Our successful precinct caucuses were the last we'll have with current district boundaries.

Minnesota will reset its legislative district boundaries in 2022 to take into account population shifts identified in the 2020 census. The intent is to more equally align the number of voters in each MN House district, so each legislator represents roughly the same number of citizens. Our January article described the legislative and court processes that will establish the new boundaries.

The impact of redistricting (also known as "reapportionment") for most of us may be minimal. Delegates to conventions elected at this year’s caucuses will continue to be delegates after redistricting. However, if a precinct is moved or redefined to a new MN House and/or Senate District (BPOU), their delegates will now be delegates of that new BPOU.

In addition, the leaders of the current BPOUs will need to document the available funding and the value of non-financial assets. Even small changes in BPOU boundaries may involve the transfer of assets proportional to the transfer of delegates.

Chairs and executive committee leaders of BPOUs need to be prepared that boundary changes could be more significant. In cases where two or more portions of different BPOUs are combined into new BPOUs, several actions will need to be taken. These actions include:
• Convening of an Arrangement Committee
• Drafting of new BPOU bylaws
• Negotiating the transfer of assets from the old BPOUs
• Planning the convention for the new BPOU
• Identifying BPOU officer candidates
• Confirming legislative candidates within the new boundaries

MN GOP Chair Hann will be appointing Convention Arrangement Committee conveners for the new BPOUs shortly after the final district maps are approved and released. Members of the Convention Arrangement Committees will be named from key officers from the previous BPOUs.

U.S Representative Dean Phillips wrote to constituents last September that he voted in favor of HR4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, “to do everything possible to ensure our elections are safe, secure, accessible, and fair.”  He claimed that it would ensure ALL [his emphasis] eligible Americans are able to vote. 

He included a link to a WCCO radio interview during which he stated that “it is time that we recognize that especially in part of the south and other parts of the country that voting is not easy.”  He went on to say,” Laws are in place to make it hard, to disenfranchise people.”  Phillips never cited a specific example of where eligible Americans are denied the ability to vote, or exactly how these states are making it "hard" to vote.

While professing to be non-partisan, his comments are straight out of the Democratic Party playbook.  These “voting rights” bills are designed to eliminate voting suppression measures that were already addressed 50 years ago.

Phillips argues that if you do not support the Federal take-over of state voting processes, you are not patriotic.  As will be made clear in the following analysis of HR4, Dean Phillips’ support of the 2021 Voting Rights bills was not an exercise in patriotism, it was a demonstration of straight-up partisanship.

Analysis:  Federal House bill HR4 

The misleadingly titled ‘John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act’, does the opposite of advancing voting rights. It actively aims to end fair elections to Federal office.

Sponsored by Alabama representative Terri Sewell and co-sponsored by 223 House members (all Democrats), the 76-page bill, last updated August 24^th, 2021, passed the House on a party-line vote but its identical Senate companion measure, S.4 (same title) failed cloture in the Senate. 

HR4 includes a lengthy laundry list of reasons allowing the Federal government to take over election of Federal representatives at the state level.  HR4 has provisions requiring that non-protected classes (read: white people) be identified as ‘voting as a bloc’, and that they are ‘politically cohesive’ – both terms impossible of objective definition, and both inherently racist, and that is about as legally reasonable as HR4 gets.

The attendance at the Republican caucuses in Edina and Bloomington was about double the turnout for the caucuses in 2018 and 2020. From anecdotal reports on social media, this experience was repeated in precinct meetings in Minneapolis and across the state. Reports have also been received of individuals who remarked that they had voted for Democratic candidates in prior years, but they could no longer see themselves reflected in the Democratic Party.

Republican Party of Minnesota Chairman David Hann congratulated volunteers, candidates and staff on a successful round of precinct caucuses on February 1.

“We appreciate the hard work of everyone involved in reorganizing our party from the grassroots up for this year’s elections and beyond.  We saw a strong showing of enthusiasm from Republicans all across the state. Our party is excited and unified for the opportunity to make our case to the voters and elect Republicans this fall.”

