Committee on Elections - 03/21/24

[Music] no everyone it is Thursday March 21st 2024 at 3:05 p.m. and I am calling this meeting of the senate elections committee to order we do have a quorum present today we are consider continuing our consideration of the elections policy Omnibus Bill on Tuesday Senator Carlson made some opening comments and we heard some testimony we will not be taking further testimony today but we may ask um agency staff uh and others to answer questions if needed and uh we will start with amendments and the

n turn to member discussion Our Hope and Our intention will be to finish our business by 5:00 p.m. today so with that we are going to begin with uh Senate 5 4729 and we do have the um A5 de Amendment uh Senator Carlson do you move adoption of the A5 Amendment Madam chair um I move the a microphone other side your microphone microphone okay Madam chair move the adoption of the A5 Amendment okay author Amendment thank you Miss uh uh Senator Carlson all those in favor of adopting the A5 Amendment p

lease say I I opposed all right is the amendment is adopted it's not on there okay so the first uh we do have several amendments uh these have been posted um prior to the hearing today we are first going to take up the a17 which is Senator Carlson's technical Amendment uh Senator Carlson can you just briefly describe this amendment it's the a17 that should be in the packet it is in the packet yes thank you the a17 amend Amendment includes Madam chair the a17 amendment includes three primarily te

chnical changes on lines 1.3 to 1.5 it adds language to the list of items that need to be reported on a lobbyist report to clarify that costs involved in urging members of the public to contact local public officials will continue to need to be reported uh lines 1.6 to 1 uh 10 make clarifying changes suggested by uh Mr sigon of campaign Finance board to language about election earing Communications and lines 1.11 to 1.12 correct the schedule for conducting the post elction review with that Madam

chair okay have we moved I move the a17 uh Senator Carlson moves the a17 amendment any discussion all right all those in favor of adopting the a17 amendment please say I I any opposed all right the amendment is adopted okay um the next amendment is the A8 Amendment Senator Carlson do you want to move the A8 Amendment thank you madam chair I moved the A8 amendment to uh to the 4729 s file 7 4729 okay and this members is the um the doxing amendment that we heard uh it was sent to Judiciary and is

coming back and we are adding it into the Omnibus Bill any discussion or questions about this amendment all right all those in favor of adopting the A8 Amendment say I I opposed the A8 is adopted um we do have so just she's okay all right we do have a couple of additional amendments so we will have Senator Mitchell uh I understand you will be moving the a21 amendment yes Madam chair I would like to offer the a21 amendment all right the a21 amendment is in your um packets okay and would you like

to just give a brief explanation for this Senator Mitchell um yes thank you madam chair um right now there's a duplicative notice um that is required to be published for state general election so each County would need to publish the notter um for the Statewide and then the M municipality with an election and the Statewide general election ballot would also need to publish the notice in their record a paper of record um so the intent would be that um we would be able to condense this down and n

ot require double notices okay are there any questions or any discussion regarding this amendment all right seeing none all those in favor of the a21 amendment please say I I any opposed the a21 is adopted all right okay so um at this time are there any other amendments that members would like to offer Senator limmer hard to see you all the way down there I'll talk loud so you don't miss me Madam chair I'd like to introduce the a11 amendment okay staff should distribute the a11 I'll uh do you wa

nt me to explain it or do you want me to just wait for it to come why don't you go ahead and start your explanation while the amendment is being passed out thank you Senator um Madam chair and members this is a really a simple Amendment and it really does not do a lot to affect the particular bill substantively it's more of a technical Amendment uh this would remove the severability reference that's in the bill page 57 line section 93 and um if members don't know as we write statute and law ever

ything that we have in our statutes are severable so we really don't need this in any bill and I'll stand for questions thank you Senator Senator Carlson have you um seen this amendment Madam chair no I have not okay um I I do have a question and maybe Council can assist with this so as I understand it Senator lmer I think what you're saying is this this um section is unnecessary because it's already in law and so I'm wondering if Council um Can advise us on that point and we will give her a mom

ent to go ahead Miss dangle uh thank you madam chair and members there is a provision in chapter 645 about severability which I'm reading now because it's been a little while um but it does say that unless I'm reading from 64520 that says unless there is a provision in the law that Provisions shall not be severable the provisions of all laws shall be severable um if any provisions of a law is found to be unconstitutional and void the remaining provisions of the law shall remain valid unless the

court finds the valid Provisions are so essentially and inseparably connected with etc etc so there is a separability provision in chapter 64520 um the language in the bill is a little bit more um specific and precise than what you will see in chapter 645 however so they're not identical l which okay um so I guess then my my followup would be because this is different um than what is already in 645 um can you m maybe could you explain the differences and perhaps what the purpose of the severabil

ity Clause is in our bill uh I can I can try Madam chair um and this generally would be a question probably for the author of the bill but you'll see if you look on page 57 of the A5 Amendment on page 57 line 18 there's a legislative intent here so you'll see that this goes a little bit further than the severability clause in the statute and it says um the legislature intends that it would have passed a section um each individual piece of it um regardless of whether one piece is declared unconst

itutional so it it it takes a really strong stand about severability and really reinforces the idea that um this would have been passed regardless of whether any of it is struck down um whether it's constitutional or not so it it it adds maybe a piece of legislative intent to the conversation thank you Miss stangle and my understanding is the original author of this particular section of the um of our bill was um Senator M Quade who's who's clearly not here at this time to um to discuss the inte

nt behind including this but are there any other questions or any other um discussion regarding this amendment all right Madam chair request the Roll Call sure the roll call has been requested um all right the the the clerk will take the I hate calling you a clerk the clerk will take the role Senator Carlson no Senator wesland no Senator Karan yes Senator Anderson yes Senator bar hi Senator Balon no Senator sosinski NOP Senator dorning yes Senator limmer yes Senator Marty Senator Matthews yes Se

nator Mitchell no Senator Port no Senator rust Senator Marty he was on there for a second he's right there you know you should just [Laughter] quiet all right there being six eyes and seven Nays the motion does not Prevail oh okay um we do have oh sure go ahead um Senator balon's here and I know she did have an amendment if it's all right we could take hers and I'd be happy to come back to you Senator Senator Balden I believe you have the A6 amendment that is correct Madam chair can you describe

the amendment for us certainly uh this just adds some transparency for local candidate campaign Finance reports uh it would require information similar to what is required of State candidates just adding um some additional transparency to uh reporting would ask for member support thank you Senator any questions or discussion regarding the A6 Amendment all right no discussion Senator Carlson thank you madam chair I am aware of this amendment and I I support its passage okay thank you Senator uh

all those in favor of adopting the A6 Amendment please say I I any any opposed all right the A6 is adopted Senator cran thank you madam chair I do have I do have a quick question um I have an amendment but I just wanted to have a quick question on the a21 um it appears it it moves it all elections it sounds like it just adds the sample ballot is that correct Senator Mitchell Senator Mitchell the A on the a21 that you introduced Amendment the yes the a21 it was to keep duplicative notices from ha

ving to be published okay and then the the definition of 2 weeks before the election what date does that begin on and we do if staff or or Council can help sure we do have um Miss Freeman from the Secretary of State's office and perhaps she can answer this question for us Madam chair maybe more just generically is is two weeks before the election while we have the end of election season and we have the beginning of election season two weeks before for what is what and and that's what I'm looking

for M Freeman go ahead and identify yourself for the record thank you chair and Senator cran on Nicole Freeman Office of the Secretary of State um the two weeks here is before uh before the election is used throughout statute and that refers to election day the day of the election okay so so it that's many weeks after election the election begins Senator CR Miss is that correct yes so Mr chair or uh Senator senan Madam chair I was thinking Senator Carlson um I think we should and and Miss Freem

an I think all of these issues then we should at least consider a a definition for everywhere where we have um any any reference to election day it should be backed up to the beginning of when El or when elections begin which is we know 46 days before the end of the election what we used to know as election day which is now the end of election season and so a sample ballot four weeks into the election would seem to be have be less impactful than having the sample ballot two weeks prior to the be

ginning of election when ballots can the submissions can begin so I I I think we we need some work on all of these issues in which a sample ballot or any reference to election uh before the election um we don't have election day anymore and we have a beginning and end of election season if we're going to do sample ballots or anything else um that would need definition I would ask you to at least um look at that and make some corrections again sample ballot has minimal Val value a month into an a

