Is Minneapolis Ungovernable?

Is Minneapolis ungovernable?  Increasingly critics, usually conservative,  point to a host of factors
suggesting that the city has become ungovernable.  The culprit in this indictment is party or partisanship.  While the ungovernability charge may be overblown, it does speak to an issue than no one is talking about in this year’s mayoral election–how the city is changing and why a rethinking of the structure of city government may be desirable and necessary to accommodate these changes.
The symptoms of ungovernability are many.  Look to the endless and overdue completion  of the construction on Nicollet Mall, or the increased traffic jams downtown caused by ill-planned or coordinated road construction.  There are racial disparities in educational outcomes, the persistent segregation, high taxes, the economic imbalance among races and across neighborhoods, and what some would allege are a police department out of control, or at least a police department where the mayor and the police chief seem out of sync.  And then some would point to a mayoral election four years ago producing 38 candidates, or on a policy level, adoption of a $15 per hour minimum wage.  For some, these and other examples point to a city out of control, one needing limits placed on its ability to legislate as was the aim by Republican state legislative bills this past session.
Many of these examples do point to problems within Minneapolis, but they may be symptoms of deeper issues.  For Republicans and conservative critics the problem is single-party DFL rule.  There is some truth to the concern that single-party dominance fails to provide sufficient checks on political excess and perhaps it might be good if the city elected one or two Republicans to the city council or even the state legislature.  If the latter, then perhaps Republicans might have more interest in the city because a member of their own party would be advocating for Minneapolis.  Yet Minneapolis is not completely single-party rule; the DFL is generationally divided between the old  Baby Boomer farmer labor party and the Millennial identity politics parties.  Yes, Minneapolis is a leaning left city, but simply to argue that it is ungovernable because of that is not accurate.
Many of the other problems that Minneapolis has are not unique to it.  Road repair and construction coordination is a regional issue in Minnesota and it demands better planning across jurisdictions.  The concerns about policing in Minneapolis are not new.  Lincoln Steffens’ 1904 The Shame of the Cities lists even back then Minneapolis and its police department to be corrupt or poorly managed.  Problems of segregation and the racial disparities across many benchmarks are metropolitan- if not state-wide; the suburbs and failed state policies are as much if not more to blame  than anything Minneapolis has done.  The symptoms of ungovernability some point to are not the fault of Minneapolis and may light in the need to rethink and expand regional governance or coordination as once was the dream of the Met Council.
Finally, one can also assert that the city is not ungovernable.  But most national accounts,  the city works and produces a quality of life that is outstanding for most residents.  It has a strong economy, great parks, a vibrant arts sector, and many decent neighborhoods.  Yes, many–especially the poor and people of color are being left behind–but that is not unique to Minneapolis.  This is the sad story of how race, class, and gender divide America and how neither the Democrats nor Republicans nationally over the last 30-40 years have done much to address these issues in a satisfactory way.  The failures of Minneapolis are the failures of the United States.
But if Minneapolis is ungovernable perhaps it is time to reconsider the structure of the city government.  More or less, the basic structure of the city government has not changed in a half of century of not more.  By charter, it is a city with a weak mayor and a strong city council.  The basic duties of the two have not changed over time, but the challenges facing the city have grown ever more complex in the last half century.  The complexities arising from changing demographics, economic conditions,and generations.  The population alone now is the largest it has been since the early 1970s, and there are more cars in the city and around it ever.  Minneapolis is now the economic hub of 16th largest metropolitan statistical area in the US, and the population surrounding the city is greater than it has ever been.  In many ways, Minneapolis faces pressures and challenges it has never  previously confronted, yet it is still trying to do that with a political structure that may be dated.
The solution is not clear but a serious charter revision may be in order.  Perhaps the city should consider creating a stronger mayor form of government, or even consider a city manager option.  There may be other options too.  But the simple answer is that Minneapolis may wish to rethink how it governs itself, assessing whether the structure it presently has is the one it needs to face the present and future needs of the city and its people.

