Following a ruling Friday by a federal judge, thousands of farmers who endured racial discrimination by the U.S. Department of Agriculture during the 1980s and 1990s should start receiving portions of a $1.25 billion settlement.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman said in his written opinion that the proposed settlement, which creates a system of compensation for black farmers and their descendants who joined the class-action suit claiming discrimination by the government, is fair and workable.

“Historical discrimination cannot be undone,” Friedman wrote.

There are two compensation streams available to the farmers, depending on the individual paper trail in each case. The first stream, known as “Track A” would provide an uncontested payout of $50,000 to qualified claimants. The second stream, known as “Track B,” could provide up to $250,000, but requires more documentation of wrongdoing. Farmer must choose one track or the other, and it is estimated that nearly 70,000 farmers across the nation will be eligible for compensation. More details regarding the plan can be found in an earlier report by The Iowa Independent.

The black farmers’ case is an outgrowth of Pigford v. Glickman, a federal class-action lawsuit originally settled in 1999. The farmers alleged that the USDA had violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Administrative Procedure Act by maintaining a pattern and practice of discrimination against African American farmers.  Such pattern and practice delayed, denied, or otherwise frustrated the efforts of African American farmers to obtain loan assistance and to engage in the vocation of farming, they said.

The Obama administration agreed in February to provide a second round of damages to people who were denied earlier payment because they had missed  filing deadlines. The person who pushed to allow more black farmers to join the case and for more money to be set aside for settlements was Iowa’s own U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley. In a February press release, Grassley noted that “many people were shut out of the process.”

But not all elected officials have been similarly supportive. U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, while on a recent tour of flooded areas near the Missouri River in Iowa, characterized the government settlement with black farmers as fraud. Bachmann and King, while noting the damage done by the flooded Missouri, said the money set aside for the discrimination settlements could have been put to better use if it had been given to the flood victims.

It isn’t the first time that U.S. Rep. Steve King and Bachmann have beat on this particular drum. Bachmann sent out a press release last November alleging that the numbers of farmers involved in the settlement didn’t add up, because there were many more claims than black farmers — a claim nearly identical to what has been made by King. In addition, King has referred to the settlement as “slavery reparations.”

King said in November 2010 that the American people should be outraged by the development, since it sends the message that “if you’re a minority, you deserve a check from the government.”

The Obama administration is “focused on race,” King said in an interview with WHO-AM’s Jan Mickelson. Essentially, the entire lawsuit was pitched to black farmers as their “40 acres and a mule,” he added, referencing the Civil War era practice of providing land to former slaves who became free as Union armies occupied areas of the Confederacy.

“The Department of Agriculture has admitted that discrimination occurred,” Grassley said during a Senate floor speech on the matter. “We are obligated to do our best in getting those who deserve it, some relief. This is a chance for people who believe they were wronged to show their case before a neutral party and have it judged on the merits. It’s time to give justice to these claimants who were previously left out, and move forward into a new era of civil rights at the Department of Agriculture.”

Final approval for the settlement came after a fairness hearing in early September. Although some farmers argued they should be allowed to pursue higher damages, Congress left little flexibility into the plan, which prevented Friedman from pursuing such alternatives.

In a statement distributed by the White House, President Obama said, “The U.S. District Court’s approval of the settlement between the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and plaintiffs in the Pigford II class action lawsuit is another important step forward in addressing an unfortunate chapter in USDA’s civil rights history. This agreement will provide overdue relief and justice to African American farmers, and bring us closer to the ideals of freedom and equality that this country was founded on. I especially want to recognize the efforts of Secretary Vilsack and Attorney General Holder, without whom this settlement would not have been reached.”

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said he is “thrilled” by the court’s decision, and looks forward to the process being completed.

Since my first day at USDA, I made it a priority to treat all Americans with respect and dignity and to ensure equal access to our programs. Court approval of the Pigford settlement is another important step to ensure some level of justice for black farmers and ranchers who faced discrimination when trying to obtain services from USDA. President Obama, Attorney General Holder and I are thrilled by the court’s approval so we can continue turning the page on this sad chapter in USDA history. In the months and years ahead, we will not stop working to move the Department into a new era as a model employer and premier service provider for all Americans regardless of race, ethnicity or gender.

Government officials estimate that it will take a year, if not more, for all the affected farmers to work their way through the compensation process.