fter after election or voting has started so um just a suggestion that that we could look through and uh and at least where it's impactful because everything that would follow that same line should be two weeks um before voting commences Senator Mitchell thank you madam chair and I just want to clarify because part of my um amendment was brought into this literally the one line in my amendment was not held in conjunction with Statewide elections the two weeks was already in our current law and s

o basically this is just saying if the municipal election and the general election are going on at the same time there doesn't have to be duplicative posting but um you know whereas if the municipal election was separate of course they would be doing their posting but if everything's on the same ballot we don't have to be posting it multiple times um I but again I just wanted to clarify because my Amendment was brought up that 2 weeks before the election the publish noticed that has already been

in the current law that was not something we changed Madam chair Senator Karan and Senator MIT yep I agree but to me I think it's an oversight for in an existing statute regardless of your of the amendment I I I lik your Amendment and uh but I think when we're going to Define it a sample ballot should begin two weeks before voting commences regardless of the election if we're going to have that so in this case um if we're going to do it two weeks before the end of election season that's a month

into voting so that's I'm just making the general comment of overall everything that we do I think we need to have a better definition in every area that touches that I'm sorry we've missed it up to this point and haven't had the dialogue um nobody has um we have to be really clear and and they they've certainly have the ballots ready two two weeks before um election season begins or they can pass their first ballot and so I'd ask Senator Carlson to consider um looking at those provisions and u

m considering modification before this bill moves towards uh or it gets to the floor so thank you Senator thank you or perhaps if not something that um would have some bipartisan support in the interim for the next session as well um Madam chair I think it's extremely important we' we've had right we we've referenced so many things about election day which we no longer have and so I think it's just been an Omission um collectively um for for the past uh many years since we went to the 46 days so

I think it should be considered and very clear so all right that's all I'm asking any any further amendments both Madam chair yes Senator cran I would like to move the A9 Amendment okay if staff can distribute the A9 Amendment Madam chair I go ahead um yeah the the A9 is it kind of goes we had a little dialogue about when this came through and it really refers to the um the.gov requirement for um those counties or municipalities people managing elections that it was tied to absentee balloting w

ell for the very purposes in which it was stated it would mean that it would be extremely valuable for any entity that is um managing elections and so this just removes the as a requirement of absentee voting and elections and requires all of them to um move to the.gov framework in the same manner in which the those others which were referenced to or driven by absentee uh voting it appears there's no logical reference to it um so that's what the amendment does I would encourage a uh yes vote and

request the Roll Call Madam TR I'm sorry was it's page 54 line 25 and line 26 is where the modifications are thank you Senator just trying to uh take a look here give me one second know ab and it's not written exactly in in ques it's not WR exactly way State thank you Senator cran this was my um my bill so I just wanted to refresh my recollection here I'm sorry I didn't reference the page oi number nope that's great we've we've got it um so uh the.gov bill that I proposed actually was narrow an

d it didn't include townships somewhat specific in part because I think um there are probably a lot of townships that may not even have um a web address let alone uh a you know any kind of a website and I um I guess one question I would have for you Senator Karan is whether have you talked to this I guess there's an association of townships or anyone to determine whether they were supportive of this and would there be an additional cost associated with if we bring in and Beyond just counties and

M Madam chair go ahead Senator so no I haven't um looking at good governance and because it doesn't appear to be any um again even though even the municipalities that don't administer absentee balloting um it is a significant cost to all of them I think the townships uh when we look out in the many years um I think the buffer is what two years what we whatever we added for to bring them into compliance I think we could have addressed them at that point but if the funding is available and it was

it was pulling on those that were I think the intention was pulling on a fund that was available to in the voter um in the Secretary of State to help offset some of those I think it should be available to everybody who administers all elections in the state and so for that again I encourage a yes vote thank you Senator um actually I'm wondering if um the Secretary of State's office might um come answer a couple of questions on this or weigh in on on this have you had a chance to look at the ame

ndment can Senator Carlson I heard it described okay great so um when this bill was drafted it was drafted somewhat narrowly and I think you've heard Senator Cray's um explanation for this and I'm wondering if the Secretary of State's office would have an opinion about um adopting this and expanding this to townships and smaller municipalities um Madam chair and members Nicole Freeman office of Secretary of State I don't believe that the office has an opinion on it um our office supported the um

supports jurisdictions moving to a.gov um and you know I think the one of the principal reasons on top of from a cyber security perspective um was um supporting the move towards that uh in order to um uh give uh the members of the public um a a way to know that they were accessing a trusted Source um that's what we've testified to before um and you know I know we were um keeping things to uh those that are um issuing absentee ballots um as those that are you know open for more days and have uh

that information on their websites okay thank you thank you Senator cran I just wanted to have an opportunity just as the author to kind of um wrap my head around this a little bit and uh at this point I I wouldn't be opposed to this amendment and I would view it as a friendly amendment to my original Bill any other discussion comments and we did Senator cran did request a roll call do you want to I would retract the roll call Madam chair okay all right Madam chair I if it's a friendly and and u

m Senator Carlson I guess I don't I don't know if Senator Carlson has spoken um and so I would make the uh the decision after I hear from Senator Carlson sure Senator Carlson do you do you have an opinion about I as the author of the original Bill I'm not opposed to this but do would you like to speak to this thank you madam chair I guess my question would be is there any uh Financial uh questions about um same that are are related to the the change in words it doesn't seem like it but right and

I think that the discussion that um Senator cran and I were having here was that we've already indicated that there would be voter funds potentially available um for the original Bill and so the I think the assumption would be that voter funds would be available for townships as well or other municipalities that were not originally included and Madam chair is the author of the original bill I I would say that this is acceptable to me okay sounds like there's consensus sure retract my roll call

okay thank you Senator cran um we are on the A9 Amendment all those in favor of adopting the amendment say I I opposed the amendment passes um any additional amendments Senator Matthews thank you madam chair I have the A10 Amendment okay maybe while that's being distributed you could you give us a brief description of it uh thank you madam chair um this is to the topic that we discussed at a recent hearing about special elections for uh vacancies with school districts uh and what my Amendment uh

per parts to do is to change the school district vacancy Provisions by clarifying that the new process only applies to a vacancy uh by by resignation not one that's created by a board removal uh which addressed some of the concerns uh with the bill um and if someone is removed by the board it would require a special election on the following November um and then the amendment uh deletes the 90day uh uh piece that's in law increases it to 120 days which I'm open to discussing about we had a disc

ussion about two years uh is it too long um is three months Too Short uh I'm open to discussing the date uh that's in the middle um and uh that's to ensure that if appointments uh are made if they serve longer um that voters uh need to be engaged in a school board election uh for the right choice for filling their vacancy um so with that um we had a good discussion that was on this bill uh I think we've um this is an effort to try to uh bring both sides together uh with the intent and some of th

e concerns uh from that bill uh and would urge members support to the amendment thank you Senator Matthews um Senator Carlson have you seen this amendment previously Madam chair I've have not seen this amendment okay um and I was the author of the original bill I I do have a question Senator Matthews um I think that the U Minnesota School Board Association was originally proposing this change and I'm wondering if you've had an opportunity to talk with them about your Amendment Madam chair um not

with the association I've talked with a couple of school board members since um uh so I had heard that they were discussing that change but I hadn't U been able to talk with the association leaders yet at this point okay um any questions or comments from committee members Senator rest um thank you um Madam Madam chair and Senator Carlson I think based on that um rather vigorous discussion we had on this um the other day that this this does represent a really um a really good compromise between

all kinds of uh elections and ones that are meaningful and I think that distinguishing between um a um you know a board member who has to leave the district for for anything other than a controversial issue or or who is removed that treating that differently makes a lot of sense I think I can support this I'm the thing I'm not sure about is the 90 and 120 um why um why why 4 months rather than three months um uh if if if Senator Matthews M Madam chair and Senator Carlson if Senator Matthews woul

d explain why 120 is better for what reason is it better than 90 Reon 90 days Senator Matthews thank you madam chair uh Senator rest it was um we just uh put it for one month further out for the purposes of this amendment uh I'm open to you know I've thought about that number as well I've thought about we could easily insert 180 days and make it about a six-month time frame um that would kind of mirror the legislature where we have certain parameters where we have to hold a special election date

uh if a vacancy occurs in about I don't know what the exact range is but about that six-month window then we don't need a special election it just goes to the regular November date you know that makes a lot of sense to me so I'm open to changes on that um the underlying bill has the two-year period in it which we had debate about some feel that that's too long three or four months um might be too short um does six months maybe seem The Sweet Spot that would be about right to you and if so I wou