Why the Supreme Court Should Rule that the Vote for 15 MN Amendment is Legal

The decision to place the $15 minimum wage on the ballot in Minneapolis is up to the State Supreme
Court.  And it all comes down to what is considered to be a legitimate local municipal function under state law.  If it decides the issue correctly, the Court will reject old, wooden, out-dated conceptions of the law and conclude that a legitimate municipal function includes  promoting the public welfare of its citizens through establishing minimum wage laws.
In her decision ordering the “Vote for 15 MN” charter amendment to be placed on the ballot, Judge Robiner’s decision turned on an interpretation of Minnesota Statutes, §410.07 which declares that permissible content for charter amendments extends to “ any scheme of municipal government not inconsistent with the constitution, and may provide for the establishment and administration of all departments of a city government, and for the regulation of all local municipal functions, as fully as the legislature might have done before home rule charters for cities were authorized by constitutional amendment in 1896.”  The City of Minneapolis did not argue that the Vote for 15 MN amendment was unconstitutional or pre-empted by state law, although that could be an issue central to the Supreme Court’s resolution of the issue.
But the core issue is one whether charter amendments should be narrowly construed to address only the structure of government, such as size or powers of city council, or can it extent beyond that to address what looks like policy issues normally reserved for ordinances.  Thus, what is a legitimate local municipal function?
Robiner resolved the dispute by resorting to a traditional canon of statutory interpretation in arguing that  § 410.07 should be read in a way to give effect to all the words and clauses in the law.  To read the breath of “all municipal functions” as merely repetitious of the content of what charter amendments may do when it comes to addressing “any scheme of municipal government” would fail to give effect to all the statute’s language.  This is good argument, yet her conclusion rendering “all municipal functions” as essentially allowing charter amendments to serve as initiatives or referenda is certain to be met with skepticism by the Supreme Court.  A better route would have been to argue that the reading the City of Minneapolis forces on “all municipal functions” is simply outdated.
Take us back to the nineteenth century.  At that time there were two legal principles that guided municipal law.  The first was Dillon’s Rule.  Dillon’s Rule came from court decision’s in Iowa and it declared that local governments only had narrowly defined powers that were either expressly in implied by state law.  Cities had no inherent powers of their own as they were legal creatures of the state.  These legal  propositions were also true in Minnesota.  However, Home Rule constitutional and statutory provisions, across the country and in Minnesota, have significantly changed if not eviscerated Dillon’s Rule.  Now in Minnesota and across the country home rule cities enjoy broad powers, in many cases that have acquired similar powers as acquired by state legislatures, unless otherwise preempted by state law.
A second major legal change involves what is considered a legitimate municipal function.  More than 100 years ago housing code or zoning ordinances were not considered legitimate municipal functions.  Providing for sanitation, fire protection, or other regulations to serve the public  would not be considered acceptable city functions in the nineteenth century.  The law made a distinction between cities acting in the governmental versus their proprietary  functions.  Maintaining a police department was a city acting in its governmental capacity, running a golf course or a recreation center was not.
Yet nationally this governmental versus proprietary distinction has significantly eroded.  In part that has happened because of an overall expansion or recognition in terms of the scope of what  state governments may do.  States have what is called broad police power authority to regulate to protect the health, safety, welfare, and morals of its people.  The police power authority of states have expanded over time such that few would contest that they lack the authority to do things such as regulate workplaces, including setting minimum wages.
Expansion of what is considered legitimate state functions in an era of home rule that what is considered a legitimate municipal function too has grown.  There is no reason to think that cities cannot too legislate to protect the welfare of its citizens.  This is a legitimate municipal function and that is the that ought to be effected to  § 410.07.

Making Sense of the 2014 Minnesota Legislative Session–A Tale in Four Parts

  
Legislative sessions in Minnesota produce defining themes.  These narratives allow observers to make sense out the political debates and the policies that emerge. Often times these narratives also influence the legislators themselves, acting almost as invisible hands that move participants in ways that look as if they are serving broader goals.  The 2014 legislative session too had its defining themes; in this case four stand out.