Talk was upbeat and enthusiastic. Many new participants, particularly young people, were elected into precinct leadership positions. We experienced a great turn-out of enthusiastic party activists and new people resolved to get involved to make changes in the leadership of our state government. To those of you involved in planning and conducting these caucuses, your efforts are truly appreciated.

By law, Minnesota should reset its legislative district boundaries in 2022 to take into account population shifts identified in the 2020 census. The intent is to more equally align the number of voters in each MN House district, so each legislator represents roughly the same number of citizens.

As we reported in our last newsletter, redistricting is supposed to be under the purview of the state legislature. Due to political divisions between the DFL-led House and GOP-led Senate, it is not likely the chambers will come to an agreement. Previously, the courts have determined the 201 newly drawn district lines in 2010, 2000 and 1990. Should legislative agreement be lacking this year, the courts are expected to provide its version of district lines on February 15 or shortly thereafter.

The Minnesota Supreme Court appointed a special redistricting panel of five judges to hear and decide challenges to four redistricting plans that have been submitted for their consideration. The judicial panel may accept one of the submitted maps or decide to draw its own maps, so it is not possible to say at this time precisely how Senate District 49 will be impacted by redistricting.

However, if the four submitted plans are any indication, it appears likely that many of the district lines in the southwestern metro will be redrawn. The plans divide up Senate District 49 into three (3) to five (5) pieces for reallocation.

An example is the redistricting proposals of the Anderson Plan, which was brought forward by several Minnesota Republicans. This plan (picture at top) would
• combine northwest Edina with Hopkins and Minnetonka (the new SD47);
• link the Eden Prairie and Minnetonka precincts now in SD49 with Eden Prairie and Chanhassen (the new SD49);
• combine southern and eastern Edina with Richfield and a sliver of northern Bloomington (the new SD50);
• combine the rest of Bloomington (the new SD51)

Our Senate District leaders will need to start planning now for the potential impacts of redistricting.  The newly created districts will have one month or less after the final plan is issued to work out such things as arranging a senate district convention, drafting new bylaws, and vetting candidates for senate district chairs and executive officers.

Bloomington’s December 2021 budget presentation cheerfully brags about increasing the city’s portion of your 2022 property tax levy “only” 2.75 %, a smaller increase than neighboring suburbs. Unmentioned is the fact that last July the city quietly bumped-up the “franchise fee” (a charge that each household, church, business or city building pays on electric and natural gas utility bills) almost 23%. The new fees took effect January 1, and the city plans to review them every two years.

The $3.75 monthly fee per household utility bill is now $4.60. It’s a yearly cost of $110.40 for those with two utilities. Fees are substantially higher for businesses, churches, and nonprofit organizations, ranging up to $141 monthly per utility, for a total of $3384 yearly.

The new fee rates will generate more than $6 Million / year for the city; the prior rate netted just under $5 Million.

When these city fees were first approved in 2016, as we wrote back then,  the funds were designated for use on “pavement management projects” (PMP), especially street repavement overlays and non-street paths for walking, bicycle paths or park trails. Almost all of the funding goes to streets, with only 3-4 miles of trail maintenance yearly. In the future that will continue to be the case, although the city’s website says sidewalk replacements may be added to the mix.

On January 18th, Rep. Steve Elkins, District 49B, sent out a constituent email in which he laid out his plan for your backyards.  Elkins plans to mandate State control (read:  elimination) of local residential zoning to ensure “…housing affordability…” 

Elkins asserts in his email that “…the biggest single barrier to ‘affordable’ housing is the shortage of home lots (meaning home lots at a price Elkins decides is ‘affordable’).  But Elkins has another purpose – he strongly implies that single family zoning is racist and his bill would end that racist practice.

According to Elkins, “affordable” houses (Elkins never specifies what that means) for newly-forming families are blocked for two reasons.  First, cities can’t legally recover their cost of connecting new construction to the road grids – that recovery is barred by state law.  Second, builders need to recover the growing cost of residential lots in the pricing of their new homes. 

