Why the large omnibus bill passed in Minnesota violates the single-subject rule

 

This blog originally appeared in Minnpost.

The 1,400-page plus omnibus bill that the Minnesota Legislature passed in the closing days of the session is likely unconstitutional. The reason is that it violated the single subject rule of the Minnesota Constitution.

Article four, section 17 of the Constitution declares “that no law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.” This clause refers to the single subject rule, which is similar across other state constitutions in the United States. The single subject clauses were adopted in the 19th century; the purpose of them was to address what some people call legislative mischief. Specifically, they were meant to address situations where legislation was jammed together in one bill, forcing individuals to vote for provisions in the bill that they might not otherwise support because they wanted other provisions.

The single subject rule is in many ways an anti-logrolling measure. But it is more than that. It is as the Minnesota Supreme Court said in the leading case on this clause, Associated Builders v. Ventura, that the purpose of the clause is to address mischief and abuses of legislative power and to make it possible for the public to know what the Legislature is doing by forcing legislation to conform to its title and not use trickery to hide or embed legislation under some generic or vague title. It is all about transparency and openness in government and to prevent corruption.

If we look at what was contained in this big omnibus tax bill, it perfectly fits the description of what the single subject rule was meant to prevent. It calls for the creation of new State Patrol headquarters; for health plans to cover abortion; and to regulate straw purchases and binary triggers with guns. It addresses traffic light cameras, motorcycles, and a host of other revenue and policy provisions. These are hardly topics that address a single subject.

The Democrats in the House, by their own admission, put all these provisions together out of frustration that the Republicans were slowing down the process. The Democrats wanted to short circuit Republican debate. They jammed all these provisions together in an effort to get it passed and to do so quickly as the clock was running out in the session.

The DFL justifies this action to overcome or counter Republican dilatory tactics. For some, the argument would be that were the Republicans in the same position they would have done the same thing. Perhaps they would have, but that does not make what the Democrats did correct or constitutional.

It may be about power politics. It may be all about winner-take-all politics. But it’s certainly not good legislating. It also sets up for the Republicans to do exactly the same thing if and when they eventually take control again. It sets bad precedent and does nothing to dampen the inflamed polarization of politics in Minnesota. All of these reasons are the reasons why single subject rules were adapted.

Newsflash: Inequality in Neoliberal America

Ths blog originally appeared in Counterpunch. Counterpunch. 

If anyone is perplexed or surprised  why Americans are so upset about the economy, they should look no further than the Income Distribution and Dynamics in America (IDDA) recent report by the Federal Reserve Board of  Minneapolis and its data site that looks at the stagnation of American income and economic mobility in America.  It unfortunately confirms what we already know—the neoliberal state benefits unevenly and in ways that confound an ability to challenge it..

America is built upon two myths, the myth of equality and the myth of the American dream. The myth of equality is the idea that we all have an equal opportunity to succeed.  The American dream is the idea that by hard work, perseverance, and a little bit of luck, anybody can work themselves out of poverty and potentially become rich. Yet we already knew from previous studies that neo-liberal economic policies have produced a gap between the rich and poor in America from the 1970s to the present that has largely benefited upper-income levels.  We also knew that economic mobility has largely stagnated.

Drawing upon IRS and Census Bureau records the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Board was able to construct a portrait regarding the status of income and mobility in America between 2005 and 2019. It does so across gender, race, and geography (state).  The importance of this intersectionality is to highlight how inequality and mobility in America is not just about race, it is not just about class, but also how the two intersect in terms of the state where one lives, offering a picture perhaps regarding how specific state policies may impact one’s life prospects.

Generally the IDDA study confirms other reports of the growing income gap.  Between 2005 and 2019 those in the bottom ten percent saw their adjusted gross income increase by 5%, whereas those in the top two percent saw a 23% increase.  One of the most startling conclusions of the report according to the Federal Reserve Board was that a “household in the bottom 20 percent of the distribution now makes exactly the same as it was making 50 years ago, in real terms.”   Regardless of race and gender, unless you are at an upper income level, earnings have stagnated. This can explain both the angry Trump voters who feel they have been left out economically, and the disappointment in Obama-Biden policies that have left most Americans behind.  Across the presidencies from the second Bush to Biden, neo-liberal economics  has benefitted only few, but even across class there is a skewing.

For example, across the board women continue to lag in income compared to men. In 2005 women generally earned 69% of what men earned, while in 2019 it was 74%. But the gap varies across income levels.  At the 10th percentile (lowest income level) in 2005  women earned 61%, by 2019 It was merely 70.8%. At the 50th percentile in 2005 women earned 68% of what men earned, in 2019 it was 74%.  But then by the time one gets to the 99.999 percentile in 2005, it was 26% compared to 29% in 2019 Over time, depending on your income level women made modest at best improvements in bridging the gap between their income and those of men.