The DFL Delivered the Goods
    For good or bad, the DFL delivered on their promises because they were in charge.  This is the result of unified government.  When all is told the Democrats largely did what they promised.  They raised the minimum wage, passed anti-bullying legislation, cut taxes, passed a massive bonding bill, and also did more.  The DFL acted like, well, Democrats are expected to act and they made no real missteps or mistakes in the process.  They did fail to address the constitutional problems with the civil commitment process for sexual offenders, but no one seriously thought they would do that in an election year.  They also failed miserably to pass new disclosure laws for campaigns and elections, but outside Representative Winker and Senator Marty DFLers seem to have little appetite  for government ethics issues.  But come November they will tell the voters that they did what the aimed to do, that it bettered Minnesota, and that because of that they deserve to retain single party control.
    But for all that they did, the Republicans will use it against them.  All of the accomplishments or victories that the DFL will triumph the Republicans will say is the reason why they should be elected.  They will argue that the DFL damaged the economy with a higher minimum wage, that the tax cuts are illusionary given the massive increases the year before, that  the Democrats overreached into social issues, and that the bonding bill was simply an example of wasteful pork to buy votes. They will also try to talk about the botched rollout of MNSURE and excess spending on a new Senate office building.  Republicans will say the DFL acted like Democrats–as tax and spend liberals–and that their party has a better or different vision on state government.  Republicans and Democrats will offer contrasting views on the role of the state in Minnesota, with both parties making the election a referendum on the DFL’s performance. 

Dayton is in Charge
    What became clear here is the extent to which Dayton is in charge–not only as governor but also in terms of the legislative session.  His agenda largely defined what happened.  He wanted tax cuts and got them despite the desire of Tom Baak to save more of the surplus.  Dayton wanted a larger bonding bill, he got it.  Dayton was originally opposed to medical marijuana and the bill was dead until late in the session when he changed his mind and the policy got a second wind.  Dayton also used the bully pulpit effectively to structure what would go into many of the other laws that were passed–sprinklers for high end homes–and he generally imposed line of the legislature to act and the generally followed.  The governor in his first two years often took a passive roll in the legislative process.  Think about the law legalizing same-sex marriage.   For much of that debate he simply said that if the legislature passes the law he would sign it.  Dayton took that position on many bills.  But this session he went from being a passive participant to an active force in the legislature.

Suburban Soccer Moms Win (sort of)
    Suburbs are the battle ground for political power and control in Minnesota and the votes that drive who wins there are the soccer moms.  The suburban soccer mom is the single most important  swing voter in the state, and whoever wins or controls their vote wins statewide office and control of the legislature.
    Women in general, but especially the soccer mom, are central to Democrat and DFL success. Nationally there is a huge gender gap, with women far more likely to vote for Democrats than Republicans.  Suburban women have left the Republican party for many reasons–reproductive rights, health care, and other family security issues, even while their male counterparts stay with the GOP.  Women are a larger percentage of the electorate than men and inn presidential election years they show up to vote.  But in now presidential years, they do not.  In part that is why Democrats do so badly in midterm elections.  This was the case in 2010 when Democrats nationally and in Minnesota were routed, but Dayton managed to capture enough female voters to win.  Come November 2014  what women will do–vote or stay home–will determine the fate of the Democrats.
    It should not come as a surprise then that in 2014 the DFL did what it could to reach out to female voters, giving them a reason to vote Democrat.  For the most part, women did well this session and one could say that the soccer mom in Edina with three kids was the winner.  Consider  four pieces of legislation.
    First, the passage of the anti-bulling legislation addressed an issue of core concern to mothers–their children being bullied.  No parent wants their children bullied, but this is an issue that resonates with moms more than dads.  Second, the Women’s Economic Security Act was a high profile bill aimed to eliminate employment and economic barriers facing women such as child care, discrimination, and sexual harassment issues.  Third, legalization of  medical marijuana was entirely an issue driven by women.  The so called “mommy lobby” was instrumental in overcoming the Governor’s reluctance in opposing the law enforcement community (one of his biggest supporters).  In fact, not until after Dayton was confronted with women telling stories about how their children needed medical marijuana did he move.  The mommy lobby gave the DFL cover on this issue.  The one surprise?  The DFL did not pass the Toxic Chemicals bill, a law that would have given parents more information about children's products to disclose presence of chemicals of concern in them.  This should have been a no-brainer, but it failed, perhaps due the lobbying presence of Minnesota’s  powerful food industry.  But on balance, suburban women did well by the DFL.

