The Politics of the 2024 Minnesota Legislative Session

            The DFL party in Minnesota has a trifecta. In 2023, they used that political Trifecta to go big

before they went home. With a $17 billion plus surplus, they had the money to enact and support all types of pet projects that they've been wanting to push for years. Such projects blew through the surplus and committed the state to structural increases in spending for years to come. Additionally, they used their Trifecta to push social legislation, including for abortion and other matters that were of interest to their constituents, especially the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

            But the politics and the constraints of the 2024 session are different.

The most recent fiscal forecast indicates while there is a surplus this biennium there'll be structural deficits in the future.  While that should be a note of caution for the Democrats, not to go on a spending spree. There are also many who view perhaps 2024 as a last opportunity.

While the Minnesota Senate is not up for reelection, the House is and there is a possibility that it  could fall to Republican control.  If it were to do so, the Democrats would lose their Trifecta and their ability to be able to do what they want in terms of fiscal spending or articulating their policy agenda.

For some then this means go big and go home again. Use the 2024 session as perhaps the last hurrah to enact future spending programs that will further the Democratic agenda and commit the State to specific programs.

On the other hand, assuming the Democrats hold control of the House, they will again have the trifecta in 2025, facing that structural deficit that they were warned about.  The dilemma—spend  or save now with the implications for how it plays out  waiting until 2025.

In 2024 the Trifecta was also the product of the political interest and alignment of the Governor, Senate, and House.  That same alignment does not exist this year. When looking at the interests of the House, the Senate and the governor, we get very different perspectives on what they would like to do.

Governor Waltz has indicated his support for a whole host of things including an abortion amendment. He said he supports legalizing sports gambling and supports perhaps other programs.

His interest is defined in part by the fact that he is going into the second year of his second term.  Unless he plans on running for a third term and wins after this term, he goes into lame duck status. In many ways for Waltz, this may be his last term to define his legacy, especially at a time when he fancies himself perhaps a future presidential candidate.

In the House Speaker Hortman’s  interests and her instincts are to make this a quick legislative session. Do perhaps the bonding bill and clean up some of the legislation from last time. But don't commit to new spending. Don't commit to any social legislation.

But she faces pressures from her Progressive Caucus to do both. And if she's able to impose fiscal restraint upon the Democrats, that will make it even harder for her to impose restraint upon the pushing of social programs. A tradeoff is certain to be made there.

In the Senate Kari Dziedzic was  skilled in the 2023 session in holding the Democrats together with the 34-33 majority.  She is no longer the Majority Leader, replaced by Erin Murphy, whose instincts take her further to the left, as opposed to restraining the impulses of the left wing of the party. Several years ago, she ran for governor as the progressive candidate, only to lose to Waltz in the primary.

The Senate is not up for election.  It faces different political pressures compared to the House in that it may not fear voter retribution. Murphy still would like to be governor and views this position as Majority Leader as perhaps as a springboard for that ambition. She faces the likely opposition from Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan. Both would be vying for support, trying to define themselves as the left candidates.  Were Murphy to caution fiscal restraint and restraint on pushing social issues in the Senate, she might cede the left to Peggy Flanagan, making it more difficult for her perhaps to be nominated in 2024 if she were to run for governor.  Pressures from her progressive wing and her natural instincts drive Murphy  to perhaps outflanking Peggy Flanagan on the left may make it difficult for her to be able to resist the push among some to move the Democratic Party further to the left.

In  2024 there is a different set of politics, with different personal ambitions among the governor, the Speaker of the House, and the Majority Leader in the Senate.  Even though in theory, there is still a trifecta, the interests of these three persons and the two different chambers offer a very different political dynamic than there was last year.

The Magic Asterisk * Minnesota State Budget

 

       What if the State of Minnesota spent money when it did not have a plan for how to pay for it?  This is essentially what Minnesota is doing now–budgeting with a promise or a floating asterisk that spending today will pay for itself in the future.  This is the DFL version of Reaganomics from the 1980s all over again.

 

Asterisk One:  The Smoke and Mirrors of Reagan Supply Side Economics

            The Reagan tax cuts were based on a fiction.  The fiction was supply side economics and the famous Laffer Curve.

            Arthur Laffer at a restaurant drew a curve on a napkin.   He argued that cutting taxes would eventually spur more investment and therefore the increased economic growth would pay for itself and therefore no cuts to social-welfare programs would be needed.

            In reality, this was a facade.  It a 1980 president debate when then candidate John Anderson was asked how Reagan could cut taxes and increase military spending while balancing the budget, he responded it was possible only with smoke and mirrors.  He was correct.

            Eventually Reagan, with Democratic Party complicity, did cut the top rate on taxes in America, with the affluent and corporations benefitting the most. David Stockman, his budget director, recognizing that the cuts would not pay for themselves, indicated in his proposed budget that there would be $44 billion is future cuts, marked by a “magic asterisk” in the budget.

            What eventually happened is that the US recession and tax cuts hemorrhaged the US budget, thereby becoming the cudgel to force additional cuts to social welfare programs.

            In effect supply side economics forced economic choices upon a future Congress and president, the implications of which we still face more than 40 years later.