The Anoka-Hennepin School District and lawyers for six students who sued the district over bullying began talks this week in an attempt to reach a settlement. While those talks were underway, the Parents Action League submitted a petition to the school board urging it not to budge on a policy that limits discussion of LGBT issues in the schools. And PAL came under scrutiny by other parents who questioned the group’s ties to the Minnesota Family Council.

The district and lawyers for the students met early this week in hopes that a settlement could be reached in the lawsuit. Both sides have declined to comment on the talks other than to say they were productive. The dialogue ended Tuesday without resolution, and no more discussions have been scheduled.

On Monday, the Parents Action League, a group of conservative Christian parents in the district, appealed to school officials to maintain its “neutrality policy,” a directive enacted two years ago that limits discussions of LGBT issues in the district and one that the lawsuit alleges creates a hostile environment for LGBT students.

“I’m here on behalf of the Parents Action League to support the sexual orientation policy,” said Lori Thompson at Monday’s school board meeting. “It is an excellent policy. It honors the rights of all parents and guardians. We feel that teachers should not be injecting their personal views in the classroom on any subject.”

Thompson said the group had gathered 1,052 signatures.

“We, the Parents Action League, along with every person who put their name on the petition, are asking the board to please keep the sexual orientation policy in place and keep controversial social issues at home where they belong,” Thompson said.

After Thompson addressed the board, Kevin Peterson of Brooklyn Center also urged that the policy be maintained — and then revealed he was once gay.

“I used to be gay, back in the ’80s and ’90s,” he said. “I used to be a member of Act Up and marched in a few gay pride parades.”

“I was trying to get our agenda into high schools and even elementary schools,” he added.

Peterson claimed that most people who are LGBT don’t want to be.

“Most people with same-sex attraction don’t like this about themselves and don’t want to act on those attractions,” he said. “In other words most homosexuals are not gay, and we gay activists knew that it was very important to reach those sexually confused people. We wanted the young guys top know that they shouldn’t be confused about those attractions that they should understand that they can’t possibly change and gay is good.”

He said it was all about recruitment.

“What I was doing in effect was recruiting them to be gay and get into the lifestyle. That’s what happened to me when i got into college.”

But not all testifiers at Monday night’s meeting were in support of the policy. Parent Melissa Thompson said many forms of diversity are discussed in Anoka-Hennepin schools and questioned why sexual orientation is being singled out.

“You don’t need to take on a belief to respect the person who has it,” she said. “We openly discuss and recognize all kinds of diversity from cultural to religious to economic, so I ask you why we refuse to acknowledge anything gay in our schools?”

She added, “Nobody is asking that homosexuality be taught, quite simply because it can’t be. But just because someone refuses to believe that people are born gay doesn’t change that fact for a gay person. The idea that if we deny something that offends us it will disappear is childish, hurtful and hardly neutral.”

Thompson was also critical of the activities of the Parents Action League.

“I recently received an email directly from Lori Thompson of the Parents Action League soliciting my signature. She received my email address from the Minnesota Family Council, and I have a copy of the email for you all to see that,” she said, holding up a copy of the email. “It was directly solicited from this political group that has made a career out of disrespecting children in our district. I want to show the connection.”

PAL’s spokesperson, at least in the past, has been Barb Anderson who works for the Minnesota Family Council. Anderson recently appeared on the radio program of Americans for the Truth About Homosexuality, an organization the Southern Poverty Law Center lists as a hate group. In that interview, Anderson said she’s tried to get “ex-gay” therapy into the district’s schools and blamed LGBT groups for the bullying of LGBT students.

Thompson raised another concern about PAL to the school board; she says the group has been soliciting signatures from students.

“The other concern I have is the fact that they solicit signatures from children as young as 13,” she said. “Now, they want to paint us as being inappropriate in regard to children, but to put children in that position is beyond unacceptable.”

The 2012 ballot isn’t the only place where a raging debate on same-sex marriage is taking place in Minnesota. Three same-sex couples filed an appeal in July in their bid to overturn Minnesota’s Defense of Marriage Act, and groups on both sides of the issue have filed paperwork with the court offering strongly worded arguments on the issue of marriage equality.

A Hennepin County district court judge dismissed a suit by the couples — Duane Gajewski and Doug Benson, Lindzi Campbell and Jesse Dykhuis, John Rittman and Tom Trisko–  in March. The judge said that until the Minnesota Supreme Court overturns Baker v. Nelson, a 1971 case that said same-sex couples cannot marry in Minnesota, “same-sex marriage will not exist in this state.”

So the couples are taking their case to the Minnesota Court of Appeals with hopes that they can get it heard before the Minnesota Supreme Court.

