Legislative UpdateDear neighbors, I’m now in week two in the legislature and am adjusting quickly. I had the opportunity to meet with David Watkins, the pastor of Heritage Baptist Church, as well as pastors from other faith communities to discuss the religious freedom issue I addressed briefly last week. I also got a chance to meet with some stakeholders to talk about the issues important to them. Committee Assignments Starting at the legislature over halfway through has been an interesting experience. I’ve been assigned to the Children and Families Finance and Policy and Education Finance Committees, both of which have completed most of their work, and are now at the call of the chair. This means we do not meet regularly, only when the chair decides a meeting is necessary. The first and second legislative deadlines passed before I started back on March 22, meaning that all legislation had to have received favorable action in both the House and Senate by that day. It also means that no new bills will be heard in committee. Update from the House Floor On Monday we heard four bills on the House floor. HF 3614 focuses on public safety policy, encompassing a range of sensible corrections and public safety initiatives. Crucially, this bill does not succumb to the pressures of imposing gun control measures or unnecessary spending, representing a pragmatic victory. Among its key provisions are protections for victims of domestic abuse, enhanced restrictions against level II and III predatory offenders, and modernization of the notification system for tracking and alerting communities about sexual offenders. This bill was a great representation of a bipartisan win and shows that policy is always better when Republicans and Democrats can work together to find a compromise. While the bonding bill corrections, HF 3631, was mostly bipartisan, I voted no. I believe that projects funded by the state should be projects that create a general net good for our citizens. After blowing an $18 billion surplus last year and significantly raising taxes, bonding should focus on creating strong infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and clean drinking water. However, the original bonding bill from last year includes many DFL pet projects that do not accomplish a common state-wide public good. As your representative, I want to be a responsible steward of your tax dollars and make life more affordable for you. I voted no because I don’t want your money to be spent on projects that will have no positive effect on you. However, bipartisanship around here has not been the norm during the era of one-party control. The other two bills we heard are perfect examples of this. HF 3872 is the Judiciary Policy Bill. The bill has two main problems. First, there is no provision to add the religious exemption to the Minnesota Human Rights Act, leaving religious freedom in Minnesota in jeopardy. Second, there are changes to civil liability hearings that will unfairly put 100% of the cost on one party during shared liability cases. For instance, Steve and Mary are both 50% liable. However, Steve is collectable on those damages and Mary is not. This new provision would allow a judge to force Steve to pay 100% of the damages. More so, this bill changes language from “husband and wife” to “spouse and spouse” as Democrats continue their war on gender. HF 4772, the Elections Policy Omnibus Bill, or the so-called “re-elect Democrats bill” makes many negative changes to election law. During times of low trust in our election results, strengthening election integrity should be a top priority for the good of our society. This bill does the exact opposite. It allows people to register to vote without providing an address. Instead, they would be allowed to simply describe where they live. Further, during redistricting which occurs the year after a census, the bill would count prisoners as living at their last place of residence, not where they are currently residing in jail, even if they’ve been there for an extensive amount of time. This is problematic both in drawing district lines and in the allocation of state funds, which would draw more spending toward the cities and leave our rural communities behind. Have a great weekend, Bryan |