Evidence-Based Policy
    Ronald Reagan once said facts were stubborn things.  Facts can empower but often times facts have little impact on decisions, or at least certain kinds of facts.  Many of us hope that legislators will make policy based on evidence, but as I have written in American Politics in the Age of Ignorance: Why Lawmakers Choose Belief Over Research, there are many reasons why this is often not the case.  Alternatively, what lawmakers consider as facts is different from what social scientists or scientists consider as facts.  Consider again the medical marijuana bill.
    The medical profession is absolutely correct–there is no evidence substantiating the therapeutic effects of medical marijuana.  The type of evidence they are looking for is the classic controlled experiment, perhaps a double-blind test involving placebos.  But this type of evidence is seldom what moves policy makers.  For them, personal stories from constituents, often anecdotal, is seen as compelling and powerful.   Moms testifying before the legislature with children in hand, telling personal stories about how medical marijuana helped their children, is hard to resist.  These political facts are more likely to move  public officials than the kind that sway doctors and scientists and they were enough to move the governor and legislature this term on a host of issues that might otherwise lack real evidentiary support.   It is these kind of political facts that also move voters.
    Thus when it comes time to spin the story of the 2014 Minnesota legislative session the above four narratives define what happened.  How compelling these stories are, what they mean, and how the parties will frame them, will determine to a large extent who wins the 2014 elections.

What does it mean to be a progressive Democrat today?