“The appellants challenge MN DOMA and the obstacle it poses to the appellants’ enjoyment of 515 separate laws that confer tangible benefits upon married couples and their families, and relieve the injuries the appellants face in taxation, inheritance, powers of attomey, health care, and child rearing, amongst other matters,” the court filings for the couples read.

Attorneys for the couples argue that the 1971 Baker decision doesn’t apply, arguing that the current case is about recognizing marriages performed in other states.

“Resting on its interpretation of the Book of Genesis for its holding, the Baker Court turns aside an early bid by a same-sex couple seeking to marry under Minnesota law,” court filings said. “Notwithstanding the state’s protests to the contrary, and notwithstanding the district court’s reluctance to rule contrary to Baker in spite of its stated misgivings, Baker does not determine the outcome of this case. In addressing the claims of same-sex couples lawfully married in other jurisdictions, this court may grant the appellants relief from MN DOMA, regardless of Baker.”

In a bit of a twist, the Minnesota Family Council filed a brief saying that Baker is a “decisive” case. That differs from MFC’s public statements that judges are likely to rule in favor of same-sex marriage and that a constitutional amendment barring it is necessary.

“[T[he Minnesota Supreme Court’s Baker decision is undoubtedly binding and controlling here,” MFC’s attorneys wrote. Those attorneys are from the Alliance Defense Fund, a group founded by prominent religious right groups including James Dobson’s Focus on the Family and the American Family Association, an organization that has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

“The State Supreme Court in Baker squarely rejected the argument ‘that the right to marry without regard to the sex of the parties is a fundamental right of all persons’ under the federal constitution. That same conclusion… applies under the state constitution,” they wrote.

The Family Council brief also argued that lesbians, gays and bisexuals do not constitute a “suspect class” because they do not lack political powerlessness — “such individuals wield tremendous power” — and it contends that sexual orientation can change.

Finally, the group argues that same-sex couples should not be granted marriage rights because they cannot reproduce.

“Sexual relationships between opposite-sex couples have a normative procreative capacity, only those relationships provide children with their mother and father. Same-sex couples, in contrast, can neither procreate without intervention by a person of the opposite sex nor give children a home with both a mother and a father,” the brief said.

The Minnesota Atheists also filed a brief in the case, arguing that laws barring rights for same-sex couples are inherently religious in nature and should be overturned.

“These clerics and their followers are, of course, entitled to their beliefs. But, they should not be allowed to impose their theocratic views in the secular laws of this state,” the brief reads. “There is no compelling secular reason to deny civil marriage to same-sex couples; there are only religious justifications.”

The Minnesota Atheists point to hearings in May on a proposed constitutional amendment that would bar same-sex marriage where every testifier had a strong religious background and testified based on religious belief.

“This religious viewpoint, running deeply through DOMA, clashes with secular science and medicine. For example, the American Psychiatric Association “supports the legal recognition of same-sex unions and their associated legal rights, benefits, and susceptibilities, and opposes restrictions on those rights, benefits and responsibilities,” the brief said.

The group also took issue with the Minnesota Family Council’s assertion that marriage should remain between opposite-sex couples because same-sex couples cannot reproduce.

“This argument makes no sense. The state does not impose any fertility requirements on couples getting married, imposes no test whether the parties can conceive, and does not disallow marriages for women who are beyond child bearing age or men who are impotent, sterile, or have had a vasectomy.”

The timeline for the case is up to the court and could well bleed into the debate over the constitutional amendment as it gears up next year leading to the November elections.

Doug Benson, one of plaintiffs in the case, said, “Even if our opponents’ anti-gay marriage amendment is defeated by the voters in November 2012, our law suit will still be needed to get rid of the current Minnesota DOMA statute from 1997. We will continue to carefully move our case forward in the courts, using every argument and resource at our disposal to overturn the statutory ban on same-sex marriage.”

But the lawyers for the Minnesota Family Council warn that if the case is successful, gay marriage will be forced on everyone.

“No provision of the Minnesota Constitution gives individuals the right to redefine marriage and force that definition on everyone else,” the ADF’s Jim Campbell said in a statement.

Anoka-Hennepin School District, the largest in the state of Minnesota, has been at the center of a tug of war between the LGBT community, which says the district is not safe for students, and religious right parents, who want all mentions of LGBT issues stricken from school curricula and programming. At issue is a policy that restricts LGBT content in the schools, a policy the school district said on Monday it would not change. In response, a pair of civil rights groups filed a lawsuit Thursday morning. In addition, federal authorities have opened an investigation into the school district.