ld definitely be willing to incorporate um a change to my Amendment so you'd be willing to go to any other questions or comments Senator rest so um uh Madam chair I I would move to uh amend the amendment to um insert online 1.7 180 days Senator rest I apologize um I'm not sure if your mic is on or if you could just speak a little more okay A little more closely sorry we're having trouble hearing you use your swad zinsky I would move to amend the amendment um on uh line 1.7 um to uh Delete 120 an

d insert 180 all right we have Senator Matthews thank you madam chair uh I support that as well um I don't know if I can incorporate that or if we need to vote on it if we need to vote then I support uh voting to make that change yes Okay I uh uh Council says we can just incorporate it so uh I don't think we need to vote on that so the A10 amendment has now been modified so that line 1.7 um we are changing 120 to 180 Senator Anderson I think you had Madam chair I was just wanting to have that re

peated so I could I didn't quite hear it on that end so that's just that's the change that's the change thank you okay um so as the again as the original author of the bill um I guess I would have preferred to have had some discussions about this beforehand and I think also um involving the School Board Association um involved in the conf conversation as well would have been helpful um I am reluctant we did have a vigorous discussion uh about this uh at our one of our last committee hearings whe

never this bill was brought up and so at this time um I would not be supporting the amendment but I would certainly be happy to have a conversation with you and I I would like to bring in some stakeholders to have a conversation about this um but at this time I would not um support the amend mment are there any other comments or Senator Carlson do you have any comments yes Madam chair I I would like to uh discuss the uh the change you know when we're when we're doubling it uh I think I'd like to

hear from the school boards as well so I I and we do have time to work on this too so let's I would I would uh you know give it a pause and let's get back to it so I would not support the amendment Senator Matthews thank you madam chair um I'd request a roll call on it um we can continue to change it even after adopting it uh into the bill um I believe this is where the stakeholders want to go uh I think it would be very important that we change the we deal with the vacancy part of it um so my

amendment's attempting to do that um and uh um and let me put it to you let me ask you uh this then perhaps uh Madam chair um the the uh part by itself the lines 1.4 to 1.6 that's dealing with the vacancy part [Music] um would you support that part uh by itself I think that's where this bill needs to go uh eventually in the end um and that's likely where any stakeholders that you want to talk to I believe would try to point you towards um you open to at least the first half of that Amendment jus

t just get rid of it get rid of this Madam chair sen rest Madam chair I I um in that Spirit um I would move an amendment to the amendment to uh Delete uh lines 1.7 to 1.10 of the um uh well no I move to Del line to delete line 1.7 so that there's no reference to that for the number of days and that we uh have because the rest of it looks to me to be uh lines 1 18 1 n 110 are just putting the putting things in ordering that the I think the problematic line is line 1.7 which has the number of days

in it and that's something that we did have that discussion on the other day but I I do think the um uh 14 to six we should all be able to um agree on a very different a different circumstance when a member is removed for cause as opposed to moving out of the district or dying or something something minor like that Senator rest uh so I move to amend um by deleting line 1.7 Senator Matthews uh thank you madam chair um if you believe that you can support the rest of the amendment back to my quest

ion from a minute ago uh then I would definitely support the rest oral amendment to put that piece of it in the bill um so a with the whole discussion that we had earlier about all vacancies versus just resignations or the uh ones that are not removals from the board are you able to support that piece of it being changed uh in this bill to clarify that this only app applies um to vacancies that are not caused by removal so um my understanding is that the amendment presented also so the the 1 10

there the the paragraph that that's amending um looks like it deals with petitions to reject appointees and I I just I think that I still can't support this amendment I haven't had time to digest it I haven't had time to speak with um stakeholders or others about what the full implications of this are and I think it's there implications Beyond um just what we're discussing um so at this time I I would renew my statement that I probably don't support this today but I'm happy to continue to have t

he discussion I'd like to have a chance to walk through this in Greater detail with nonpartisan Council as well as with stakeholders to see if there's anything about this that um that would that we could do but I'm I'm not prepared to do that at this moment uh as the original author of this bill um and so I would I would not support this amendment Madam chair Senator rest uh Madam chair I'd like I'd like to um ask Council how the um what what is impacted by um deleting one line 1.7 how what is a

ctually changed here other than uh in the bill other than um um we take a different action if someone is removed from the board rather than any other um way in which they leave the board is it anything different than that by removing the line 1.7 uh Madam chair and Senator rest so maybe I'll answer your question this way so the amendment does three things the two of the things have been talked about are lines 1.3 to 1 .6 and line 1.8 call out this the situation where a person is removed by the s

chool board and require an immediate special election line 1.7 as you mentioned Senator rest changes the timeline um from 90 to 120 and now 180 days excuse me excuse me and then lines 1.9 and 1.10 make a a different change and if you look at page 15 of the bill on lines 23 and 24 this talks about um when you're looking at a petition to reject whether an appointee um should be um whether a peti sorry you can file a petition to reject an appointee and whether that petition is valid or not um is ba

sed on a percentage of Voters at an election and under current law the percentage of Voters is based on the number of Voters at the most recent state general election and the change onlines 9 and 10 of the amendment changed that to the most recent school district election so it looks so that the change on those two lines is which election you're looking at when determining the percentage of Voters for that petition so so Madam chair Senate rest um and um um Council um if if the only part of this

amendment um dividing it if we put at some point um was to have blinds 14 through6 and 1.8 um which could just be done automatically um uh and not do the rest of it all it says is that if there is a removal for cause that a special election must be held as soon as possible according to general election law m is that what it says uh Senator rest you're corrected those uh lines 13 to 16 and 1.8 do as you describe um I think that that is exem excuse me um Madam chair I'm sorry um Madam chair and S

enator Carlson I I think that um really makes quite a a good distinction between why you would need a special election and why an appointed process would be um preferable and um and and I wonder um just to make that clearer um Madam chair and and Senator Matthews I wonder if you'd consider um withdrawing the amendment for just a minute and just get that language really really clear as to what it is um um referring to so that there's no confusion which seems to be you know when we see something n

ew to start with we seem to always be confused by it so 1.4 through 1.6 that you'd come back plus 1.8 yes would you Senator Senator Matthews would you um consider withdrawing it momentarily Senor Matthews thank you madam chair um Council indicates they can get that to me uh quickly here so yes I'm willing to withdraw the A10 uh and bring an amendment that reflects that section Senator rest was describing okay so uh the amendment has been withdrawn um and while that is being worked on are there a

ny other amendments Senator bar thank you madam chair it's my turn to have a crack at this so um I would like to offer the a16 all right can and while that is being distributed can you give us a brief description so the a16 is actually a bill that the committee has not heard it is in the jurisdiction of the committee we just didn't quite have time to get to it this year and um so I'd like to offer it as a as an amendment the bill says that if you have elections in off years you're going to have

it's going to move every off-ear election or odear election to evene elections for everything except cities of the first class this is a bipartisan bill in fact I'm the only Republican on the bill with multiple authors and uh two of the me two of the author others are in on the committee so I was kind of hoping we'd get around to a Committee hearing but uh so Township elections city coun city elections um Schoolboard elections everything except cities of the first class would be required to have

all of their elections except specials on even number of years so they would coincide with the regular general election Aro saving taxpayers money and we'd have consistency and better turnouts for all of these elections and instead of the uh the one that was referenced a couple weeks the Schoolboard election that was referenced a couple weeks ago where five people actually showed up to vote in that special election so it would be on the normal election cycle and and people would know that it's

November of 24 or 22 or 26 and they need to go vote Senator rest um thank you um uh Madam chair sen Senator bar the problem with that is um um when a city is required at at different intervals some cities than others to conduct redistricting um and to um force them to do that um outside of their of their I mean sometimes they have an election in odd year but then the redistricting is done in the even year and they're compelled to have an election in that year reflecting the um redistricting base

d on the sensus and so although seems to me your your amendment in a perfect world makes a lot of sense that's not the way the um redistricting Works in cities of the first class and when they have to have when they're compelled to have um um election so um um it's a great idea but I can't support it Senator bar uh Madam chair Senator rest the cities of the first class were Exempted oh I I thought there was excuse me U Madam chair I thought this was everybody accept cities of the first class I I

see I hope that helps get me to a yes vote no it doesn't oh oh shot down good try it doesn't any Senator Mitchell uh thank you Senator wesland I um I will say I I don't I I wish I would have gotten to hear the full debate and full stakeholders before deciding on this because my initial reaction is um I am a place where we do have the offe elections and one of the things I've heard the Schoolboard members running say is that um when it is a the full general election because you know we get the P