 

Asterisk Two: The Minnesota Budget

            Minnesota has a $17.5 billion surplus.  The source of the revenue is both one-time federal money tied into Covid relief, the other is taxes. 

            Covid funding is ending and is not returning, especially with a divided Congress unlikely to expend more money and a Republican House looking to cut.  

            Future tax revenues are not guaranteed.   Fears of recession are about as the Federal Reserve raises interest rates to slow inflation and fears of future bank failures are chilling consumer confidence.   Moreover, Minnesota’s economy is performing more slowly than many other states.  Altogether, continued tax revenue along the path Minnesota has recently experienced is not guaranteed.

            Yet despite this the Minnesota DFL, who hold a trifecta in the state government, are prepared to spend all the surplus, and then some.  It is spending for many worthy causes, but the sustainability  of the spending is a problem.

            The spending of one-time money is not for one-time projects.  It is for structural commitments to education, housing, and many other needs.  By structural one means that these are not one time spending commitments coming from onetime money.  They are the down payment on multi-year spending and priorities.  After the surplus is spent in the next biennium budget and beyond there will be a need to fund these commitments.  And the current and proposed taxes may not be sufficient to cover the expenditures.

            I have taught economic development and budgeting. I am well versed in Keynesian demand side economics and how government spending can encourage economic growth.  But overused, over stimulus by government spending can be inflationary and lead to budget deficits.  Government spending does not always pay for itself, at least not in the short run.  And in the long run, as John Maynard Keynes once said, “We are all dead.”

            Perhaps the idea is that spending all this money now on popular programs will ensure a DFL re-election. Or perhaps the popularity of the spending will create a powerful constituency for these programs and therefore they cannot be cut.

Or perhaps this spending is the new floating asterisk.  We do not know where the money to pay for these commitments will come from, but we will mark the savings or benefits with a floating asterisk as a placeholder until we do figure it out.

Mis-spending the Imaginary Minnesota Budget Surplus: What both the Democrats and Republicans Get Wrong

The Minnesota DFL and Republican parties are about to do it again.  The “it” is engaging in irresponsible spending or tax cuts during an election year.   If either or both get their way the repercussions will be felt as soon as the 2021 legislative session when it makes the next biennial budget for the state. 

Minnesota  Management and Budget (MMB) in its November 2019 forecast projected that the State of Minnesota has a projected budget surplus of $1.332 billion.  As a result of this forecast the Minnesota DFL has proposed spending $500  million to subsidize day care costs.  The Minnesota Republicans want to use the total $1.3 billion to subsidize permanent tax cuts.  Both proposals are irresponsible, revealing a huge misunderstanding of budgeting.

Here are the basics.

The current two-year or biennial budget for the State of Minnesota that was agreed to in May 2019 is $48 billion.  The projected surplus of $1.332 billion is 2.8% of the entire budget.  Hardly anyone fiscally responsible would argue that 2.8% is really a lot of money, especially when the fiscal forecast is merely a projection.  It could vary up or down.  Moreover, many would argue that in budgeting one builds in contingency in case estimates are wrong.  The fiscal forecast assumes current obligations remain constant.  Except they do not.

The budget surplus is not really $1.332 billion. By state law, inflation is counted when calculating inflation while obligations are not.  The 2020 projected rate of inflation for 2020 is 2.5%, almost equal to the projected budget surplus percentage.  Inflation alone eats up the surplus.  There is no surplus for this budget cycle.  Even if there were, it could change if unanticipated expenditures occur; a surplus margin of error of 2.8% is very small.

Additionally, if one looks at the fiscal forecast it is important to remember that this is a surplus for only this budget cycle.  It is a one-time and not structural surplus.  Looking ahead, the MMB forecast notes that while at present the fiscal year 2022-2023  looks balanced,  all that assumes no basic changes in the revenue and expenditure projections  and that the economy will not experience a significant slow down that would impact tax revenues.  If any of this were to change, including adopting significant new state expenditures such as to subsidize childcare, or make some permanent tax cuts, then these projections change, running new risk of a structural deficit.

Both the DFL and GOP ways to spend the surplus are equally flawed.  Consider the idea of a one-time $500 million subsidy for childcare.  This sounds good, but what happens the second year?  The State will have to go subsidize again if the DFL want to make a permanent difference in costs.  This too assumes that a subsidy will address the cost issue—it does not in the long term. The reason in part why childcare is so costly is that there is a shortage both in the Metro and Great Minnesota areas.  Providing subsidies does little to address the shortage.  Moreover, offer subsidies and one may increase demand for childcare without doing anything to increase supply.  The result?  Perhaps even more costly childcare than before.  The subsidy sounds great but fails to address the underlying supply and demand problem.

The Republican tax cut proposal is equally irresponsible.  They seek to make a structural change in the tax code when the imagery surplus is possibly-one time.    They are confusing annual operating income with structural budgetary issues—a classic apples and oranges problem.  The current operating surplus is used to mask permanent tax code changes.  The last time this happened was during the Jessie Ventura administration. 