“There is something seriously wrong in the Anoka-Hennepin School District, and district officials know it,” said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR). “In school after school, kids who are perceived as gay are harassed mercilessly until they drop out, melt down, or lash back. This epidemic of harassment—unlike anything we’ve seen in neighboring districts — is plainly fueled by the district’s shameful and illegal policy singling out LGBT people and LGBT people alone for total exclusion from acknowledgment within the classroom.”

The NCLR, along with the Southern Poverty Law Center, filed suit on behalf of five of the district’s students on Thursday. The students allege harassment because they identify as or are perceived to be LGBT, and the lawsuit targets the district’s “sexual orientation curriculum policy,” which limits discussions of LGBT issues in the classroom and in school programming.

That policy says that discussion of sexual orientation should be “addressed within individual family homes, churches or community organizations.” The policy has been vociferously defended by the Parents Action League, a group of conservative Christian parents headed up by Minnesota Family Council staffer Barb Anderson.

In an interview late last year with Americans for the Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), a group that has been designated by the SPLC as a hate group, Anderson boasted of success in efforts to keep LGBT content out of the schools and said it’s the fault of LGBT community leaders that LGBT students get bullied.

“That is one of the tactics that they are using now, to say that by not legitimizing and normalizing homosexuality, we are creating an atmosphere in the schools that is hostile to quote-end-quote gay kids,” she said. “What they are doing is just the opposite themselves. They are creating an environment where these children that are sexually confused suddenly become affirmed as a homosexual or that they are born that way, and then these kids are locked into a lifestyle with their choices limited, and many times this can be disastrous to them as they get into the behavior which leads to disease and death in some cases.”

She added, “So, it’s really… They are the ones that are contributing to an atmosphere that can even increase bullying as more kids get into this kind of a lifestyle.”

The sexual orientation policy itself is rooted in a previous 1995 policy that said homosexuality should not be “taught/addressed as a normal, valid lifestyle” in the schools.

This spring, NCLR and SPLC urged the district to change the policy and foster a safer environment for LGBT student or it would file a civil rights lawsuit.

And just before the lawsuit was filed, CNN uncovered documents on Monday that showed the Department of Justice and the Department of Education were investigating reports of civil rights violations in the school district.

Last week, residents of Anoka-Hennepin submitted a petition with over 12,000 names asking the board to rescind the sexual orientation policy. Community members have sought the scrapping of the policy, calling on the board to make changes after a spate of suicides among district students which some say are the result of bullying based on sexual orientation.

“The way things look now, I don’t see that happening,” said school board chair Tom Heideman of scrapping the policy. “We worked with groups on both sides of the issue when we wrote that policy and we’ve received petitions from both sides. We haven’t heard anything that really tells us we’ve got a bad policy.”

Then, on Monday, the school district released a statement saying it had no intention of changing the policy.

That triggered today’s lawsuit, which alleges violations of students’ equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, federal Title 9 rules and the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

The SPLC’s Sam Wolfe, told reporters on Thursday, “What we found was a pattern throughout the entire school district, students that are being harassed verbally and physically because of their perceived differences. They’ve all been verbally harassed, such as being called faggot, dyke, whore.”

He continued, “One kid with two fathers, the other kids would say things like, ‘Your dads are gay, you must be, too. Why don’t you suck their cocks?’”

He said that students had endured physical abuse, including being pushed down stairs and thrown into lockers and garbage cans,. One student was stabbed in the neck with a pencil because other students that he was gay.

“In too many instances the school response was woefully inadequate,” Wolfe said.

NCLR’s Kendall said the stories her group has heard from students are “truly hair-raising and stomach-turning.”

Alona Turner of the NCLR said the sexual orientation policy impacts teachers as well.

“Teachers have been told that they can’t mention gay people were killed by the Nazis and are prevented from mentioning that the major medical positions have rejected the idea that homosexuality is a choice choice,” she said.

“The district calls it a neutrality policy, but it does not bar discussions or mentions of heterosexuals or heterosexuality.”

She called the level of harassment in Anoka-Hennepin a “unique situation” that the group hasn’t seen elsewhere in Minnesota and that the sexual orientation policy is the only one of its kind that the group knows of in the country.

Kendall said if it affected anyone other than LGBT people, there would be outrage.

“If there was a policy that said we aren’t going to talk about Mormons or the contributions of Native Americans, we would never tolerate it. We would see it for what it is. It’s bigotry,” she said.