CR and have some different resources but that they would then be competing against you know all the state level candidates all the city city level candidates and in terms of actually having people to help them with their campaigns and door knock and raise money that um there would just be such a vacuum of resources by having in the same room uh year um that that is what I've heard at least in my community in favor of having the offe elections um like they do now so um I don't I don't know that I

can support this today just because I haven't gotten to talk to more um have more information than what I've heard in my personal Community which seems to favor the offe elections Senator Senator Karan thank you madam chair and uh in favor of of the motion everything we talk about here at this at this in this body is about doing every single possible um thing to from a popup location to you name it to get the greatest participation and so at our local Municipal elections um because on the on th

e even year the general elections we have greater participation and thus I think that would meet every intent of everything we've heard in every bill um to draw and create and have the greatest participation in every election and to have in the off your elections when there are less attention get less participation and fewer voices are heard so I encourage you yes vote thank you thank you Senator Karan um um I so I guess because i'm the chair I get this I'm just curious because we have not heard

this bill Senator bar there there certainly may be stakeholders in the room who have feelings about this one way or the other would like to offer some information about it if there is anyone who would like to do that uh this would be your time if you could just be brief um that would be helpful and please state your name for the record thank you thank you madam chair members of the committee my name is Alex Hassel here on behalf of the league of Minnesota cities um taking a look at this um I I

will just recognize that we do have quite a few cities that do have ode elections and a lot of times they do kind of weigh the balance of the cost of of running that election separately against the value of having the opportunity for the council election to uh have the opportunity to be on their ballot without sometimes getting lost at the end of a ballot in a large election so I would just point that out as a consideration as to why a lot of our cities I think prefer to to have that option to d

o uh ode elections so that they're able to uh not get as uh lost at the bottom of the B okay thank you anyone else want to weigh in identify yourself for the record thank you madam chair and members of the committee my name is Valerie dosan I rep represent the Minnesota Association of school business officials so they are the finance directors in school districts and they are the ones who often handle uh bond referendums for school districts and exchange only allowing evene election could delay

um capital projects in school districts if they are going out for Bond referendum so that is uh one reason why we would have concerns about restricting this to evene elections okay anyone else Senator bar go ahead thank you madam chair and um Senator Carlson I think we've hit a good uh a good tie in today I guess or a good comment I hit kind of hit a nerve a little bit and this would be a great bill for a hearing next year um we could get everybody in the room and we could weigh the pros and con

s of going even number and odd year just off the top of my head I know that when there's a referendum on the ballot in an odd number of year they have a tendency to pass more often because there is a lower turnout and you know we are generally geared to even number years that's when our elections are unless you're in one of the cities that has elections every year because you do a general one year and then you do your cities and your locals the next year so every November you're in for for an el

ection and that's a little bit different but uh I'm pretty sure they wouldn't most of the uh people that are doing the voters probably wouldn't mind quite so much of having to go once every two years to vote as opposed to every November I'm supposed to vote it gets a little more cumbersome a little tiresome but I would uh I I I like the debate today and I would encourage a yes vote Madam chair could I request a roll call as well you and um I'm hoping that uh if this does not get passed today or

doesn't get added into the Omnibus Bill that uh we will have uh some vigorous discussion on this and have a bill hearing next year possibly thank you Mr Madam chair Senator Carlson Senator Bart I absolutely agree with you that we need to have a full a full evaluation of it and get the stakeholders involved and have them give their uh their opinions and like uh was said here that you know the the balance is how much this is going to cost and what kind of uh of pre-selling has to happen and uh you

know so I think we've we've talked talked about it a lot over the years this is uh not the first time it's been brought up but I think we really need to have a focused conversation on it so thank you thank you Senator bark but I I do have to oppose it to be added here all right so a roll call has been requested any further discussion before we move to a vote okay and this was the the a16 amendment and the clerk will take the role Senator Carlson nay Senator wesland no Senator Karan yes Senator

Anderson yes Senator bar I Senator Balden no Senator sosinski yes no come back to me please senator doring yes Senator limur yes Senator Marty no Senator Matthews yes Senator Mitchell no Senator Port no Senator r no Senator szin no there being six I's and eight Nays the motion does not Prevail and if we could just not have conversations during votes that would be awesome it didn't [Laughter] help Senator Matthews thank you madam chair uh I have the a22 amendment okay it was uh just distributed I

believe and I want to say thank you uh to Senate council for helping uh with the turnaround on this quickly um this is what Senator rest was just discussing uh it's just the first half of my previous amendment to clarify uh that this will uh not apply to vacancies that occur if a school board member is removed uh if that happens a special election is held otherwise the rest of the original piece of the language and the time frames and all of that remains unchanged uh and would ask for uh member

s support of the amendment thank you Senator Matthews any discussion on the amendment Senator Carlson thank you madam chair I have one question to ask and that um we talked briefly about death is death con considered being removed or is it resigned Senator Matthews Madam chair I'd ask um if council could verify the amendment States a school board member remove pursuant to section 123b .09 subdivision 9 I'm guessing that's uh some kind of removal statute if uh we could expound on that Miss tangle

uh yes thank you madam chair and members the statute referenced to 123b 9 subdivision 9 UM allows the school board to remove for proper cause any member or officer from the board so that would not include death so death would be a vacancy similar to like a resignation or those those other sorts of things which would be separate from what's considered in this amendment thank you Senator Carlson I think we do need some more work on this and uh you know I'm willing to to talk about a little bit mo

re but I do want to hear from more state ERS thank you Senator any other discussion comment on this bill I uh I again as the original author of the bill I still also would like to hear from stakeholders and have some more thoughtful conversation about this to make sure we're considering um everything and not having any unintended consequences Senator Matthews thank you madam chair um this is the most straightforward part of it um so don't believe that there's any unintended consequences here um

all the other um things that were referenced before I've removed from the amendment uh otherwise what's in the underlying Bill uh is going to create a lot of uh upheaval and uncertainty with how uh School boards have operated how some actions have been uh used against certain school board members uh it'll raise some cause for concern uh so this this is very uh clean and straightforward I'm going to ask for a roll call on the amendment and ask for members on both sides to help support this becaus

e this is a clean good government Amendment thank you Senator Matthews and the clerk will take the role Senator Carlson nay Senator wesland no Senator Karan yes Senator Anderson yes Senator bar hi Senator Balon no Senator spinski no Senator doring yes Senator limmer Senator limmer oh I'll pass right now Madam chair Senator Marty Senator Matthews yes Senator Mitchell no Senator port no Senator rest yes mam chair oh I apologize Senator limmer yes Senator Marty there being seven A's and six Nays th

e motion is adopted any further amendments Senator Karan thank you madam chair I would uh like to move the uh a12 Amendment if you could describe that while we are Distributing it thank you madam chair refers to page 51 line nine um section 81 it's uh refers to publicly funded organization campaign expenditure prohibited any entity or organization including any nonprofit organization that receiv receives State funding may not make a campaign expenditure otherwise expend money for any political p

urpose as used in this section State funding including receipt of public funds through a direct appropriation or a legislatively named competitive and or form of Grant or other form of Grant Madam chair that's the uh amendment in its entirety and what we want to do is and again primarily primary activities which we've discussed to make sure no undue influence is uh put into elections and we get transparency this would remove and make sure there are no undue influences with taxpayer money without

s side without taxpayers Express approval and I encourage a yes vote and would request a roll call thank you Senate Senator Karan any comments questions or discussions Senator Carlson have you seen this amendment I have not until just now Senator Marty Madame chair um for the author um you envision this meeting um I mean when you dece receive state funding do you consider tax breaks to be State funding Mr chair or I'm sorry madam chair and Senator Marty if you're considering a non taxpaying enti

ty uh property tax is that what you're referring to or any I I think it's pretty clear from the receives direct funding of either an appropriation or legislatively named competitive Grant so direct funding because Madam chair Senator Marty sen Karan I guess I have concerns because we often give um specific tax breaks for specific purposes for certain businesses and so on and I'm wondering if they are allowed to make any contributions Senator cran Madam chair and I think um Senator Marty I think

