Court is next stage for state budget drama

06/23/2005

Patricia Lopez, Star Tribune
June 23, 2005

Eight days away from a partial state government shutdown, a Ramsey District Court judge will be asked today to step in and order continued state funding for essential services.

But in an unusual wrinkle, both Attorney General Mike Hatch and Gov. Tim Pawlenty have filed petitions asking the court to order funding for essential services, should budget negotiations go past June 30. That’s when the state’s current two-year budget expires, along with its authority to spend money on anything that hasn’t received a 2006-07 appropriation.

Much in the petitions is the same, but Hatch’s petition would make Pawlenty the subject of a court order to continue funding. Hatch also asks the court to fund broadly defined “core functions” of state government, and recommends that two specific “Special Masters” be appointed by the court to hash out the details of what qualifies. Hatch said he will give the court the names of two volunteers he wouldn’t identify.

Without a court order or authorization, spending for large portions of state government would have to cease on July 1.

Legislators have approved funding for some areas—higher education and public safety, for instance—but not others. That could lead to the partial government shutdown. Intervention by the court would lessen the effect of a shutdown but would not eliminate it. Many agencies would revert to skeletal crews and thousands of functions would be suspended.

It is, Hatch said, “a failure of government,” that could wind up hurting all incumbents. “If there’s a shutdown,” he said Wednesday, “very few [incumbents] ought to plan on being back here in a year and a half.”

Rhetoric like that could be part of the reason for the dual petitions, said Larry Jacobs, a political science professor at the University of Minnesota who said that within the competing petitions lies a tale of political intrigue and high-stakes chess.

As a potential gubernatorial opponent in 2006, Hatch has put Pawlenty in an awkward position, Jacobs said.

“In what may be a defining moment of his governorship, his [Pawlenty’s] chief nemesis could be controlling how the crisis is resolved. That’s a heck of a position for the governor to be in,” Jacobs said. “They’re left kind of tied at the ankles, snarling at each other.”

Jacobs likened the situation to a Vikings-Packers football game in which “Green Bay was told that the Vikings coach would be setting the rules.”

Pawlenty on Wednesday said that he has no bone to pick with Hatch in submitting a separate petition, but that he merely wants “my voice at the table.” Hatch has not openly challenged his decision, Pawlenty said

Indeed, Hatch said Wednesday that he will make no objection to Pawlenty as a dual petitioner.

But he added: “It’s stupid; it doesn’t make any sense; it’s political. It’s insulting to the court. But that’s up to the governor.” Hatch noted that in 2001, Gov. Jesse Ventura raised no objection to being named a respondent and worked actively with his office to present a single motion to the court. That shutdown was averted by hours.

Pawlenty has argued since early this month that Hatch’s possible gubernatorial candidacy may pose an insurmountable conflict of interest, leaving the DFL attorney general unable to adequately represent the Republican governor in court.

Hatch has said he does not represent Pawlenty but rather the state.

Should the court actually rule on whether Pawlenty has equal standing as a dual petitioner, Jacobs said the constitutional implications could echo long after the shutdown is a distant memory.

“It could mean, essentially, that the governor’s office could have independent legal standing, apart from the elected attorney general,” Jacobs said. “This is a very important issue about the division of power in state government. This could come up in future cases where the governor and attorney general find themselves at odds on a whole range of issues.”

Hatch disagrees, saying he is not contesting Pawlenty’s petition, although he notes that the court will have to choose between his request for a court order and Pawlenty’s request for authorization.

As for the continued funding itself, Pawlenty and Hatch both said they are seeking a quick ruling.

“We’re hopeful that we’ll get a ruling later the same day or by Friday morning,” said Brian McClung, Pawlenty’s press secretary.

The hearing had been set for next Wednesday, but Pawlenty asked that it be moved up to accommodate road construction projects. If it were held June 29 and the court should find that such projects were not essential, Pawlenty had said, they could not be shut down properly before funding ran out.

But Jacobs said the court may be reluctant to issue a ruling too quickly. “I suspect they may want to let the political process play out,” he said. “Anything that takes the tension off the business at hand is a distraction, and the courts generally don’t want to get caught up in that. I’d be surprised if the court stepped in on any of these issues before they absolutely had to. Courts do not like to become part of the political process.”