Back then when Ventura first took office in 1999 the State had a massive surplus.  It used that surplus and tax rebates (the “Jessie Checks”) to mask short term larger structural tax changes that eventually came to hurt the State when in 2002 Minnesota faced a massive shortfall, in part because of a combination of an economic recession and these tax cuts.  The result of that was the 2002 deal between then DFL and GOP gubernatorial candidates Roger Moe and Tim Pawlenty who as legislators agreed to change Minnesota law to count inflation for revenue but not obligation purposes.  It was that deal that has now created the image that Minnesota has a budget surplus now, when in fact it does not.

It was bipartisan irresponsibility a generation ago that yielded a host of problems that Minnesota has only recently and partially solved.  The DFL and GOP proposals for what to do with the $1.3 billion repeat those past mistakes.

Unconventional Minnesota Political Wisdom and the 2020 Elections

Three conventional wisdoms pervade the 2020 Minnesota political landscape.  They are: 1) Donald Trump cannot win the upcoming Minnesota’s presidential race: 2) Ilhan Oman is safe to win re-election in the Fifth Congressional District; and 3) the DFL will hold the State House of Representatives and pick up control of the State Senate.  While all three of these scenarios are entirely possible and maybe likely, there are reasonable scenarios where all three could be wrong and that the Republicans have a good 2020 year in Minnesota.

            Consider first the case for convention wisdom.

            Minnesota is the most reliable Democratic Party presidential state in the country, with the last time a Republican winning its electoral votes was in 1972 with Richard Nixon.  Yes, Donald Trump got to within 50,000 votes of beating Hillary Clinton in 2016, but that was a fluke.  Clinton was a horrible candidate, was beaten badly by Sanders in the caucuses, and did not come back to campaign during the general election while Trump did, especially during the closing days of the election.

            No Republican has won state-wide office in Minnesota since Tim Pawlenty did it in 2006.  In 2018, Senator Klobuchar won 60% of the statewide vote, with Governor Walz nearly winning  54%, Senator Smith 53%, and Keith Ellison (for Attorney General), the weakest performing statewide DFLer at 49%.

            The DFL flipped 18 seats to retake the Minnesota House.  Had the State Senate been up for re-election, convention wisdom is that they would have flipped it too given that there are several vulnerable Republican senators located in suburbs that the DFL won in 2018 House  elections.

            In the Fifth Congressional District, Ilhan Oman won election with 78% of the vote. The last time the Republicans won Minnesota’s Fifth Congressional District was 1960.  Since taking office Omar has acquired a national base and has already raised at least $800,000 if not now nearly $1,000,000 for her reelection.

            As of June 019, Trump’s approval rating in Minnesota was barely 40%.

            Conventional wisdom looks terrific for the DFL going in to 2020 given these statistics.  Trump’s low approval should help the DFL easily hold the state house, pick up the state senate, assistant Tina Smith win reelection, and perhaps allow the Democrats to pick up the First and Eighth congressional seats lost in 2018.  Given all this, this should be little hope for optimism among Republicans and that Minnesota is a lost cause for them. 

Yet Minnesota Republican party chair Jennifer Carnahan  and Donald Trump are optimistic the Republicans can win  the state in 2020.  Perhaps it is not so bleak for the GOP next year and that the conventional wisdom that DFL holds unto may not be correct.

Here is the counterventional wisdom.

Trump’s core base remains highly motivated and if anything, even more united perhaps that before.  Trump has consolidated support in Minnesota outside the Twin Cities metro region, especially in the Iron Range, which used to be a strong DFL center.  The Iron Range has been moving Republican for years.  Trump has indicated he wants to move Minnesota in 2020—the only Midwest state he did not win in 2016—and he plans to campaign  here a lot.

Evidence suggests that Minnesota was moving Republican even before Trump and that the DFL base may be contracting.  In 2008 Obama won  42 of the 87 counties in the state, in 2012 he won 28, and in 2014 Dayton won 34.  In 2016 Clinton wins only 9 counties.  In 2018, Walz wins only 22 counties, Smith 20, Ellison 14.  From 2008 to 2016, the GOP presidential vote increased 47,500, the DFL vote decreased 205,000.  According to CNN exit polls, the partisan voter identification for  the DFL was 37%, for Republicans 35%.  This was the narrowest gap between the two parties in decades for a presidential election, and the lowest partisan identification for the DFL in decades according to presidential exit polls.

In the Fifth District, Omar has made several moves that potentially could alienate voters.  He comments about Jews and Israel, even if not accurately reported, have created a storm of controversy among many voters for her.  With a congressional district with a high percentage of Jewish voters, this is a cause of concern.  Omar is also dogged by campaign finance violations, new allegations about her immigration and marriage status, and perhaps concerns about false tax  returns.  She has become a major foil of Donald Trump who constantly tweets comments about her when he comes to Minnesota, and it is clear that part of his 2020 Minnesota presidential run will be to make it a referendum on Omar.

A critical realignment may place many of the large Twin Cities suburbs in the hands of the DFL for a long time.  This does potentially suggest DFL state senate pick ups there.  But as several 2019 special elections demonstrated, the DFL is vulnerable in rural and greater Minnesota.  The Senate currently is 35-32 GOP.  There may be about four vulnerable suburban GOP senators, but  there is an equal number of DFL ones in greater or rural Minnesota.  For the Democrats to capture the state senate  they may need to flip six or more seats in order to offset losses.