What does it mean to be a Democrat let alone a progressive one  these days?  The question was prompted by my recent op-ed in Minnpost where in response to an argument against the State of Minnesota granting the NFL tax exemptions to host the Super Bowl, one reader wrote that he supported public funding for the stadium along with the tax breaks, and that he was a Democrat and a “fairly far to the left one too.”
    Since when does a progressive Democrat support tax subsidies and breaks for billionaires and hugely profitable private companies that generate few jobs for working people and provide entertainment (in person) that only a few can afford?  I thought that was what the Republican Party did?  With Democrats like this, who needs Republicans.
    But the debate over tax breaks for the Vikings stadium and the NFL does prompt a broader debate about what it means to be a Democrat or a progressive these days?   It is certainly not  good old-fashioned economic liberalism.  This is not Bill Clinton liberalism that supported NAFTA and welfare reform and which Mitt Romney once warmly embraced as the kind of Democratic Party politics he liked. 
    Instead, the progressive politics that appears dead is that of Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, and even Teddy Roosevelt. It is about a 21st century version of the Great Society and the New Deal.  It is about redistributive politics that seek to raise those at the economic bottom, narrow the gap between the rich and poor, and wrestle control of political power in the United States from corporations and plutocrats.  It is about the spirit of John Rawls, Michael Harrington, and Dorothy Day and a commitment to believing that the government has an important role in make sure we are a nation that is  not one-third ill-fed, ill-clothed, and ill-housed, that kids should not go off to school hungry, and that corporations should not have the same rights as people.  It is the idea that we help out the least advantaged and most vulnerable first and that the rich have an obligation to help the poor.
    What has taken over for Democrat Party politics is warmed over Republicanism–the centrist sort of corporate politics that some GOP once represented but now have  abandoned as it races further and further to the right, embracing xenophobia, homophobia, and a market fundamentalism that Social Darwinists would embrace. Oh, and vaccines cause mental retardation and global warming does not exist, at least this is what many current Republicans believe.  Even the Republican Party of Abe Lincoln supported civil rights, but not this party–instead it is committed to fine vision that a nineteenth century politician would weep over.  But now consider the Democrats.
    Start at the top.  Obama ran promising change.  The reason why so many are disappointed in him is not that he was too far left but that instead he failed to deliver on his lofty promises.  At inauguration Obama had a window to change America but he flinched.  Carpe diem was not his motto.  But in reality, Obama was never a progressive.  He ran for president opposing a single payer health insurance plan and instead embraced the Republican plan that Mitt Romney adopted in Massachusetts.  Obama was not originally in favor of repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and he did not embrace same-sex marriage until public opinion and political necessity dictated he do so.  
    Obama has deported more  individuals than any other president, he supports coal and nuclear power, and his big victory in repealing the Bush era tax cuts came with a reinstating of the payroll tax, imposing on Americans a more regressive and costly tax system than before.  Obama also defends the use of drones to kill Americans abroad, and he refuses to make any serious changes in an NSA surveillance program that  runs roughshod on the civil liberties of Americans. And in 2008 he took more money in from Wall Street than any presidential candidate in history.
    Across the board many Democrats seem confused to their identity.  They support public subsidies for downtown ball park stadiums and convention centers ahead of neighborhoods.  They defend NSA spying on Americans except when they are spied on.  They take little action to address the impact of money in politics and instead beg for money from big donors and PACs.  They offer few real substantive ideas regarding how to tackle issues such as the achievement gap and the economic discrimination against women (who still make only 77% of what men make).
    Worst of all Democrats lack the guts to fight.  Why?  Democrats (and one should not confuse the current party with progressivism) believe that they are the caretakers for government.  They believe that they need to be responsible and not run the risk of shutting the government down for fear of how it would ruin the economy or hurt people.  But conservatives know this and take advantage of the Democrats willingness to blink.  But guess what?  By blinking the Democrats are screwing over poor people and the economy slowly by giving ground one inch at a time and they seem unable to recapture it. Until Democrats are willing to fight and show conservatives they are willing to shut the government down and hold conservatives responsible they will never win.
    What passes for progressive  Democratic Party politics seems so bland.  Same-sex marriage?  Supporting it a decade ago was progressive but now that is mainstream.  Opposing NSA spying on Americans?  Even Rand Paul does that.  No one should be against strengthening anti-bully legislation.  This is not progressive politics but just common sense.  Yes, raising the minimum wage to an adequate level is good progressive politics, but few talk of living wages these days.
    Progressive politics is dead so long as it is married to the current Democrat Party.  Progressives need their own TEA Party revolution on the left–one that engineers a new rhetoric and take over of the party.  One that is not willing to play it safe and worry that if a few Democrats lose  that means the Republicans win.    It means a willingness to fight for what you believe in.  It also means believing in something worth fighting for.

Previewing the 2014 Minnesota Legislative Session: Issues and Contrasting Agendas

    This week the Minnesota Legislature reconvenes. To predict the dynamics of the 2014 session one needs to understand how the governor, the House and the Senate, and the Democrats and Republicans all have different interests in what should happen in this short session.  While in some cases their interests may converge, there are also powerful forces that may push them in very different directions, potentially creating interesting conflicts that set up the 2014 elections.  Specifically, lookto see how party, region, and chamber and branch of government create contrasting interests in what happens in the 2014 session.

The Issues
    What are the major issues for the 2014 session?  Passing a bonding bill is the main reason for the session.  Estimates are that a bill of about $800 million is what both the Democrats and Republicans seem to want, but beyond the amount, the exact projects remain in dispute.
    Second, left over from 2013 are three issues–a hike in the minimum wage, anti-bullying legislation, and a fix to the civil commitment program for sexual offenders.  All three are hugely controversial items that will divide the parties.  Third, the legislature needs to decide what to do with the budget surplus–spend or save.  Finally, other issues such as whether to repeal the business warehouse tax, finding a more permanent funding solution for the Vikings stadium, and business law reform (something Dayton has talked about) are possibilities.
    What will we not see in 2014?  Government ethics reform.  Minnesota’s government ethics laws in terms of disclosure and conflict of interest are vastly out of date.  The legislature made it worse last session in voting to change the gift ban law for themselves, making it yet again possible for them to be wined and dined by lobbyists.  Representative Winkler is correctly proposing in HF  1986 to undue this exemption, but it will be a shocker if this legislation passes.  But even if it does more reforms are needed.  The state could use a revolving door bill to place limits on former legislators from coming back and lobbying the legislature at least for a year.  About half the states have laws like this.  More lobbyist disclosure, legislator conflict of interest of laws, ethics laws for law governments, and contribution limits to the parties and caucuses are all needed.  But don’t expect to see any of these reforms proposed.