Rep. Elkins frames his bill to win the support of both cities and builders.  He would change state law to allow cities to redefine neighborhoods planned for “remodeling” as “Street Improvement Districts”. All the parcels in these districts would be subject to “Street Improvement District Fees”, whether or not the parcels are being redeveloped. For builders, Elkins would exempt new low-income housing units from local “impact fees.”  Higher cost condos, apartments, and single-family homes would face higher fees.

In essence, Elkins takes away the ability of cities to zone an area for single-family housing.  To overcome opposition from voters who cherish the residential neighbors in which they live, Rep. Elkins labels single-family zoning as racist. 

If you don’t like the idea of subsidized housing towers in your newly un-zoned single-family residential area, you are just a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard), says Elkins:
“Examples of the abuses that my ‘Legalizing Affordable Housing Act’ bill is designed to address include zoning provisions which…. allow NIMBYs to block the construction of multifamily housing – even new senior housing, and even when the city’s own comprehensive plan allows it.” (emphasis added)

For Multifamily Housing, read “government subsidized housing”. And if you don’t want it, you are a NIMBY who is taking advantage of the law for racist purposes, according to Elkins.

The comments by the legislators from SD49 and SD50 on the Bloomington Legislative Priorities Zoom meeting on January 17 expressed some candid opinions about the projected surplus of $7B+ in the state budget and how it will be approached in the upcoming legislative session.

All of the legislators who were on the call are members of the DFL party. Although their views on the budget surplus varied, none of them called for cuts in the state’s personal income tax. None stated that a budget surplus has been occurring now for several budget cycles and that the state’s high personal and corporate income tax rate should be reduced. Their remarks largely indicated the need for the government to redirect more money in the state’s economy rather than less.

Senator Melisa Lopez-Franzen (DFL, Edina), serving as the Senate Minority Leader, expected that the legislature would bring up tax cuts. She would look at property tax relief and some targeted tax cuts. She also would seek funding to support families and kids. She expects that the DFL will focus in issues with staffing (nurses, child care, and schools), and transportation. Key areas this year: public safety and the economy.

Senator Melissa Wiklund (DFL, Bloomington) noted that the legislator needed to deal not only with the surplus but also with the significant amount of federal funding that has flowed to Minnesota. She pointed to helping people though the state’s Department of Health and Human Services, providing funding to nursing homes and public health and child care.

Rep. Michael Howard (DFL, Richfield) saw the surplus as a one-time opportunity and does not support permanent tax cuts that would “put the state in a hole for years.” He wanted to use the surplus to address “economic insecurities”, to put money in the pockets “of people being squeezed.” He said that there is an affordable housing crisis due to “persistent underfunding of housing.” He wants formula-based housing aid to cities to invest in housing solutions and asked for the kind of solutions that Bloomington would pursue if grants of funding were available. He also believes that the focus should be on the biggest items in family budgets and suggested that child care might be one of the biggest items.

Bloomington presented its Council Members' legislative priorities on January 17 in a Zoom call with state legislators in Senate Districts 49 and 50 as well as local representatives on the Hennepin County Board and the Metropolitan Council.

First on the agenda was the capital improvements Bloomington is seeking to get approved this year. The City is pursuing a two-prong approach to get funding approved for four projects. Legislative approval of a Local Option Sales Tax is one of the prongs. The other prong would involve state support in the 2022 bonding bill.

Bloomington City staff estimate that $11M would be required annually for 20 years to provide the $220M needed, including interest and finance costs. To raise this money, Bloomington will ask the legislature to approve the imposition across the City of a half-cent sales tax.

Like the sales tax approved by the legislature for the Vikings stadium, Mayor Busse did not mention if the tax would be imposed for only 20 years.

The projects and their estimated capital costs are:
• Bloomington Ice Garden improvements ($32M)
• Bloomington Center for the Arts ($33M)
• Dwan Golf Course ($15M)
• Community Health & Wellness Center ($70M)

In her remarks later, MN Senator (and MN Senate Minority Leader) Melisa Lopez-Franzen recommended that Bloomington ask for more than $220M because of inflation.