A counterventional GOP strategy begins with Trump campaigning heavily in the state, strengthening his support in rural and greater Minnesota areas.  Democrats did well in 2018 because Trump himself was not on the ballot and with him now actively campaigning in Minnesota it will energize the GOP even more.    Nationally, if Minnesota has become a swing state, it competes for Democrat dollars that could also go into Ohio or Florida, much richer and perhaps even more critical electoral vote states (Yet if Democrats nationally lose Minnesota or have to really defend it, they are in trouble in the 2020 presidential race).

As part of Trump’s 2020 Minnesota campaign, he and other Republicans ratchet up the attacks on Omar.  If her political and personal problems continue to mount, Omar because a potential problem for state Democrats who need to distance themselves from her.  Within her district, while very popular, it would not be impossible to beat her.  Scenario one:  Within a DFL primary someone challenges her.  In the last week reports have been that Minneapolis Councilwoman Andrea Jenkins’ name is being polled as a possible candidate.  In a district where identity is important, Jenkins could split DFL support, giving voters who dislike Omar’s political views and personal problems an alternative.  Scenario two:  Someone like Jenkins opts not to challenge in the DFL primary but go to a general election instead.  Possibly splitting the DFL vote and picking up the GOP in the district elects her.  Scenario three:  In a three way race featuring  Omar, Jenkins, and a centrist pro-Israel Republican, the latter sneaks in to win the Fifth.

Whether the counterventional wisdom or even the strategy is viable is a matter of much debate.  However, it does suggest that the DFL  may not have it easy in 2020 and that there are avenues for the GOP to do well in 2020.

When Republicans Were Progressives–A Story of a Different Party and a Different Era

Minnesota is a DFL state.  Republicans are conservatives.  These are assumed to be two political truths.  Yet both are subject to qualification and David Durenberger’s When Republicans  Were Progressive, is  a recent book which tells not just a story about Minnesota politics both also one about the transformation of Republican Party politics both in Minnesota and nationally.  It is story about a party that Durenberger would say he did not leave but which left him and its values.  But in telling this story he also writes a book that, while it should be taken as a warning by Republicans, is instead being criticized by many of them.
I have known David Durenberger since the 1990s when I was with Common Cause Minnesota. I always considered him an ally on campaign finance reform and ethics in government.  We have penned essays together on ranked choice voting, and I place him among the Republicans I grew up with, worked with, or  admired, including Jacob Javits, William Scranton, and Nelson Rockefeller.  I knew a Republican Party that embraced government as a partner with the people to solve problems.  It was a party that built higher education, fought the Cold War, supported the War on poverty, and  cared about the poor and middle class. This is the party that David Durenberger represents, and he wants to tell about this party in Minnesota politics.
A conventional story of modern Minnesota politics would begin on April 15, 1944.  It was then the Farmer-Labor Party merged with Democratic Party to transform it into the dominant party in the state.  Prior to then, the Republican party was the major party, with the Democratic and Farmer-Labor parties splitting votes, often unable to capture state-wide offices in Minnesota.  But the merger, affected by Hubert Humphrey, ushered in a new era of Minnesota politics, often seen as dominated by DFL figures such as Humphrey and son Skip, Orville Freeman and his son Mike, Walter Mondale and his son Ted, and other politicians such as Olaf Martin Sabo, Nick Coleman, Wendell Anderson, Rudy Perpich, Sandy Keith, Roger Moe, and Paul Wellstone, just to name a few.   This is the lineage connected to the 1970s Minnesota Miracle that changed tax, political, and social policies regarding education, transportation, and so much more in Minnesota. It is a Minnesota that defines itself as DFL and progressive.
But there is another side to the story and Durenberger tells it as party of an autobiography for himself, the Minnesota Republican party, and the state.  It is a story of how he as a Republican US senator were part of Minnesota history, and they too were once seen as progressives.  His book begins with Harold Stassen in the 1930s as governor helping to lead Minnesota out of the Depression.  It discusses Governor Luther Youngdahl seeking to address problems of racial discrimination in the later 1940s and 1950s, Elmer Anderson in the state legislature and as governor championing the plight of those with mental illness (or fighting for fair housing) in the 1960s, and others such as Bill Frenzel, Harold LeVander, Al Quie, George Pillsbury, Arnie Carlson, and David Durenberger himself as US Senator.
The story Durenberger wants to tell is that at one time the Republican Party looked very different than it does today.  Today’s Republican party under Donald Trump is one that mostly of older white males, evangelicals, located in rural areas who oppose taxes, immigrants, reproductive rights, and civil rights in general, that was not always true. It was a party, at least in Minnesota, that was a partner in leading many of the major reforms that made the state what it is today in terms of leader.  Durenberger wants this message to come out and it does in this book, but he also laments the changes that have transformed his party statewide and nationally
Reading the book one learns an amazing amount about Minnesota and Republican Party politics.  But the real value in the book is in asking a more fundamental question–What has happened to the Republican Party?  How could a party, once a 150 years ago be the party of Abraham Lincoln and civil rights, or of Teddy Roosevelt and environmentalism, be the party of Trump it is now?  For those of us who believe there is a need for at least two if not more responsible parties, who have many Republican heros, and who think the American politics would benefit from a new political realignment that moves us away from the current partisan polarization, understanding what has happened to the party that David Durenberger yearns for is an important question to ponder.  Clearly the Democratic Party embracing civil rights and identity politics, both parties ignoring the enormous economic consequences of deindustrialization, globalization, geographic sorting, technology, and the exploding  gap between the rich and poor are part of the story. 
But the Republican Party of Trump is one that plays on fear, anger, resentment, and an “us versus them” politics that has managed to tap into the most base of human emotions.  It is a party whose embrace of these issues that, while it may have won in 2016, it lost badly in 2018 (both in Democrats winning the US and Minnesota Houses, picking up many governorships, and getting far more votes for the US Senate than did Republicans despite the latter picking two seats) and is on a long term demographic extinction as the coming generation of voters (young, suburban female, and people of  color) identify as Democrats.  If the Republicans continue on the current trajectory, they will face increasingly difficulty winning statewide Minnesota elections and even victory in the legislature.
This is the message that Durenberger wants to communicate.    In a sense, When Republicans were Progressive is an apologia and a warning.  But in offering both the author talks not of a party he walked away from, but a party that walked away from its values.  Contemporary Republican criticism of the book confirms the very point Durenberger wants to make.

