reception for Glen's exhibit on Thursday, January 19 from 9:30-11.  Cookies will be served!

Glen's Star Tribune colleague, Briana Bierschbach, wrote words of introduction to Glen's exhibit: 

At the Minnesota Capitol, the state Senate is the stately upper chamber, where senators and reporters must follow a dress code and decorum tends to prevail over fiery passions. But it can also be a place of warmth, where political rivals share a prayer, freshly baked bars and pat on the back after a grueling debate.

As a staff photographer for the Star Tribune, Glen Stubbe is often in the room where it happens, capturing both the debates that shape state policy and the little moments that show the humanity of the institution. He taps into a deep understanding of his source material and relationships developed over many years to capture moments others don't.

These images pull back the curtain on government in a way no words could ever convey.

-Briana Bierschbach, Politics and Government Reporter at the Star Tribune

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?

In 2019, the Legislature established a legislative staff working group on accessibility measures to address the course of action for digital accessibility standards in the Minnesota Legislative branch in Laws of Minnesota 2019, 1^st special session, chapter 10, article 5. 

Staff from the House, Senate, and joint offices have been meeting regularly since late summer 2021. They’ve surveyed legislative staff, elicited a business process mapping project to identify how digital information is used in the committee process, contracted an audit with a third-party accessibility audit company, and have been writing a report to the Legislature, which is due in January of 2023. 

The meetings have included digital accessibility training from various sources. Presentations and feedback from stakeholder organizations, executive branch agencies, and other states through a National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) presentation have been significant pieces of input that the working group has received. The Working Group has heard presentations from stakeholder organizations such as the Disability Council, State Services for the Blind, MNIT Office of Accessibility, and the Minnesota Commission of the Deaf, DeafBlind & Hard of Hearing. 

Among training offered to working group members, the Library has collected a few recent books, which you also may enjoy reading: Approachable Accessibility: Planning for Success by Martine Dowden explains the importance of digital accessibility and goes on to explain how to engage your team, create an action plan, and the resources you’ll need along the way. Another recent addition to the Library shows state-level legal requirements and policy by state. Much of this information is about state executive branch and public higher education compliance: 2021/2022 State and Federal Accessibility Guidelines. 

The required report will assist the Legislature in its work making legislative information more digitally accessible.

(Update: The final report was issued on January 12, 2023: Legislative Staff Working Group on Accessibility Measures Report. Minnesota Statute 3.199 requires the Legislature to comply with accessibility standards by October 1, 2024.)

Photo by House Public Information Services

Redistricting always brings a slew of legislative retirements -- district boundaries may shift dramatically, incumbents may be paired with a colleague in the same district and decide not to run, or legislators see an opportunity to run for a different office. And some legislators, as with any election cycle, simply decide to leave elected office. This redistricting cycle is no exception. There are 47 legislators -- many long-serving -- who will be leaving the Legislature this year. You may find it interesting to compare this year's retirement list with the list of retirements in 2012 -- the last time legislative districts were redrawn.

Some of those 47 individuals are pursuing other elected office, but most won't be on the ballot in November. In addition to these departures, 11 current House members are seeking election to the Minnesota Senate, and one current Senator is seeking election to the Minnesota House of Representatives. Although it is more common for House members to seek a seat in the Senate, many Senators served in the House after terms in the Senate. (Several news sources are reporting 59 members retiring which includes the 12 seeking a seat in the other body.)

The primary and general election outcomes will almost certainly mean that this list of departures will grow. Though election rates for incumbents seeking re-election are high, our turnover data show those rates, compiled since 1970, have never been 100%!

Those with keen eyes will spot some former legislators on the Secretary of State's candidate filings list. So it remains to be seen how many "true freshman" we'll see in January 2023, when the 93rd Legislature gavels in a new session.

One recent article, and one that’s often requested from the Library, was written by former Assistant Revisor of Statutes Anne Sexton. In “A Lawyer's Guide to the Minnesota Legislative Process” from Bench & Bar of Minnesota, she provides a “roadmap for bills,” tips about statutory notes, headnotes, tracking session law changes, how to use Minnesota Statutes chapter 645, and more. She also includes a few paragraphs about the usefulness of the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library’s Mandated Reports Database for “understanding future policy dynamics or quickly gathering information on a topic without going through a government data request.” In addition, she explains that the legislative process is complex and even the most seasoned legislative staff person or legislator can have questions about the process. 

We use several sources when answering questions involving the complexities of the legislative process. Many questions can be answered by consulting the Legislature's Frequently Asked Questions About the Minnesota Legislature. For example, do you need to be reminded of the definition of a legislative day or a pocket veto? Or is a bill dead if it fails on final passage? Hint: Not necessarily. 

Sometimes the questions are more intricate. Senate Counsel, Research, and Fiscal Analysis' Legislative Process In Minnesota provides a solid overview. We also look to House Research's Making Laws for insider-baseball-level questions. We won’t name any names, but one long-time lobbyist carries a copy with her at all times!