those that you referred to are are then most likely covered under campaign finance and their ability to participate this really looks at that fund publicly funded nonprofits we uh we should not be funding them to participate in elections because we have a conflict of interest in many cases when we look at the grant programs that we have out there um and and you know as we who've served on the legislative audit commission um continually go at and look at there's an incestuous nature in that realm

of publicly funded grants and the political activism that's associated with the lack of transparency as well in their roles in in serving with publicly funded grants and or direct Appropriations so this would look and get rid of a conflict of interest Mr Madam chair Senator Karan I I guess I see a lot of times that certain businesses are here lobbying for favored tax treatment and they often do and we consider tax expenditures to be um Public Funding I mean it's it's we treat tax expenditures a

s expenditures in the state and to me having them get those breaks and come here and Lobby us for more breaks and so on is is the same sort of thing and I think if you want to include everybody I think that would be a reasonable amendment that I'd be open to supporting but I I have trouble if we're just calling out nonprofits and other things like that but not some of the other corporate entities that do get public breaks tax breaks Mi Mr or Madam chair and Senator Marty the uh um those that rec

eived the direct funding um you just described and and I guess um from my perspective as well most of what you just described I think is addressed in the campaign Finance side of it if it runs into a political action and I think there's work to be done on that as well um Senator Marty in in what who is then deemed a lobbyist um but I think this is for direct expenditure and and political purpose and so I think it's clear and um I would like to work if there's a way that we can break that down ma

ybe in the future um would love to consider it to make sure that there's not undue influence um with taxpayer dollars that taxpayers are not aware of for the purposes of political actions everything else where a business participates in lobbying in anything from a tax break or otherwise is covered under campaign Finance law and we don't typically allow them for businesses if it would fall into those categories um they would be prohibited anyways as a business as a nonprofit um entity they should

not be engaged in um electioneering so I encourage you yes vote thank you Senator cran um Senator Mitchell and then Senator rest you'll be next thank you um so my reading of this is that this is a question for the author it would be that um any level of Grant Grant or appropriation regardless of what the percentage is so let's say we had a large uh organization that served at risk youth and they were granted ,000 for a specific program that they ran during the summer and the grant went to that

very clearly but their budget for the whole year was a million dollars um my reading of this would be that even in that situation where it was a very small amount going to a specific thing this would include that organization at all from donating for example you know to to a candidate that was going to continue to help further their mission or something that they were interested in am I reading that incorrectly Senator Karan Senator cran Madam chair and and Senator Mitchell uh yes and so in that

particular case um you know a nonprofit that doesn't receive any funding should have the latitude to do whatever they want they've gone out and earned and raised their own dollars through whatever means in this case when it's state taxpayer dollars uh the lack of transparency um that we have especially in the grant programs that we have and the incestuous nature through the variety of 10 different agencies who offer them I think this would provide a great um accountability and transparency any

nonprofit that earns their own dollars and brings in their own money like any other business ears a flexibility to do what they choose and uh while still maintaining the compliance with the campaign Finance rules and so yes it would cover that scenario Madam chair um one moment uh Senator rest was next then Senator Marty thank you um Madam chair I'm I'm um um uncomfortable with the language not the not the concept but um I'm assuming when you say Camp I don't know what you mean really by campaig

n expenditure because are you really meaning a independent expenditure for or what about um an expenditure for a ballot question and and I know that you know there's a catchall phrase for any political purpose but seemed to me um uh I can understand the funding definition but what it means to make a campaign expenditure or for any um political purpose I think that's Senator Karan I think that's too vague Senator Karan Madam chair and with that Senator rest and I think um with senat Marty's inter

est um I think we probably could find language to make sure that it is from a campaign expenditure to look at what are those expenditures and maybe come up to something that's a little bit more meable and and agreeable to um to multiple people on the on the committee um I think it is important to get the transparency there um so I would I would withdraw the amendment and agree to work on it and then we can bring it back in either a lat later step or on the floor Senator Marty Madam chair just re

al briefly since you're withdrawing the amendment but I I guess I think I I you mentioned lobbyists and so on are all covered by our campaign Finance laws so I I have a question why lobbyists or lobbyist principles are allowed to make campaign contributions and so on as well and I think if we want to get into that I'm happy to I've had bills to do that in the past but I don't want to have just certain people who get benefits from the state be prohibited from doing it when lots of others who get

in many ways are heavily involved here in the process and so I'm getting funds and we're not going to do anything about that because it is covered by campaign Finance laws it's doesn't mean that takes care of the problem Senator gr Madam chair Senator Marty um which lobbyists are funded by taxpayer dollars right today Grant I I if you're withdrawing the amendment I'm happy to talk with you more later about it but but my point is that anybody who is coming here looking for tax breaks or anything

else they're hiring lobbyists and are doing that and they shouldn't be if they're doing that I have a problem with them getting understand I'll work with you on it thank you and I do I will withdraw it thank you all right the amendment has been withdrawn any further amendments Madam chair Senator cran I would like to move the 813 Amendment Senator cran can you describe your Amendment while it is being distributed yeah thank you madam chair so the the 8813 is a bill that we've had um and we've ha

d we had great discussion on it in the past and actually I think uh I think we had bipartisan support until it went through conference committee so what this does is it's in it's on page 14 line 29 and makes some modifications to uh campaign contributions during the legislative session and what it does is online 1.7 adds political party on 1.13 adds a political uh a political party and uh those are the two changes and really what this was is if you remember um last year I believe we had a conver

sation about a really terrible idea it was a republican idea that we were going to have some Hideout and funded by by uh we could we got it approved I don't know why it was even asked but it was approved that you could have some agreement that wouldn't violate campaign Finance law to have a hosted facility for conversations with legislators and we agreed I think we all agreed is a terrible idea but ironically at the time we were having that conversation the uh the Democrat Party was having a a p

olitical fundraiser during session which had the support of uh of the uh two leaders of the of the Democrat Party and so that would look to be in great conflict of what our laws are and when the participation of legislators drawing checks during the campaign or during the legislative session is it should be a prohibitive and I think we did agree with that and it was pulled out in conference committee or before it got to the last bill so we uh it it removes that it adds political party back in th

at those during the legislative session um that was clearly a legislator driven uh activity on behalf of the political party for a fundraiser and that appears to be to me in direct conflict or in alignment with all of the other prohibited contributions during the election or during the legislative session sorry and so with that I would request or encourage a yes vote and request a roll call thank you thank you Senator cran senator Carlson any comments have you seen the amendment Madam chair I ha

ven't seen it before there's uh I think there is some work we need to do on that that's uh that is something that we did talk about extensively and uh I think there was some kind of support for it but uh I think we do need to we need need to hear more about this and also probably have stakeholders give us uh some of their opinion on it too um you know this is not the dinner that we had is not for candidates so it's not really a a uh uh during the session fundraiser for candidates it's for some y

ou know separate uh separate organization that is the the dfl so I I really think that uh um I don't think we need this so I would oppose this any questions or Senator cran mad chair and so um uh if you recall that was a political fundraiser advertised as a political fundraiser um uh with and promoted by Speaker Hortman and um Majority Leader dik at the time and so yes and in the stakeholders are in the room and so we could have that conversation right now um we are the stakeholders and uh so ou

r our party uh leaders don't need to be here to for us to make those decisions so it's a good policy it would reflect as as we did pass that in a bipartisan Manner and uh and in the past and then as as we did pass in a bipartisan manner to not allow the Republicans to execute that same action and be and activity we had great support and bipartisan support for that but now we carve out that now we still want to make that available for the Democrat Party so that's what it looks like that it's um y

ou wanted you still want that privilege when we removed it for something was very similar that the Republicans were attempting to do so I encourage a yes vote any further questions or discussion uh Senator Balden thank you madam chair I I would just note that uh parties fund support uh more than just legislative candidates there's um in the support local units they support caucuses and primaries uh you know and including those of which that happened during session um not to mention Federal candi

dates there's many other things that parties support outside of just legislative candidates and so for all of those reasons I would not support this amendment any other questions or comments Senator Matthews thank you madam chair um it's not true that we haven't seen this Amendment before we thoroughly had this discussion last year uh we had it in the bill last year there was some bipartisan support that we needed to correct uh where both parties have gone off the rails on this and we needed to