Predicting Minnesota’s Gubernatorial Primary Turnout

            What factors influence primary turnout in Minnesota’s gubernatorial elections and what will the turnout be for both the Republican and Democratic parties this August?  Both of these questions are on minds of politicos as predictions mount in anticipation of the August 14, results.  The simple answer is that no one knows, but there are indications that the drivers of turnout in gubernatorial primaries have little to do with state politics or races and instead reflect national trends and moods in politics.

            Past performance does not guarantee future results.  This is true both for stock markets and politics.  Yet past performance provides insights into what might happen in 2018.  The attached table and chart look at Democrat and Republican Party primary turnout for the last six gubernatorial elections.   During this time there have been several changes in Minnesota election law or politics that potentially affect turnout, thereby making it difficult to isolate anyone factor.   Consider some factors.  (text continues below)

Primary Voter Turnout:  GOP and DFL Gubernatorial Race
Year	GOP	DFL	Total Voted Governor	Total Eligible	Percentage DFL/GOP Governor
1994 September	482754	382173	864927	2724046	31.80%
1998 September	140124	494069	634193	2687105	23.60%
2002 September	195099	224238	419337	2812473	14.90%
2006 September	166112	316470	482582	3090921	15.60%
2010 August	130408	442139	572547	3111619	18.39%
2014 August	184110	191259	375369	3111497	12.06%
2018 August*	190000	435,000	625000	3250000	19.20%
* Estimated

            First, note that from 1994 to 2014 the general trend has been for primary turnout to go down.  In 1994 nearly 32% of the eligible voters cast primary votes for a DFL or GOP gubernatorial, decreasing to barely 12% in 2014.  Granted that between those two dates there was one uptick in voting in 2010, but overall the trend line is for fewer and fewer people to show up to cast a primary ballot.  Perhaps this decline reflects a decreasing percentage of the electorate identifying as a Democrat or Republican. 

            For example, in 1994 polls listed 42% as self-identified independents, increasing to 51% by 2014.  Declining partisan affiliation thus might be one factor; however it certainly cannot count for nearly a drop of two-thirds in primary percentage turnout.  Moreover, the high number of independents masks the actual ways that people vote where many of those individuals who eschew party labels nonetheless vote reliably for one of the two major parties, especially in the last generation as partisanship and polarization have increased.

            A second possibility explaining the decrease is the shift from a September to August primary.  While it too may have some effect, it may be minor.  Even before 2010 when the first August primary occurred the general trend was down.  Moreover, the only election since 1994 when the primary participation increased was in 2010–the first year that an August primary occurred.

            A third possibility is that closely contested and (media) covered primaries produce higher turnout.  Again, this is not the case.  In 1994, for example, the Republican primary had very high turnout, but it was really no contest as incumbent Arne Carlson won big.  Similarly, in 1998 and 2002 where there was no incumbent running in either the GOP or DFL primaries, the numbers do not show that open seats that are presumably more contested produce more voter interest.  The one exception is the 2010 DFL primary that featured three well-known and funded candidates–Mark Dayton, Margaret Anderson Kelliher, and Matt Entenza–spending heavily in a closely contested race.  Again, it should not come as a surprise that state and local races are not major drivers of voter turnout–in general voting in these elections is far lower than for the presidential.

            Fourth, perhaps early voting impacts turnout.  The idea of allowing for no-excuses early voting is to make casting a ballot more convenient and therefore increase turnout.  The first gubernatorial election with this type of voting was 2014, filing to show an increase in overall state turnout.  Again, this is consistent with research suggesting that early voting does not necessarily increase overall turnout, it merely stretches voting out over a longer period of time.

            So what might drive primary turnout?  Look more closely at 1994 and 2010. Both of those dates are notable as particularly intense and polarized elections.  Both took place during the first midterm elections after the election of presidents in 1992 (Bill Clinton) and 2008 (Barack Obama).  Both elections saw intense interest in national elections that produced change overs in partisan control of Congress.  Perhaps–and this should not be a unexpected–turnout in state elections in Minnesota and elsewhere is informed by public awareness and interest in national elections.  Such a conclusion is consistent with political science research on variables impacting voter turnout.