The Coming Elections
    Overshadowing the session are the 2014 elections.  The governor is up for re-election as is the entire House of Representatives.  This is not necessarily a good year for Democrats.  No this is not 2010 all over again where anger against Obama and health care reform mobilized Republicans, depressed Democrat turnout, and swung independents toward the GOP.  This year Dayton’s approval ratings are riding high, as are Senator Franken, and perhaps there are some coattail affects here.  Yet  in a non-presidential election year Minnesota’s voter turnout drops to the low to mid 50s–a 20 or so plunge from presidential election year turnouts.  The biggest loss comes in terms of voters who generally support Democrats–the young, women, and people of color.  Democrats can do well this year in Minnesota, but they need to mobilize their base and keep the swing voters on their side.
    This means, at least for the Democrats, that they want this to be a short legislative session where they can get their main task accomplished–passing a bonding bill–while giving the Republicans little opportunity to find anything to use against them in the election.  Thus in general Democrats will not push too hard this session, much to the dismay of many of their supporters.  Conversely, Republicans are looking for inroads, wedge issues of use to them that will rally their base and peal away independent voters from the Democrats.
    Don’t look to see gay marriage be a 2014 general election issue.  It is a loser for Republicans, except as an issue to use within the party to beat up fellow party members.

Contrasting Political Agendas
    However, the DFL House, Senate, and Dayton have contrasting interests.  The entire House is up for  election and the DFL there do not want to tackle issues that will hurt them.   The Senate is not up for election. At best, there are probably no more than a dozen or so seats that are swing in the House, and the DFL will need to hold them to keep their majority.  Look for them to avoid medical marijuana and anti-bullying legislation.  Both are too controversial and may be perceived to be issues that produce political backlash from conservatives.  Moreover, the DFL has said that they want to move on minimum wage, but again don’t look to seem them push for a wage that really makes a difference.  It would make sense to pass meaningful minimum wage laws and with a built-in index for future automatic increases.  The DFL may have only this session to address the minimum  wage issue and if it were smart it would take advantage of the opportunity.
    No one wants to touch the sex offender civil commitment program.  It is probably unconstitutional but any change in the law lends to potential partisan criticism that the other is soft on sex crimes.  This is an issue that both parties would rather see go away–at least until 2015.  Alternatively, the GOP would love the DFL to act, giving the former a great issue for the 2014 elections.
    Additionally, the DFL needs to decide what to do with the budget surplus.  The House would love to be Santa Claus and do a tax cut–such as repeal the business warehouse tax–or provide other cuts that will be politically popular.  The DFL Senate does not see it that way, perhaps preferring to save it in a rainy day fund.  So far Governor Dayton has not made it clear what his priorities are, and his interests may be closer to the House in terms of what to do.
    Among other types of legislation that need to be addressed is fixing the fix. By that, the fix to the Vikings Stadium funding is still not financially secure it needs revisiting.  The money to pay for the  state’s share of the stadium is still not built on a secure revenue stream and unless another one is found, the public will be paying for the stadium out of general revenue.  Looming over the session also will be MNSure.  How it operates in the next few months and what might be done  legislatively about it may be one of the make or break political issues in the coming session.
    Finally, plans by Polymet mining pose a huge risk for the DFL, potentially pitting urban progressives and environmentalists against unions and Iron Rangers.  While there are no immediate calls for legislative action on this issue there is still the potential that it could creep up in bills, forcing the Democrats to make difficult choices.

Conclusion
    No legislative session is devoid of politics.  The same will be true in 2014.  How that politics plays out in next couple of months will tell us a lot about what might happen in the November elections.  For now, look to see how the issues divide along the party, branch and chamber of government, and region.