Gearin’s decision: Good for the state and spectacular for Pawlenty and the Republicans

Ramsey County Chief Judge Kathleen Gearin made a good decision for the state, and a spectacular one for GOP Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Minnesota Republicans.

First, the decision. The chief distinction between Pawlenty’s earlier rounds of unallotments and those he made last spring was that the spring 2009 unallotments were made during the legislative session, “before the [entire state] budget had been enacted,” not when the Legislature was not in session. In so doing, Gearin wrote, “the governor crossed the line between legitimate exercise of his authority to unallot and interference with the Legislative power to make laws.”

Gearin goes on to make classic statements about the separation of power between the three co-equal branches of government. Agreed. About how those three branches of government function as checks and balances against each other. Agreed. Someday — but not likely in our lifetimes — a DFL governor may want to unallot Republican spending initiatives passed by a Republican-controlled legislature. Republicans won’t want vast unallotment powers in a governor then.

But what makes Gearin’s decisions about the separation of power and the need for checks and balances spectacular for Pawlenty and the Republicans is that the great stalling-out point between Pawlenty and the DFL-controlled legislature is the DFL’s insistence on raising taxes. For Democrats, that’s “compromise.”

But for Pawlenty and the Republicans — and the state Constitution and the courts — the governor is the governor. If he doesn’t want to raise taxes (or fees), he doesn’t have to. He may veto or sign bills. The separation of power doesn’t prescribe “compromise” on the core issue of raising taxes. The fact that Pawlenty has a constitutionally granted final say has driven the Democrats nuts.

Let’s play this out. Assume that others aggrieved by unallotments also sue and get temporary injunctions. All hell’s going to break loose. Assume that there’s the continued standoff between Democrats and Pawlenty and the Republicans over raising new revenue. Assume that there’s no agreement and the session ends in a stalemate.

A remarkably different set of political forces will be in play.

Unlike the standoff of 2005, which resulted in a temporary state shutdown, a special legislative session and Pawlenty agreeing to new revenue in cigarette distribution fees, Pawlenty has nothing to lose. Recall that public opinion polls at the time showed both Republicans and Democrats getting the blame for the shutdown. Pawlenty cared about Minnesota public opinion polls then, but he won’t now. In fact, the greater the Minnesota public spat over whether to raise taxes, the more national eyes and ears are going to be aware of Pawlenty sticking to his guns on an issue near and dear to the hearts of the national GOP base.

The 2005 shutdown also resulted in a Ramsey County District Court ruling that, despite the lack of a budget that year, the Pawlenty administration could continue to fund “core services.”

Obviously, these are vastly different economic times than 2005, when the economy was humming and people were using their homes as ATMs. Significant public support — let alone tolerance — of tax increases likely won’t materialize in 2010.

Meanwhile, the Republican candidates for governor — and the Senate and the House — can run campaigns based on the need for checks and balances against the DFL raising taxes.

Spectacular for Pawlenty and the Republicans, indeed.

9 Responses to “Gearin’s decision: Good for the state and spectacular for Pawlenty and the Republicans”

1. NorthernMNer Says:
   December 31st, 2009 at 1:47 pm

   Sarah,

   Wouldn’t you also agree that this is excellent news for John McCain?

2. anonymous Says:
   January 1st, 2010 at 9:52 am

   Interesting analysis. But please correct the spelling of Judge Gearin’s name!

3. Hiram Says:
   January 2nd, 2010 at 8:09 am

   Sarah’s a professional spinner, and here she is spinning here professionally and very well. But the issues she raises are valid. It is, by no means clear, that an unraveling of the governor’s unallotment policy if that happens, raising as it does, the always brutal question of how to pay for things we wither want or need is in the interest of Democrats going into the 2010 legislative session.

4. edman Says:
   January 4th, 2010 at 8:53 am

   The final scene of the 2010 legislative session will be Larry and MKA bemoaning that the governor wont work with them to restore the funding for the items that T-Paw cut. If the Gov. can do even a marginal job of stating a case as to 1. why those specific programs were cut and 2. that the DFL “answer” was only to raise your taxes to pay for specific programs that wont be popular to all people and parts of the state, then the DFL endorsement fight is going to be great politics.
   MKA is done. She can’t push through a fundraising snafu and the label of tax raiser in a recession and reasonably expect to win in November can she?!

   I know T-Paw has his eye on the horizon, but I hope his people are savvy enough to make some serious hay for other Republicans still trying to win election in MN only.

5. Lake Says:
   January 4th, 2010 at 9:39 am

   The only problem is that the Minnesota public expects the governor to lead. If the governor has to propose legislation to address the current deficit as well as the future deficit, his proposals will be unpopular. On the other hand, presidential politics would dictate that he governor to care less about Minnesota expectations and have the legislature make the first move.

6. Gary Gross Says:
   January 4th, 2010 at 10:35 am

   Sarah, It’d be wise to get your facts straight. Gov. Pawlenty didn’t do any unallotting during the session as you claim he did. You said that “the spring 2009 unallotments were made during the legislative session.”

   No they weren’t. Gov. Pawlenty ANNOUNCED that he’d unallot money from the budget if he & the legislature couldn’t work something out. THAT’S A FAR CRY FROM unallotting during the session.

   Furthermore, the statute doesn’t say when he can & can’t unallot, just that he needs to get a ruling from the Department of Revenue.

7. Sarahj Janecek Says:
   January 4th, 2010 at 10:38 am

   Gary,

   What I wrote about timing is what Guerin wrote in her opinion. I, too, stumbled on this because it’s a key part of her reasoning, and yet, you’re right: The actual unallotting happened after the session ended.

   My guess is that this point will be part of Pawlenty’s appeal.

8. Craig Westover Says:
   January 4th, 2010 at 3:10 pm

   Sarah –

   The ends don’t justify the means. Judge Gearin said Pawlenty’s action was constitutional but that he exceeded the intent of the unallotment statute. In other words, the law said one thing, the judge wanted another. That is not a good way to make law.

   Consider, the framers of the 14th Amendment clearly did NOT intend that it be applied to desegregation of public schools (or they would have desegregated the DC public schools, but they didn’t). Yet in Brown v. Board of Education that intent (or lack of intent) was rightly disregarded and the 14th Amendment was read for what it said, not what was intended. That is how a judge reads the law.

   Irrespective of the outcome and ramifications, Gearin’s decision was a bad one before it was a good one.

9. Dave Mindeman Says:
   January 4th, 2010 at 3:41 pm

   What we seem to be forgetting here is the people of Minnesota. This is not just a political fight and it is not just about Pawlenty’s ambition. I take exception to the statement, “Pawlenty cared about Minnesota public opinion polls then, but he won’t now.”
   Is that where we are? Poltics trumps the business of the people? We need to find a solution to this budget mess and political promises and IOU’s should be quarantined for the duration. There is still a job to do and government shutdowns and political posturing are not going to do that job. We need new revenue to solve this; that’s the simple truth. We have done the budget cutting….we have axed the programs and we are still in deficit. Can the politics…..do the job.