            So what might all this say about 2018 turnout?  It too is coming during the first midterm election after the election of a new president.  Polls suggest nationally and in Minnesota voters, especially Democrats, are energized and excited about politics, mostly because of their dislike for Trump.  Assuming turnout in local primaries is related to national interest in politics expect to see turnout increase in this primary.  Even though there is little evidence that early voting or contested races impact turnout, both are present here, perhaps facilitating slightly turnout.

            Given the above, what can we guess (not predict?) regarding 2018 gubernatorial turnout for the two major parties?  As of May 1, 2018, the Secretary of State listed 3,246,893 as eligible to vote in Minnesota.  By August 14, that number will increase, so assume 3,250,000 eligible voters.  Given intensively in national elections, early voting and contested elections, 190,000 and 435,000 voters will cast ballots in the respective Republican and Democratic Party primaries, leading to a total of 625,000 voters or 19.2% overall turnout.

            Broken down even more, for the Democrats, assume that in a three-way race 40% is needed to win the primary, 174,000 is the bare minimum needed for victory.    For the Republicans (even though there are three candidates on the primary ballot), assume a two-way race between Tim Pawlenty and Jeff Johnson and 50% +1 or 87,001 is the minimum threshold for victory given the estimates here.  Of course no candidate should aim for these minimums, with a better strategy being for a DFL candidate to aim for at least 200,000 and the GOP 100,000 as sufficient margin or errors if turnout is higher than predicted.

Why Are We Shocked the 2018 Minnesota Legislative Session Ended in Disaster?

Why anyone should be shocked that the 2018 Minnesota Legislative session ended as one of the least productive in the state’s history?  It would have been more shocking if the governor and the

legislature had been able to agree on anything.
The roots of the problems that explain the 2018 failure are both long and short term, as well as structural and unique.  Recall first that recent Minnesota history foreshadowed  what happened this year.  This year was yet another example of what can be called the “new normal.”  The new normal refers to a process dating back 20 years where special sessions, government shutdowns, and failed legislative sessions are the rule and not the exception.  The new normal in Minnesota reflects a changing political climate in the state that started about 20 years ago.  This is no longer a solidly DFL state.  As the shifting partisan control of the governor’s office and legislature have shown over the last 20 years, Minnesota is a politically competitive and divided state.  Clinton’s relatively narrow presidential victory over Trump in the state in 2016 demonstrated that. 
Look at a map of Minnesota. It reveals from the presidency down to legislative and local races clear patterns of DFL and GOP control.  More importantly, the two major parties are polarized along a range of issues ranging from health care, mass transportation, taxes, guns, abortion, and preschool funding.  The two parties are relatively equally divided in strength and along their values, making  compromise difficult.
Secondly there is a collective action problem.  There is a collective interest in compromising and reaching political agreement in a timely fashion, but there is little individual or partisan incentive to compromise. Among the 201 seats in the Minnesota legislature, no more than about 15-20 in the House and perhaps a maximum of 10 are from swing districts.  The remainder are strongly Democratic or Republican, representing districts where legislators are elected to stand firm onto their partisan views.  It is only those legislators who come from the s wing districts–those with a real chance to flip from one party to another–is there an incentive to compromise.  Strong partisanship in one of these districts is a political liability.   A paucity of swing seats means less pressure to compromise, and throw in strong party government in the state and even in those swing seats there is powerful pressure to vote straight party line.  Third, reinforcing this partisan divide is a money and politics issue.  By that, entrenched special interests spend heavily via lobbying, independent expenditures, and contributions to candidates, parties, and legislative caucuses, solidifying partisan preferences and making compromise nearly impossible.
The above three forces are structural and long term.  But there are also personality-driven, unique, short term forces that made it no surprise nothing really got done.  First, Governor Dayton  was a lame-duck presiding over a Republican legislature.  One should never have expected them to cooperate given what had transpired for the previous seven years.  But add to that a GOP angry that Dayton last year line-item vetoed their funding in an effort to get them to make some policy changes.  The Minnesota Supreme Court gave the governor a Pyrrhic victory that Dayton threw away the start of this session when he restored funding to the legislature. 
Dayton got nothing from his veto.  He should have demanded policy changes first before he restored funding.  In effect, that court victory that looked so good to Dayton did him no good.  Instead, it angered the GOP who effectively decided to ignore the governor in his last session.  He was not going to get anything he wanted and instead the Republicans were going to pass what they wanted and play to their base.  They forced the governor into vetoes, with the aim being that they will run against a do-nothing DFL this fall.  The GOP simply decided that it will show its base what it can pass if they elect a Republican governor, and it did what it wanted to do in 2018.  Thus, this session started with the governor’s veto and the 2018 elections hanging over it, guaranteeing little would be accomplished.
Finally, there is a leadership issue here.  While parties or party polarization may be strong, leadership is weak in the sense of being able to prevent individual members of the legislature from offering bills to appease interest groups or constituents.  Moreover, safe-seat legislators are less dependent on party leadership and can pursue or push special legislation, often without fear that leadership will punish them for it.  This happened in 2017 and it happened again this year. Additionally, it just does seem any of the principal legislative leaders or the governor have the leadership skills to move beyond partisanship.
Overall, we should no longer be shocked that gridlock has become a defining characteristic of Minnesota politics.  The state has become a microcosm of so many of the problems found at the national level, suggesting diminished prospects for Capitol cooperation for the foreseeable future.