The "Community Health & Wellness Center " (a "gym" in short-version English) is clearly the largest project in the City’s wish list. Given the size of its request, this Center may well be the reincarnation of the Bloomington Community Center that was proposed and then dropped a couple of years ago. In this Zoom meeting, it was described as providing recreation, fitness, and educational opportunities. One of the reasons given in its support was that it's needed to address racism as a public health crisis.

On Tuesday, February 1, Republicans across Minnesota will be gathering for precinct caucuses. In our last newsletter and on our website we provided some details about what happens at Republican Party caucuses in Minnesota. This article will outline some important facts about how SD49 Republicans conduct our caucuses.

First, it is important to reiterate where our caucuses are held. In Bloomington, the Republican Precinct Caucuses will be held at Jefferson High School. For Republicans in Edina, Eden Prairie Precinct 08 (P-08) and Minnetonka P-1B and P-1C, the Republican caucuses will be held at Southview Middle School in Edina. Doors will open at 6:15 pm, and the caucuses will convene at 7:00 pm.

This is a year when voters will elect office-holders at many levels.  These include MN House and Senate legislators, the Governor and Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, and State Auditor. We will also be electing our US Congressional representatives. For us in Congressional District 3, virtually every office just mentioned has a DFL incumbent. It is critical that we endorse the best-prepared and most-persuasive candidates to challenge the incumbents for each of these offices.

The delegates that we elect at our caucuses and at our SD49 convention will be the ones who decide which candidates to endorse. These delegates must be prepared to learn as much as possible about all of the candidates, because we will depend on their judgment when they vote to endorse. Note that while redistricting might affect what senate and/or congressional district you are in, if you are elected as delegate or alternate you will continue to be one for your precinct. It is a 2-year term.

In Senate District 49, we believe that the Republicans that are elected Precinct Co-Chairs at our caucuses have the trust and respect of their neighbors who have elected them. By our bylaws, each SD49 precinct can elect up to two Co-Chairs. These Co-Chairs normally serve two-year terms and are expected to lead and represent their precincts. Given the responsibilities and commitments they make, these Co-Chairs are empowered by our bylaws to nominate the SD49 delegates and alternates that will attend the Congressional District and State Conventions.

The nominations will be formalized into a slate by a Delegate Nominating Committee made up of those newly elected Precinct Co-Chairs. The Delegate Nominating Committee will meet by invitation on February 24. The slate of nominated delegates is presented for ratification to the SD49 Republican convention, to be held on March 19.

We believe that the privilege of representing SD49 at a Congressional and State Convention should be granted to those who step forward to serve our district beyond those conventions. If you want to seek that privilege, seriously consider running for Co-Chair of your Precinct at the February 1 caucus.

Note: during caucus on February 1, each precinct elects its delegates and alternates to attend the SD49 convention. Candidates running for MN House and Senate in SD49 will be endorsed by these precinct delegates at the SD49 convention on March 19. These precinct delegates and alternates are encouraged to support their Co-Chairs in precinct activities over the next two years.

Oral arguments were presented before the Minnesota Supreme Court on January 4 in an election lawsuit that could dramatically change how cities and counties conduct future statewide elections.

While Minnesota Voters Alliance (MVA) v. Ramsey & Olmsted Counties (Case number: A20-1294) involves just two counties, MVA points out that there are hundreds of governing bodies (cities, counties, school districts) across Minnesota ignoring the requirements in state election law to maintain 'party balance' on their ballot boards.

MVA maintains that many cities and counties are shutting out Republican election judges from accepting and rejecting absentee ballots by exclusively appointing partisan government unionized employees to this critical role when the statutes clearly require election judges from both parties.

This case focuses on the duty to:

• establish a ballot board, 
• appoint a sufficient number of election judges to a ballot board to accept and reject ballots, 
• exhaust election judge lists submitted by the political parties, and 
• maintain party balance on ballot boards.