Sen. Kiscaden: Legislative Update 6
04/26/2006
Dear Friends,
We are in the last month of the 2006 Legislative Session. Overall, we have had a productive session with strong efforts to find solutions to the issues before us. We have tried to limit the agenda and are still on track to finish on time, although that is likely to mean that some issues are left on the table. Our focus has been on the bonding bill, addressing a limited array of budget issues, eminent domain, and the supplemental budget. The Senate has tried to focus the budget discussions on priority areas: providing property tax relief, supporting safe communities (sexual predator, mentally ill and dangerous, and expanded mental health services), helping young children begin school ready to learn, protecting the environment, and expanding Minnesota’s biotechnology and genomics initiatives.
The funding to expand the University of Minnesota Rochester is the only higher education funding approved this year, genomics research funding has been included in the Senate budget (although not yet at the level we are seeking), and the biotechnology business center and the public safety training facility have both been assured of inclusion in the final bonding bill.
This rather long update will provide an overview of a number of other issues:
1- Senate Approves Property Tax Relief
2- Clean Water Legacy and Environmental Proposals
3- Proposed Constitutional Amendments
4- Three Governors: Past Wisdom, Present Challenges, Future Vision
1- Senate Approves Property Tax Relief
The Minnesota Senate has passed a bill that provides property tax relief through aid to schools and local units of government. The last several years the Governor’s ‘no new tax’ pledge has led the state to balance its budget by transferring costs to local units of government who rely on property taxes. As a result, property taxes on homes and farms have risen by 24 percent on a statewide average.
State cuts to schools and cities and counties have led to increased property taxes. Families and businesses are really feeling the squeeze so I’m glad the Senate made property tax relief a top priority for the session.
The Senate tax the bill provides $154 million of one-time property tax relief to local governments and schools and $244 million of aid every two years. In our area that would mean the bill also includes $60 million to counties for child protection services to help offset federal budget cuts that are coming down the pike.
The federal cuts for certain social services do not release counties from their responsibilities to provide the services, so these federal reductions will turn into higher property taxes for homeowners and businesses. The Senate wants to help counties avoid property tax increases by providing funding to replace the federal cuts.
Some of the tax relief in the bill is paid for by tightening a loophole that lets some corporations use Foreign Operating Corporations (FOC) to shelter income to avoid paying taxes. The change will bring in $160 million in 2007 and almost $125 million a year from then on. This is an issue of fairness. If we expect main-street businesses to pay their fair share of taxes, large corporations should have the same expectation. This is a simple and clean way to define U.S. income, using the federal definitions of what is taxable versus foreign income.
The Senate now awaits action from the House. Once the House passes its tax bill both bills will be sent to a conference committee where the differences will be resolved. A final bill will be sent to the Governor for his signature into law.
2- Clean Water Legacy and other Environmental Proposals:
Last Saturday, April 22, the Coffee and Conversation group sponsored a public forum that was attended by over 140 people. The forum concentrated on the proposed Clean Water Legacy, a proposal for how Minnesota could meet federal requirements to repair our waters or face prohibitions and restrictions on development. I am attaching a handout that provides a quick overview of a number of environmental proposals that are before the Legislature this year: the Clean Water Legacy, Dedicated Sales Tax, the Mercury Emissions proposal, and the proposed Renewable Energy Standard.
3- Constitutional Amendments:
There have been a number of constitutional amendments proposed to be put before the voters on the November ballot. Four have received hearings and discussion:
1) Dedication of the Motor Vehicle Sales Tax
2) Dedication of Sales Tax for Environment, Natural Resources, Arts
3) Prohibition of Same Sex Marriage
4) Right to Affordable Health Care
1)-Motor Vehicle Sales Tax (MVET)
Last year the Governor vetoed a transportation bill that had bipartisan support for a gas tax increase and a proposed constitutional amendment for dedication of the MVET to transportation. Since the Governor cannot veto proposed constitutional amendments, the November ballot is scheduled to propose the question to the voters of dedicating 60% of the tax to highways and 40% to transit. There has been considerable concern about how the question is worded, mainly because some fear that the way the question is worded could result in highways receiving less than 50% of the funding. There is active discussion about the pros and cons or rewording the ballot question. However, it appears likely that it will appear on the ballot in November. I have been supporting this amendment.
2) Sales Tax for the Natural Resources, the Environment, Arts:
This proposal has gone through many different permutations over the last three years, and this year is no exception. Sportsmen and fisherman have sought to dedicate funding to protect and restore wildlife and fish habitat by dedicating sales tax revenue to that purpose. The question has now become whether a portion of the sales tax should be dedicated to natural resources, conservation (including the clean water legacy), parks, and trails, zoos, museums and the arts. Some of the proposals call for dedicating the use of the existing sales tax, others call for increasing the sales tax by up to 3/8ths of a cent. There is also a great deal of debate about whether it should be used for. There are strong differences between the House and Senate and among members about the wisdom of dedicating sales tax constitutionally, about whether or not to propose to increase the sales tax, and whether or not the arts, parks and trails, and the impaired waters clean-up should be included.