The Coming Republican State of Minnesota?

Minnesota Congressman Rick Nolan’s surprise decision not to seek re-election underscores how his state is at a political tipping point.  This most Democratic of states in 2018 could finally turn
Republican, following the path of Wisconsin and other Midwestern states.  What happens in Minnesota this year could also decide which party controls the US House and Senate, making the state ground zero in this year’s elections.
Minnesota is thought of as the liberal state of Hubert Humphrey, Eugene McCarthy, Walter Mondale, Paul Wellstone, and Al Franken.  It is the most reliable Democrat state when it comes to the presidency; the last time it voted Republican was for Nixon in1972.  Tim Pawlenty in 2006 was the last Republican to win a statewide election in Minnesota.
Yet there are many signs that the state is turning Republican.  Since 1999, the Minnesota House of Representatives has been controlled by Republicans fourteen out of twenty years.  Since 2010 party control of the State Senate has flipped three times.  Since 1999 a Democrat has controlled the governorship only eight years out of twenty.  When Democrat Mark Dayton won the governorship in 2010 he was the first of his party to win that office in Minnesota since 1986.
In 2016 Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 45,000 votes–the closest presidential race in the state since 1984 favorite son Walter Mondale barely eked out a victory over Ronald Reagan. That year Minnesota was the only state in country to vote Democratic.  Her close victory should not have been a surprise–exit polls put Minnesota at 37% to 35% in terms of Democratic/Republican affiliation, similar to the 36% to 33% split nationally.
From 2008 through the 2012 and then into the 2016 presidential elections, the actual number of votes and the percentage of votes received by the Democratic candidate declined.  In 2008 Barack Obama received 1,573,454 votes compared to John McCain’s 1,275,409–a difference of 298,045.  In 2012 the gap between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney narrowed to 225,942.  Then in 2016 it was 44,765 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump – a steady narrowing of the gap between the Democratic and Republican candidate.   In 2008, of the 87 counties in Minnesota, Obama won 42 of them.  In 2012 Obama won 28, and in 2016 Clinton only won nine counties.  In comparison, in the 2014 gubernatorial election, the Democrat Mark Dayton won 34 counties.
As with nationally, the Democrat’s base appears to be eroding, contracting to simply urban areas.  The reasons are multifaceted. There is the Democratic appeal to educated urban liberals, often more affluent who look down on or disdain as stupid their rural and suburban counterparts, or those who are working class because they do not share their same interests or lifestyle preferences. There is also the failure of both parties to pay attention to the class and economic concerns of white-working class America.  They abandoned  class for identity politics.   Democrats seem also to have a one-size fits all campaign strategy that works well with urban populations but which is not tailored to the suburbs and rural areas.  Democrats have also embraced a “demographics with destiny” argument that often assumes that history in on their side and that eventually voters will return to their senses and vote for them.  Finally, Republicans  have well exploited the economic and cultural fears of rural, suburban, working class America, offering a narrative resonates with those who feel ignored.  All this is true nationally, and is being played out too in Minnesota.
Minnesota may be ground zero for national politics this year.  There is an open race for governor and two US senators up for election.  While Amy Klobuchar is favored to win, Tina Smith–who replaced Al Franken after he resigned–faces a tough election and is no shoo-in.  Nationally there are only about 25 swing House seats in the country, but four of them are in Minnesota.  Two of them–Minnesota’s First and Eighth–are currently held by Democrats Tim Waltz and Rick Nolan and neither are running for re-election.  These are open seats that have flipped party control over the years and are leaning Republican; both went for Trump in 2016.  There are two other House seats, the second and third, respectively held by Jason Lewis and Erik Paulsen, that are rated competitive by the Cook Report as competitive, but still leaning Republican.  The fate of the partisan control of Congress might rest with who wins Senate and House races in Minnesota.
Finally, at the start of the year the Minnesota State Senate were respectively 34-33 and 77-57 Republican.  A court fight over whether a Republican state senator must give up her seat when she became Lieutenant Governor to replace Tina Smith (who held that job) may decide in the next few weeks partisan control of it.  Short of a wave election Republicans will maintain state house control.  If Republicans can win the open gubernatorial seat this November, they would perfect their control of Minnesota much like what happened in Wisconsin when Scott Walker won. Such a prospect would then set up all the conditions for major policy change in Minnesota, along with a real possibility that in 2020 it would finally flip Republican in the presidential election.

