Coming attractions: Next legislative session likely to bring fight over unallotment statute

Under normal circumstances it would be a little early to start handicapping the battles of a legislative session that’s still about eight months away, but Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s peremptory and unprecedented use of the state’s 1939 unallotment statute seems almost certain to lead to a push for changes to the law when the 2010 Legislature convenes.

That wouldn’t undo any cuts the governor makes between now and then. But barring any successful legal challenge to Pawlenty’s unallotment powers in the meantime, it may be the best available remedy for the DFL-controlled Legislature in avoiding such confrontations going forward. Lawyers around the Capitol reportedly take a dim view of the chances that anyone will sue the governor successfully over unallotment powers. This judgment has less to do with legal merits–many believe there is a strong case to be made that Pawlenty is overstepping the emergency-powers intent of the law–than with the practical politics of the court system. In the words of one legislative staffer, "Judges don’t operate in a vacuum. You have to look at the complexion of the [Minnesota] Supreme Court and who appointed it."

Unlike the legislatively impregnable item veto power, which was made a part of the state constitution by referendum in 1876, the unallotment power is a matter of statute. It could be modified through legislative action. There are two obvious ways to do that.

One would be to cap the executive branch’s unallotment powers at a certain share of the state’s budget–say, 1 percent, which would allow a governor to unallot roughly $340 million from a budget the size of Minnesota’s FY2010-11 edition. (This has been done before. Back in the era of Gov. Arne Carlson, a 1 percent cap on unallotments was adopted by the Legislature on a one-time basis, though an increase in the state’s revenues mooted the need for unallotments in that instance.)

The other approach would involve clarifying the statutory language about the circumstances in which a governor can do unallotments. One of the criticisms of Pawlenty’s current use of the statute is that unallotment powers were intended to come into play only to deal with emergencies caused by unforeseen mid-session revenue shortfalls, not as a prospective tool to deal with revenue crises that were largely foreseen. Legislators could try to amend the statute to give the governor’s office less wiggle room in asserting broad powers under the law.

Any attempt to reduce the governor’s powers of unallotment is likely to elicit a veto, and once again place the Legislature in the position of trying to peel away House Republicans in an override effort. DFLers succeeded in that gambit on the 2008 transportation bill; the so-called "Override Six" House Republicans who made it possible were then stripped of any important positions they held and opposed by party-backed replacement candidates in ‘08 election cycle; only two of them won re-election. Following the purge, House GOP lines held tight on override efforts in 2009.

This has led some members and observers on both sides of the aisle to presume the same fate would befall any proposed changes to the unallotment law next time around. But that seems imponderable from here. Most likely it depends on the level of pain inflicted through Pawlenty’s unallotments, and where it’s felt most keenly. If Republican legislators find hospitals drastically cutting services or closing in their districts, or if the cities and counties back home have to cut essential services, then the dynamics of the fight over unallotment powers could be more like 2008 than 2009–which is to say, some Republican members could be forced to choose between party loyalty and their standing with voters.

No Responses to “Coming attractions: Next legislative session likely to bring fight over unallotment statute”

1. Anonymous Says:
   May 29th, 2009 at 10:15 am

   The legislature could send some un-unallotment scheme to the voters in 2010 without the guv OR Republicans, couldn’t they?

2. Anonymous Says:
   May 30th, 2009 at 8:57 am

   Press Release: To All Minnesota Press outlets on Governor Pawlenty’s Radio Program with Katie Couric “The State of the State” or “Good Morning Minnesota”!

   What Does Katie Couric have to Do, with the “State of the State” of Minnesota or Unallotment of our State Government Services?

   Why isn’t the Minnesota Press asking that question of the Governor? For citizens have the right know what is really going on with the “Unallotment” process, right? Such as, is there a list of third party non-partisans or outside the Capitol box view point, who are allowed to speak with the Governor! Too discuss one on one, the “Unallotment” process and talk about items that best be unalloted?

   Then why is Katie Couric and CBS news allowed to come on a “State of the State program” in Minnesota and not be required to participate as a news anchor but rather as a CBS news celebrity for PR! Avoiding any national spotlight or questioning of Pawlenty’s decision to govern Minnesota as “The One”, or any questioning of our “failed Legislative process”!

   Then, should WCCO be allowed to produce this as a statewide program that today clearly turned this citizens right to know format, into a PR program to promote the CBS news empire. Yet no questions to-date by any of Minnesota’s press outlets, have questioned either WCCO or CBS News, about their actions on today’s program or any likely to come!

   For you see as a Republican Candidate in the 2008 7th Congressional Districts Republican primary I’m also locked out of the Governors Office. Unable to address items such as Ethanol Subsidies or the Renters credit question, that a citizen caller had, that should be publicly reviewed.

   For over seven thousand Republicans in the 7th Congressional District or 48.5% that voted, said with their vote, they wanted Alan Roebke (REB_key) to put his views on the table for all to see. Yet Governor Pawlenty, who spoke at that convention, said the Republican Party should be more inclusive. So I ask the citizen’s of Minnesota the following question. How many votes should it take before a citizen of knowledge, be allowed to pass over the Governors Capitol Moat? To speak as a informed individual, to the “Emperor of Minnesota”!

   Alan Roebke (REB-key) Alexandria Minnesota, http://www.congressionalchange.com ! 320-808-6751

   Copy to the League of Women Voters & Independence Party of MN.

   AHR

   Send this to Governor Pawlenty at:
   budgetideas@state.mn.us
   Please copy and paste the following text into the body of your email.

   Governor Pawlenty:
   Governor, please immediately unallot my tax dollars for Ethanol Subsidies!
   By simply removing the remaining “Ethanol Subsidies” under the fiscal 2009
   budget of $8,363,000 and the $12,168,000 scheduled for 2010 and the
   additional $12,168,000 for 2011, for a total saving of $32,699,000 kept in
   the 2009-2011 budgets todate! Then also end the $19,790,000 still scheduled
   for fiscal 2012-2013. For all this money only goes to the “Ethanol Plants”
   that enjoyed the best of times and for the last five years have sent out
   over $100 million annually to their invester in the form of dividends!!!!!!!
   This will make a total savings of $53 million, available for “Government
   Agencies and People” who really need help! Thank You for your leadership
   —Signed —– From Alan Roebke (REB-key) Alexandria
   http://www.congressionalchange.co