correct this on both sides now we're just hearing excuses for how we can leave the back door open uh for one side uh to get funds back in the door and uh that's disappointing to me I'd encourage people to close close the loophole uh close the back door lock it uh the political parties can continue to do uh all the things that they do for all of their uh efforts from uh all their other sources of funds that don't come from the registered lobbyists uh that try to uh Lobby us on the elections so I'

d urge a yes vote on the amendment Senator sadinski this might be a question for the author I'm just curious how this bill would have impacted the the um election for Kurt DS or for representative D seat that we just had yesterday Senator K if he the two candidates could they accept campaign contributions during a regular during a legislative session if Senator Grant Mr chair or Madam chair um yeah I'm not sure there was a special election so they had special dispensation um this is a particular

issue directed at the at our party units and if you look at if you look at the existing statute right it goes out to lay out uh candidates principal Campaign Committee uh or political committee or party unit established by all and or a part of the party organization but yet this really just calls out the party organization and it was specifically um highlighted because it was a legislative action promoted by the majority leaders for fundraising during the campaign season at the same time one pa

rty was attempting to remove a dumb idea or or attempted a dumb idea and and it appears be okay in agreeing that yeah that shouldn't happen because it could have been for the same purposes and I don't even think that was for fundraising that was just for a conversation um and so I think it's uh it would be good that it would keep I don't think it in in one case right they raise money all the time from individuals and all all sorts but this is specific to lobbyists and it was focused as lobbyists

with participation from many legislative members and that would appear to be to coincide or to be prohibited by everyone else including us legislators um but under the guise of It's a Party unit we can do that so um I think it's good practice transparency we got campaign Finance we've got plenty of seasons or long enough season to raise money um as a party unit outside of the legislative session thank you Senator cran um I'm I I guess I'm willing to continue to have a conversation but I think m

y concern is I believe that adding a political party is overly broad for the intent and purposes of this current this section the section is specifically directed at contributions that may influence or potentially influence legislators during a legislative session and as has been noted political parties do a lot more um whereas the other categories here are specifically linked to legislators legislative dis districts and so my concern is that this is overly broad um I'm not a constitutional scho

lar but I think it may have some constitutional um implications there may be a way to to draft this more narrowly um but but as it's drafted I think I would probably not be able to support this but I'm certainly happy to continue to have a conversation thank you madam chair and I think with that when you look at it it really is narrow it's narrowed from the perspective of uh registered lobbyists political committee political fund or Association not registered so it really goes after the same pie

ce for us as legislators influential contributions while legislating and and the other description includes literally every tentacle of the political party without naming the political party itself this just closes a loophole for everybody involved in it so no undue influence is um can occur while legislating thank you thank you any further discussion and I I think I requested a roll I was just going to say I think you did so the clerk will take the role Senator Carlson no Senator wesland no Sen

ator Karan yes Senator Anderson yes Senator bar I Senator Balon no Senator zwizinski no Senator doring yes Senator lummer yes Senator excuse me Senator Marty no no Senator Matthews yes Senator Mitchell no Senator Port no Senator rest no there being six A's and eight Nays the motion does not prevail um I just want to not we're at 4:30 and would it be possible to get some sort of sense about how many more amendments we two more any other Amendment you have Senator Anderson how many amendments do y

ou have total a total of two total mam chair okay okay great Senator Karan sorry Senator Anderson has the next one I'm sorry Senator [Laughter] Anderson I know we're going this way go ahead had Senator Anderson thank you madam chair I have the A14 Amendment and as that's being distributed Senator Anderson could you give us a brief description of the amendment oh Madam chair this am this was regarding a bill that was brought forward by Senator Coleman but it regards absentee ballot applications d

istributed by committees and private organizations uh it's after on page 51 after line nine it uh starts section 81 and the subdivision says a required statement any mailing sent by or on behalf of a committee or other private organization that includes an absy ballot application or a sample ballot designed to encourage voting at an election must include a statement that one the bailing is not an official communication from a unit of government and two the application or ballot has not been incl

uded at the request of a government official and three if a sample ballot is enclosed that the sample ballot is not an official ballot that may be cast by the voter and so this is basically a good government uh B uh Amendment that's coming forward to make sure that absentee ballots are on the up and up and I appreciate your support thank you Senator Anderson um Senator Carlson um have you seen this amendment I have have not seen the amendment man and do you have any comments before we go to the

rest of the committee I'm starting to read it so I I want reserve for moment all right any any discussion by committee members Madam chair Senator Anderson thank you madam chair I didn't quite catch what Senator Carlson had to say he's still reviewing um your Amendment so he wasn't prepared to comment on it yet thank you for well I'll let I think everyone's kind of reviewing this but I do have a question Senator Anderson what what is the problem that you're seeking to resolve with your Amendment

Madam chair I just believe it's a good practice to have that in our statutes to to encourage people to be uh aware of absentee ballots I know that the last election I received many uh copies of absentee ballots from different organizations encouraging me that if I wasn't going to go vote in person that I would have this absentee ballot to put forward and all I'm concerned about is that it's not an actual absente ballot where someone would take fill it out and then send it to the location such a

s the right County Courthouse or wherever you you're going to be voting whether it's at the township or whatever the case might be so I'm just trying to be proactive and bring forward uh Common Sense type of a proposal and just to clarify though those are those our applications not ballots correct yeah Senator R um thank you madam chair you know I um um I like this idea but I would like to know maybe from Council again um um if we do not already have cautions about um information being sent out

that ends up being being misinformation or at worse disinformation about um a sample ballot or um or a from um um political parties either political party or other parties or um or um uh um advocacy groups um um don't we is there nothing in state law already that um uh says what's I mean I know when we send out our own things we have to put a disclaimer that it is from us you know or our campaign um and if it's an independent expenditure people have to send that with a with a disclaimer um so wh

at would what would this add that we're not already doing and Senator rest I think the someone um we'll have Miss Freeman from the Secretary of State's office might be able to actually answer that uh thank you madam chair and Senator Carlson um um uh if you understand what I'm saying questioning um M Freeman yeah Madam chair some uh what restrictions do we already have I that these would be extra ones yes Senator Carlson thank you Senator Senator resta Madam chair I I was somehow I remember in t

he past that we had addressed this as well so I don't know where what our status is of those because I know there there was a raft of ballot applications that came out some years ago and I I really thought we did address it perhaps Miss Freeman go ahead and identify yourself for the record and if you could help us with this question thank you uh thank you chair um and Senator Carlson um so there are currently uh there are not any requirements um you know specific to uh what is being proposed in

the amendment um entities that send out mail um are required to you know have their return address on it as well as um you know indicate who is sending the information um but there isn't any proh prohibition of uh another entity using you know for example the Minnesota um uh you know generic absentee application form and sending that out um there's also not uh uh organizations are also um able to you know modify the size of it so long as um um all the required information is still collected on t

hat application and Miss Freeman um have you had a chance to review this amendment and um are there any as you from the vantage point of secretary estate's office are there any potential issues with this amendment uh yes thank you uh chair um I would say that the the secretary's office would oppose subdivision 2 um we do feel like there are um oftentimes situations where um providing a pre-printed um photo registration information on an application um it's a service that some cities and counties

do themselves um as they get phone calls for these requests um putting on my former hat uh from from a county perspective um we would regularly have people who would say you know um what information do I have to put on there and um so I think our concern with subdivision 2 is uh a a few fold um uh cities and counties might be um providing assistance to voters by putting this information on the applications as well as um how would you know uh it is allowable for someone to type um and and provid

e um you know a fill in the fillable PDF and provide that as their application and so I think that we would have a counties um and those processing these applications would have a really hard time distinguishing between um which application was sent out um and whether or not this pre was it pre-printed or was someone typing it on their computer themselves and then submitting it um and so I think we would uh we would oppose subdivision too I could hold on Senator rest had the question thank you S

enator Madam chair and Senator Carlson and Miss Freeman I I um appreciate your um answer to our inquiry um and just to um say I I'm not going to vote for this today but some of the things that are in in here are some are things that we should do um we should say that when um XYZ organization sends out something that makes it look like it's coming from the government that they have to say this is not coming from the government I think that I think um or that it hasn't been included at the request

of a government official so I think those two things in particular stand out to me as being something we should do in the same way when when we get a supply of U maps from the um Department of Transportation we are not allowed to stamp them saying courtesy of Senator rest you can't do that it they are free um and you cannot claim that they are somehow a benefit that's coming from you as an individual politician and so I I um I hope Senator Anderson might be willing to um before this gets to the