January 3, 2018–A Day of Constitutional Infamy in Minnesota Politics

January 3, 2018 might turn out to be one of the most important days in recent Minnesota history, both in terms of politics and constitutional law.  For it is on that date that Tina Smith takes over for Al Franken as US Senator, potentially triggering a major constitutional battle, and Rebecca Otto has oral arguments before the Minnesota Supreme Court in a case that will decide the power of the State Auditor.  These two events are part of a broader political battle in Minnesota politics that now engulfs the state constitution.
Minnesota is no longer your grandfather’s state where the Democratic Farmer Labor Party ruled.  While Minnesota remains the most loyal of Democratic states in terms of presidential politics by not having gone for a Republican since 1972 with Richard Nixon, it is otherwise a state that is partisanly divided.  Republicans control the legislature; the congressional delegation is split by parties, and Donald Trump nearly beat Hillary Clinton in 2016, coming within 50,000 votes of flipping the state.  Clinton won only nine counties in 2016, Dayton as governor won only 37 of the 87 counties in 2014, and in general the political geography points to a state hotly divided between  Hennepin, Ramsey, Olmsted, and St. Louis counties and the rest of the state.  Democrats have lost the farmers, and the dwindling density of the percentage of the state collectively bargaining means that it too may soon lose what is left of labor.
The partisan divide ha produced a polarization that has wrecked havoc on Minnesota.  It has included government shutdowns and repeated special legislative sessions that are no long special but the new normal.  But the intensity of the political divide has over the last decade, and especially in the last two years, taken the state to the level of constitutional fights.  When the Minnesota Constitution was significantly overhauled in 1972 it provisions were the product of the political consensus of the times, reflecting shared understandings about how the state and it various entities should work.  That shared consensus and understanding is gone, and with it the glue that held together state politics and the constitution.
Perhaps the first case in this new era of constitutional politics  was Brayton v. Pawlenty, 781 N.W.2d 357 (Minn. 2010), challenging the authority of the governor to use his unallotment powers to balance the budget when he simply disagreed with what the DFL Legislature wanted to do.  Then there were the 2011 Ramsey County Court decisions In re Temporary Funding of Core Functions in the Executive Branch of Minnesota and  In re Temporary Funding of Core Functions in the Judicial Branch of Minnesota that allowed for the funding of the state government even though there governor and the legislature had not agreed on a budget.  In 2012 the Republican Legislature was unsuccessful in its attempt to bypass the governor and amend the Constitution to change the law regarding voting and same-sex marriage. And last year the State Supreme Court failed to resolve the constitutionality of the governor’s use of the line-item veto to eliminate funding for the state legislature in response to their passage of budget bills he did not like.   While the Court did not officially rule in favor of Dayton in Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v. Dayton, 903 N.W.2d 609 (Minn. 2017), it effectively acquiesced this use of the line-item veto because the legislature was not without resources to act.
All this brings us to January 3, 2018.  Most notably the date will be known as the one where Senator Al Franken was replaced as US Senator by Lieutenant-Governor Tina Smith who was nominated to that post by Governor Dayton.   This leaves a vacancy in the Lieutenant-Governor’s position and according to Article V, Section 5, of the Minnesota Constitution: “The last elected presiding officer of the senate shall become lieutenant governor in case a vacancy occurs in that office.”  That would make it Senator Michele L. Fischbach (GOP)  who would become Lieutenant-Governor, creating a vacancy in her position and necessitating a special election for her senate seat under Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution.   Except that Fischbach does not want to give up her Senate seat and she and Republicans are trotting out a Minnesota Supreme Court decision State ex rel. Marr v. Stearns, 72 Minn. 200 (1898) as precedent to allow her to retain both her senate and lieutenant-governor seats.  There are lots of good reasons to think that precedent is bad law,  including the fact that some of the constitutional provisions at play in that decision were repealed  by amendment in 1972.
But the validity of the precedent is immaterial, as is who really fills the lieutenant-governor vacancy.  The case is about politics.  Democrats hope that forcing Fischbach out might shift the balance of power in the Minnesota Senate slightly, which was controlled 34-33 by the Republicans after the  2016 elections and which now is 34-32, pending a special election to replace a DFLer who had to resign.  Assume Democrats win the seat, forcing Fischbach out shifts the Senate to 33-33.  Once Fischbach becomes Lieutenant-governor, look to see a lawsuit filed to challenge her ability to hold both positions.  With a Dayton-appointed majority on the Minnesota Supreme Court, she will lose.  But the timing of the litigation, when a decision is issued, and when a special election occurs may all impact the Senate balance of power.  And at the end of the day, forcing Fischbach and Republicans to spend money to litigate and run for her seat again (Fischbach has said if she is forced out of her Senate seat she will run for her Senate seat again in a special election and if she wins will then resign as Lieutenant-governor) is worth it to some DFLers.
The other major January 3, 2018 event is Otto v. Wright County.  Here oral arguments will be heard challenging the authority of the State Legislature to take some audit authority from the State  Auditor by allowing counties to hire their own private auditors.  The case raises important constitutional law questions about separation of powers (may the legislature remove some powers from a constitutional office without undermining its core functions) and perhaps the single-subject rule (since the provision that authorized this was snuck into a larger bill with a variety of assorted and arguably unrelated provisions).  Otto v. Wright County has looming and important constitutional questions that will affect the state, but this case too was rooted in petty partisan and possibly intra-party fights that were meant to damage Rebecca Otto’s political ambitions.
Look for more constitutional battles in 2018 and beyond.  These battles will take the form of litigation and constitutional amendment.  These battles are the product of a political consensus that has broken down, challenging the norms and shared understandings that held state politics together for the last 50 years.