There are many reasons to oppose this proposal, and it appears that it will be very difficult to resolve all the differences and get the measure on the ballot. I have supported the proposal thus far, but have strong reservations about dedicating funds because it reduces the Legislature’s ability to manage the budget. The experience of other states clearly demonstrates that reality. If the final proposal is too broad and does not include a proposal to increase sales taxes for that purpose, I will oppose it.
3) Same-sex Marriage Amendment:
The most contentious proposed amendment, and the one that has been getting the most press coverage is the Same-sex Marriage Amendment, usually referred to by proponents as the “Defense of Marriage Act”.
The question to be proposed is:
“Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that the state and its political subdivisions shall recognize marriage or its legal equivalent as limited to only the union of one man and one woman?”
I have received hundreds of postcards about this amendment. Here is what I have concluded.
In 1971, the Minnesota Supreme Court in the matter of Baker v. Nelson set case law on the matter of marriage when it declared that only a man and a woman may marry in Minnesota. They wrote, in part, “These constitutional challenges have in common the assertion that the right to marry without regard to the sex of the parties is a fundamental right of all persons and that restricting marriage to only couples of the opposite sex is irrational and invidiously discriminatory. We are not independently persuaded by these contentions and do not find support for them in any decisions of the United States Supreme Court.” The Court declared, “We hold, therefore, that Minn.St. c. 517 does not authorize marriage between persons of the same sex and that such marriages are accordingly prohibited.”
In 1997, Minnesota passed the Defense of Marriage Act that defined marriage as a contract between a man and a woman. Our Statute 517.03 expressly prohibits “A marriage between persons of the same sex” and “A marriage entered into by persons of the same sex, either under common law or statute, that is recognized by another state or foreign jurisdiction is void in this state and contractual rights granted by virtue of the marriage or its termination are unenforceable in this state.” I voted in favor of that Act and that definition. However, I do not support putting this question on the ballot for several reasons.
We have a state law that defines marriage and a Supreme Court ruling that upholds that definition. Legal scholars have determined that it is highly unlikely that our law could be overturned. Our laws and our highest court have spoken on this issue, and our definition of marriage is secure.
The reality is that the scope of proposed amendment goes beyond marriage to affect all contracts and has the potential to inflict harm on a variety of Minnesota families. There are many hetero-sexual and same sex couples who have formed domestic partnerships or civil unions, many of whom have children. Prohibiting civil unions affects these non-traditional families access to a wide array of contracted and legal rights; such as disallowing them from sharing in the economic benefits of civil partnerships, forbidding them familial privileges such as hospital visits, and other basic obligations one has to those they love.
Finally, I believe that at its core this is a religious debate, not a legal debate. Reasonable discussion on this issue of same-sex marriage or civil unions should occur in churches and other religious bodies. At the present time there is strong disagreement between different faith communities. Some faith communities promote making a sacred, lifelong bond between couples who love each other and recognize both hetero-sexual and same-sex unions. Your faith may not view the issue in the same way. However, government should not choose which religious viewpoint is placed in the Constitution, but should preserve the freedom of individuals to follow their own consciences and beliefs on such a personal issue.
4) Right to Affordable Health Care
The Senate has a proposal that has not even been heard by the House that would put the following question on the ballot: “Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to state that every resident if Minnesota has the right to health care and that it is the responsibility of the legislature to implement all necessary legislation to ensure affordable care.”
Unlike the other constitutional amendments, this is the first year that this proposal has been considered. While this has been an initiative of Senate Democrats, it needs more discussion and more work. It will not pass this year, and I do not believe that it should.
4- Three Governors: Past Wisdom, Present Challenges, Future Vision
On Monday, May 8th at the Kahler Hotel, you can hear first-hand from former Minnesota Governors Wendell Anderson, Arne Carlson, and Al Quie. Last fall I attended a forum where these three presented their candid thoughts about leading and governing our fine state, and it was truly memorable. Their passion for Minnesota continues to inspire, and I am so pleased that the Rochester Area Foundation and the Coffee and Conversation group have invited them to make a similar presentation in Rochester. For just $10 you can have lunch and be inspired by these three statesmen. You can register by calling or emailing the Foundation: (507) 282-0203 or
To see the Environemental Chart Click HERE
Until next time*I hope all is well with you and yours,
Best regards,
Sheila Kiscaden
Senator Sheila Kiscaden
District 30
325 Capitol
St. Paul, MN 55155
651-296-4848