floor to uh do some rewrite of what might be extremely acceptable to um to all of us and um and it could be um shown to the special you know the special interest groups that are that Advocate one way or another for um uh for uh uh election issues and certainly um get the um non on partisan uh um uh uh reaction from the Secretary of um um of of State's office that it that whatever it is doesn't interfere with um um people's right to send things out so Senator Anderson I'm going to vote no but bu

t not on a couple of the ideas in here and I'd be happy to work with you on something thing that that we could um have um um that we could control um in the name of transparency Etc what um uh that uh what is official and what is not thank you Senator go ahead why don't you identify yourself for the record and go ahead and let us know uh who you represent and your thoughts thank you madam chair members my name is Matt hillgard I work for the associ ation of Minnesota counties AMC represents all

of Minnesota's 87 County governments I will be very quick I was shaking my head yes um to that last response before I was being called up here which is I think Senator rest hit the nail on the head um this is a concern that is actually brought forward for many counties across the state which is confusion when people are responding especially with the resources that we've seen being put into elections from regardless of party uh folks are getting a lot of mail and they're thinking that this is ei

ther ballots which is a mistake or they are applications for ballots um our sample ballots and so uh folks are being confused it's it's contributing to the sense that I'm receiving multiple ballots and so our County Commissioners are getting calls and then saying no no no that's not official mail I do agree with what Miss Freeman said I'm not familiar with subdivision 2 um but the first subdivision is something that we actually very much support as uh nonpartisan Association representing all of

87 County governments and that is for transparency on this to make sure that we aren't getting those call saying why are you sending me all these ballots um and so we would definitely support that that part of it thank you Senator Anderson go ahead thank you m Madam chair um regarding that second subdivision to I remember when my wife and I put asked call the County Government Center to send us a absentee ballot this is talking not from a county this is not talking from a city this is talking fr

om a on behalf of a committee or a private organization that's what we're talking about and they are not to be putting a person's name and their address and all the other information on there I I know that M Freeman mentioned on her other hat that she wore that it was coming from a county or city that that that would be concerning to her at that point but this here is talking about a different Source uh and as we already mentioned uh the last election I got tons of mail with this is an applicati

on for but it was kind of confusing in a way to hear that and other people had talked to me about that so uh I think I think the whole Amendment Works in favor of the the citizen and uh helps hopefully clarify and going to the election Booth Senator cran yeah thank you madam chair I was just going to add um the stakeholders and Mr hillgard came up but um it really it kind of follows down the the.gov path of trusted sources transparency it's kind of the our version of uh the Deep fake in paper ri

ght the old deep fake we want to make sure that everybody understands where the data is coming from or with the papers they're getting inundated and it is both sides and all types of entities and so um I think we can um we'd like to see it Go in its entirety but we'll continue to work on it if it doesn't pass thank you any further discussion all right um all those Madam chair oh sorry Senator Anderson um the the vote on this are we getting ready to take a vote on it uh could I get a roll call yo

u sure can and the clerk will take the role Senator Carlson no senator Senator wesland no Senator Karan yes Senator Anderson yes Senator bar I Senator Balon no Senator sosinski no Senator doring yes Senator lummer yes Senator Marty no Senator Matthews yes Senator Mitchell yes no I'm sorry no Senator Port no Senator rest no all right there being six eyes and eight Nays the motion does not Prevail are there any further amendments Madam chair Senator cran um we have the last one for our for our sid

e so I'd like to move the a15 can you go ahead and describe that while it's being distributed Madam chair if you're ready I can start to describe it yes please do thank you m chair uh what this is is um I think you've all heard it before in fact we had a we had agreement on it in uh in 2022 I believe and uh made in a conference committee and a divided legislature and so what this is is is better known as eliminating the Zucker buuck or billionaire private wealthy people um uh election interferen

ce or funding so what it does is keeps out private entities from funding um our government entities for the sole purposes of a um influencing our elections it would prohibit any of the uh um home Charter rules municipalities or anybody from accepting contributions um from for-profit nonprofit organizations for the purpose of paying Associated uh expenses with uh federal state or local elections um the subdivision does not apply to an entity that provides space to a local government to use as a p

olling place or free a at a discounted rate and we did have um bipartisan support everything again we've done in this committee is to make sure we have um undo influence and anybody who spends money on on elections and influencing any campaign candidate committee uh or issue that they must follow the campaign Finance laws and in this case um hundreds of millions of dollars if not billions when you look at all of the entities that we we influencing outside of our campaign Finance laws and so what

this does stops the private influence outside of our current campaign Finance laws from influencing elections and uh making contributions to entities who run um our election process today so we did have again bipartisan support made into the conference committee in 2022 in a divided legislature until uh until those uh till the chair received a call from the governor so it was a good policy that we all agreed upon and I would encourage a yes vote as well as a roll call thank you Senator Ken uh S

enator Carlson have you seen the amendment previously uh it sounds like this was something honestly we did so much last year I don't remember the specific provision but Senator Carlson do you uh have a recollection about this or understand the nature of the amendment thank you madam chair to be brutally honest uh we did have a lot of conversation on it and I thought we did pass something that resembled us cuz I remember we we talked a lot about Zucker bucks and who used them where they came from

and how they were distributed um I don't know that I'm you know strongly against what was done there because it was primarily to to uh offset some of the costs that some of the the uh districts had with Co and uh other things like that so uh um I don't know the overall negative that happened uh I and I I would have to ask if we had anything you if we didn't pass something that restricted this did we have any of that repeat for 2022 I don't recall that we did so perhaps Senator cran Madam chair

and Senator Carlson yeah they remorphed into other non other political or nonprofit entities that then provided technological support and a whole host of those things I think it's clear we should make it clear to everybody uh private dollars without being without navigating or meeting the campaign Finance laws should not be allowed in fact I don't think any dollar should be allowed except for what was called out that if there's an entity uh we've got churches and school you know a variety of pla

ces that have polling places right that's pretty minuscule but nobody should be funding from a private sector our government entities to run and and put undue influence in managing our elections we fund them they're vital and necessary to everything we do in this country foundational to everything we do and and look what we've done with our campaign Finance to make sure we track every single dollar and we've got we've we've we've done a whole host of those things yet the biggest hole and the big

gest gap of privately funding and influencing elections um at our government levels which occurred and it's still occurring um uh we continue to have that loophole available so I think it's a good um transparency and accountability to make sure that no one can claim that undue influence that is applied to to affect elections operates outside of our campaign Finance rules so I encourage to yes vote and request a roll call Senator cran and so uh so this was Senator cran this was 2022 yeah that is

correct that's why I don't recall it I wasn't here sorry madam chair what we did have we did have again it made in the conference committee in full agreement and I forget what the other issue was too um but it just made sense we we do everything to to make sure it's transparent and no undue influence and this seems like a simple bill that we could both agree upon so thank you I do have one question Senator cran also um uh we had some discussion previously about um popup locations on schools and

one of the proposals made was that the school would pay for the cost of that how was how is that Madam chair that's impacted by this um though well again I think we have the ability for this the counties can enact pop-up locations and so they've got the cost determined again I don't agree with the the popup but from a private entity um making those requests regardless of you know the cost um so I don't think that that would play into this um from an undo influence perspective I I think the other

activities is not just the facility um other things that as I've stated before are are confli or conflict for me to me but this is just the private dollars for the purposes of um influence spending in our government or political organizations who run them so sen Marty Madam chair um I I have only time I recall hearing of an election that private entity was funding was one in another state where somebody was asking for a huge subsidy and they the individual for a sports stadium and the individua

l funded the entire election paid for all the cost of the election Statewide um and I have concerns about that but I'm I'm not not familiar with it happening here and I'm kind of curious what they're doing I don't have a problem if somebody wants to write out a check to a local government or somebody and say we'll help cover your cost for elections or for um anything I guess but um people aren't usually doing that I'm curious could you explain more of where this is happening Madam Madam chair in

uh Senator Marty so $420 million is spent by Mark Zuckerberg and 20 20 um direct undo influence and and literally some government entities allowed the complete Outsourcing from they've covered all gamuts the complete Outsourcing of their political operation to run elections by privately funded staff and staffed with their people um lots of it in Wisconsin we had a host of Minnesota cities I had one Center City accepted $5,000 um to help run and happens to be one of my most Democrat cities I cou