But when we look at different states for example, as well as break it down by gender and race we find, for example, that in Texas, Hispanic women make 43% of white males, white women make 63% compared to white males, and Hispanic men make. 67%.  Whereas in California Hispanic women make 46%, white women 69%, and  Hispanic men 62%. Despite two different political cultures and different political party domination, the difference in income  between California and Texas is modest at best.

In terms of mobility, while the statistics in the IDDA project break it up by state and by income in general from 2005 to 2018 a portrait of stagnation also appears. For men in general, there is a 62% chance of moving from the lowest income quartile to the next quartile for women 57% Hispanic 63%, Whites 59%. Blacks 54%. At best, slightly better than even chances of moving up from that lowest income quartile to the next quartile, with the probabilities of  moving even further up even more significantly diminished.

The IDDA report provides perhaps the best detail we have so far on the economic and social consequences of neo-liberal economic policies in America.  It demonstrates uneven distributions of benefits in ways that nearly everyone can claim to be a loser  while also pointing to relative winners,  thereby thwarting efforts to form any solidarity to fight these policies.

Yet despite this socio-economic news,  voters this November will face a rematch of two neo-liberal presidential candidates, with little hope that the pattern of inequality and frozen mobility will change.

Minnesota is an Educational Leader in Racial Inequality

 

            According to the most recent WalletHub survey, Minnesota comes in second to last in terms of education racial equality among the 50 states. Minnesota only loses out to its rival Wisconsin, which takes first place in terms of racial inequality equality.

           Minnesota has struggled with race across many dimensions that have been well documented. It comes in among the worst states in the country in racial disparities in criminal justice, health and healthcare outcomes,  and with employment, wealth, and income.  Cities such as Minneapolis and St. Paul also have legacies of racial covenants and zoning that produced residential segregation that persist to the present.  Reports also place Minnesota among the worst in the country when it comes to economic mobility and stagnation, including for persons of color.

            But among the most notable inequalities has been education. Back in the 1990s while I was still working at the University of Minnesota's Institute on Race and Poverty we documented also how Minnesota and especially Minneapolis was among the worst in the country when it came to residential segregation and educational outcomes.

            Back then, the City of Minneapolis was in the midst of legal challenges to segregation in its schools and the state was heavily criticized also for its racial inequities when it came to education. Ostensibly many of the reforms adopted in Minnesota were aimed at addressing these racial inequalities.  These included open enrollment, magnet schools, charter schools and the enabling of more parental choice. All in theory were meant to address the problems of educational inequity. However, one can take another interpretation of these reforms. They were not meant to address the problems of racial inequality, but simply to forestall having to make the tough choices to really address them.

            Thus when we look at the Wallethub report, what we find is that Minnesota ranks 49^th out of the 50 states in terms of overall racial equality. It comes in 50th in terms of share of adults with at least a high school degree; 42nd In terms of share of adults with at least a bachelor's degree; 49th In terms of high school graduation rates; 38th for standardized test scores, 38th for mean SATs scores; and  34th for average ACT scores. If you are white, and perhaps affluent, the Minnesota schools do well. But if you are a person of color, the schools largely fail you. The racial equality rankings reflect this difference in performance between whites and persons of color.

            Minnesota has known about these problems for a quarter of a century if not more. There have been no serious suggestions or policies to address this problem. Some have argued for a constitutional amendment simply to change the way education is funded or to give individuals a state constitutional right to sue for inequities. There I s little evidence that such approaches would work.

            Conversely, while teachers deserve to be paid more, increasing their pay or changing workloads also will not address the racial equality gap.  The problem is far more entrenched. It is entrenched in the legacy of racial covenants and segregation in the state. It is entrenched in the fact that for so many years, persons of color represent such a small percentage of the population they were powerless and voiceless in terms of formulating public policy. It is entrenched because of the fragmented nature of our school boundaries and jurisdictions in Minnesota, and it is entrenched simply because at the end of the day, there is neither the will nor the desire to really address these fundamental inequalities.

       
Seventy years ago the US Supreme Court declared in Brown v. Board of Education that educational segregation and separate but equal were unconstitutional.  That decision brought promise and hope for educational equality.  Yet seventy years later that promise has yet to come to Minnesota. To be a leader in education racial inequality  is  nothing to be proud of. But that is the distinction that Minnesota still suffers.