ld get you the full full list um of where those were spent they've remorphed them and branded into other entities under the guys that were helping a Civic public Civic good and to me it's a direct conflict of interest in everything we've done so I can get you that list Center Marty I don't have it so um and again they've remorphed I I think we need to make sure that's a loophole that does not exist in our elections so thank you Senator Mitchell uh thank you madam chair I too do not remember reme

mber the conversation because I was not here when it happened um so you know thankfully we have our computers cuz I wasn't very familiar with this um what I'm reading is it's you know it's not just Zuckerberg there's other um entities that do this and some of it goes for things like um what I'm reading is pretty neutral that if location said we have a need of some form they could put in for a grant and then the money would be used for what they needed it for and um it looks like it can also be t

hings like helping to recruit uh pole workers which I happen to know we have a huge shortage of so if they were able to uh a county requested it and they were able to use the money to advertise for poll workers or maybe to give them a little bonus if they were actually to come and and work for the polls or maybe a place that didn't have extra funds and could use it for security upgrades things of that nature so to me you know I I'm hearing some concerns and I'm also seeing some potential benefit

s for this um I personally would rather hear this issue more fleshed out than than just this amendment here today because um I could see some very positive things for if a community was able to get a grant to improve their process that was given out neutrally and then the electeds you know would it sounds like be using that money how they saw fit to help them improve the election process get Workers things like that Senator Karan Madam chair and Senator Mitchell um I think you've described all g

reat desirable um needs but when we determine a need it has to meet our highest standards to make sure No undo influence a city um if they can't fund it then we should be we they they would be coming to us our counties they should be coming to us we shouldn't allow anybody I don't care if it's in the form of a Grant under these entities that are are remorphed but they're operating outside of our campaign Finance laws and I find it interesting that we would we would um be okay with this because w

ow they help do poll workers in the cases where they replied in almost the majority were for Pure partisan purposes that's why we have it government funded to make sure it's neutral and there's no undue influence and so this would it would seem to be a pretty simple if you would talk about it um in in the sense that we've talked here this this is really dark money directly applied to elections and we shouldn't allow it in any way shape or form so I encourage you yes vote thank you Senator cran a

ny further discussion all right a roll call has oh Senator Carlson I'm sorry thank thank you madam chair um you know I think there is some uh some maybe some information that isn't exactly uh the way it it came about now I'm not sure what the morphing is has uh has happened to this but as far as I knew and when we talked about it in in 2022 it was a it was a nonprofit that was granted this money by Mark Zucker zuber's wife and uh you she's evidently has a lot of money to give away and it was sup

posedly and I don't know if it was if there were any kinds of uh Tales to it but it required the the municipality to apply for it and then it was granted to that application and uh you know and I think I had the list of all of the cities and counties that that got the money and I think even even the dollar value of it but uh I don't know that there was any proof at all that it was uh expended in a partisan manner um not uh not to hire people not to to uh do any kind of canvasing so if we have so

me of that I guess i' and I'm I'm with you on limiting this I'm with you on that but I I don't want to base it on misinformation though thank you Senator Carl Senator mad chair um I it was a misinformation they spent it um we don't need outdo outside influence um those cities that they literally ran they ran the operation and so you can see that happen Wisconsin it happened in a variety of other states everything we talked about here even if it didn't happen in a horrific manner where it was one

of our largest cities accepted we've heard almost every instance about um political violence and all the laws that are embedded in this bill about things that might happen somewhere around the country or have happened this one appears to be a direct influence of private money funding elections and outside of campaign Finance so yeah it's a nice to have we wish you had computers we want to recruit um we don't do that with our with private money outside of the campaign Finance rules and regulatio

ns thank you all right the clerk will take the role Senator Carlson no Senator wesland no Senator Karan yes Senator Anderson yes Senator bar I Senator Balon no Senator spinski no Senator doring yes Senator lmer yes Senator Marty no Senator Matthews yes Senator Mitchell no Senator Port no Senator rest yes there being seven I's and seven Nays the motion does not Prevail I believe we have no further amendments is that accurate Senator cran that is correct I could wrap it up my wrap up with my comme

nts if you'd like we will take some final comments thank you Senator cran thank you madam chair and uh Senator Carlson I I I guess one of the qu quick question what do you see the path for this bill prior to it going to uh the floor Senator Carlson Senator Grant I believe we do have a path that it's this is going to judici uh Judiciary so and I believe that it would go to the floor after Jud thank you madam chair and and Senator Carlson I would urge I'll urge our Judiciary members to make sure w

hen you look at it there's portions that that uh should draw to education um for the impact on schools um for cile 3871 it never went to education as well as HHS for the portion that uh dealt with the hospitals in Senate file 3818 and then um with that I think there's just a couple a couple components that we'd hopefully that that Senator Carlson would continue to work on on the Deep fa fake side um in that portion of the bill the one thing that's not included is um protections for First Amendme

nt rights and if you look at the other states that have done that have a very similar uh policy California Michigan Colorado Oregon all have um identified first uh Amendment rights protections embedded in the law we know it's going to be a complex issue and so if if we don't have that protection I think we could see in the future that media you know local media or or or media entities may be weary of um what harm or risk could come to them if they they don't have the protections uh explicitly ca

lled out in the law so I'd ask you that we could continue to work on that piece of it and to ensure that we have those embeded or explicitly called out and then the only other one that we'd hope you'd continue to work on is I think you've had conversations with MGR uh mgrc about the the definition of lobbyist to make sure that um it's we bring some clarity um and predictability to the kind of the confusing laws that's written today I know you've had conversations so I'm just echoing the the sent

iment that we continue to work that out before it gets to the floor so thank you Mr chair or Mr Senator Carlson and Madam chair thank you Senator cran um Senator sadinski thank you madam chair I just want to uh I know how the this is how the process works I get it but I there was a couple amendments that um you got the Republicans offered today that I wish we had had um more um head that's up that they're coming and we could have had a more um more stakeholders testify and Senator Bar's Amendmen

t comes to mind I I think that um bill um we could use a lot more information on that and hear from everybody and I know it's 10 months away so put it on your calendar but maybe in 10 months when we come back we can hear some of the bills that the Republicans brought up today um anyways thank you madam chair thank you Senator SW swedzinski any other uh discussion from committee members Senator Carlson you shall have the last word thank you madam chair and uh I want to thank you all for the uh co

nversation here and also I have a list of things that we need to talk about and uh it's a list that if it's not done this year then it's going to be top of the list for next year we need to get we need to have the uh um the work you I'm dreaming about a bill that would be a combination of the John Marty and uh U Mark Karan uh in influence on where this money is coming from from the outside so we need to we need to get some kind of a consensus bill that you can you can all sign on to and I think

you know this this business of the uh uh um Senator Bar's you know issue there with uh the uh yeah what was yours now I I wrote it down here but I can't read it but you know the and the private funding the uh deep fake deep fake changes because I think that's the Deep fake and AI is going to be I wish we could get further on that this year because that is going to be something that I think it's going to if we don't get a get a handle on that it's going to get get ahead of us and get away from us

so there's a lot of things like that in elections we do want to make sure that we offer the ballot to as many people as possible and I never care what the background is of a person that that I door knock you know if they if I know they're they're Republican they may have changed they may have moved they may have they may have something that they can offer me or maybe I have something I I can offer them so it's it's just a matter of getting everyone that can vote to be able to vote and that's th

at's where I'm coming from so and I guess just in in Last Words your thanks again for the robust discussion and uh this bill will strengthen our democracy and I want I hope everybody believes that there's something that is in here for them and for their children and for the future uh by enacting strong new electioneering and campaign Finance protections and harmful uh harmful practices including uh jurry mandering of Prisons or jurry mandering when we look at at redistricting uh that it'll it'll

prevent more of the Polar partisanship that we we're experiencing today and we want to make sure that the election workers are not harassed and that they're protected and they feel safe so that we can recruit them and they're you know they're generally fairly fairly elderly on the average and we want to make sure that they feel comfortable when they come to work at work at the polls um so uh we uh we're working as hard as we can I think for everyone all backgrounds from every corner of the stat

e we want to ensure that Minnesota elections Remain the strongest in the country so I ask for your support thank you thank you Senator Carlson so Senator Carlson renews his motion that for Senate file 4729 as amended is recommended to pass and re-referred to the committee on Judiciary and Public Safety all those in favor say I I oo opposed no the eyes have it thank you everyone this meeting is J [Music] jour [Music]