She added, “This is Michele Bachmann’s district. I think there are members of this school board that share her cruel and inhumane views toward LGBT people, and I think it has a lot to do with why this policy was enacted and why it survives.”

Three of Anoka-Hennepin school board members, including the board chair, are up for re-election this fall.

Same-sex couples who are suing the state of Minnesota for the right to marry are urging Gov. Mark Dayton, Attorney General Lori Swanson and Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman to follow the Obama administration’s lead. Late last month, President Barack Obama ordered the Department of Justice to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a 1996 measure signed into law by President Clinton that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriage. In a letter sent to Dayton last week, the couples urged the Democratic governor to halt Minnesota’s defense of its DOMA.

Three same-sex couples filed suit in Minnesota District Court in 2010 to overturn Hennepin County’s refusal to issue them marriage licenses. The suit names both Swanson and Freeman.

Doug Benson, executive director of Marry Me Minnesota and one of the plaintiffs in the case, said his group hopes Obama’s decision will impact Minnesota’s laws barring same-sex marriage.

“If the federal DOMA is unconstitutional, which is what the President and Attorney General are saying, then by default, the state DOMAs which mirror the provisions of the federal law, are unconstitutional as well,” Benson told the Minnesota Independent. “The judge in our case has been informed of the very significant step by the president and [Department of Justice].”

On Feb. 23, the Obama administration said its review of DOMA found it to be unconstitutional and that the federal government would no longer defend a law it believes to be unconstitutional.

Benson added, “We hope it positively impacts our case and we also hope Attorney General Swanson will follow the federal lead.”

In its letter, provided exclusively to the Minnesota Independent, Benson’s group urged Dayton’s administration to halt Minnesota’s legal defense of DOMA and to recognize marriages of residents who have same-sex marriage certificates obtained legally in places like Canada and Iowa.

“We call on you to direct all state agencies and local governments to immediately stop the enforcement of the provisions of Minnesota’s Defense of Marriage Act and recognize the out-of-state marriages of Minnesota same-sex couples as legal and valid, to be treated in all state business in the same manner as any legally constituted, different-sex marriage,” the letter dated Mar. 2 reads.

Benson said he hasn’t yet heard from the governor’s office on the matter except that Dayton had directed the state’s legal counsel to look into it.

OutFront Minnesota, the state’s largest LGBT advocacy group, has in the past said the lawsuit is not their preferred strategy for reaching marriage equality for same-sex couples. But in the wake of Obama’s decision said that Freeman and Swanson should think carefully about it.

“OutFront Minnesota hopes that this new development will be examined carefully by the Hennepin County Attorney’s and Minnesota Attorney General’s offices as each determines its future approach to the marriage equality litigation currently pending in Hennepin County,” the group said in a statement.

Here’s the full letter sent to Dayton last week:

March 2, 2011
Governor Mark Dayton
130 State Capitol
75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55155

Dear Governor Dayton,

This letter calls your attention to a February 23, 2011 announcement from the Department of Justice in which U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder describes a change in the federal government’s policy with regard to the fifteen year old Defense Of Marriage Act. DOMA prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage in the application of nearly 1400 federal laws and regulations. Further, it purports to exempt the states from complying with the Comity Clause of the constitution, allowing the states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries.

This law has received several challenges in federal court as to its constitutionality and has been unsuccessfully defended by the Department of Justice. Attorney General Holder has now announced that, at the direction of the President of the United States, the policy of the Department of Justice will be to no longer defend the constitutionality of the Defense Of Marriage Act. The President and Attorney General have determined that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation merits heightened scrutiny, not mere rational basis analysis. They have further concluded that Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman, is unconstitutional.

The federal government has rejected DOMA as unconstitutional. By analogy and federal constitutional sovereignty, state laws that mirror its provisions are unconstitutional, as well.

Because this change in policy amounts to a federal recognition of the legality same-sex marriages, we call on you to follow the President’s lead and immediately direct Attorney General Swanson to cease her defense of Minnesota’s own Defense of Marriage Act and statutes that discriminate against same-sex couples, which are currently under challenge in District Court in the case of Benson vs Alverson. Further we call on you to direct all state agencies and local governments to immediately stop the enforcement of the provisions of Minnesota’s Defense of Marriage Act and recognize the out-of-state marriages of Minnesota same-sex couples as legal and valid, to be treated in all state business in the same manner as any legally constituted, different-sex marriage.

We ask for your expedient action in this matter.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

Douglas Benson
Executive Director
Marry Me Minnesota

A Florida judge ruled the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act unconstitutional on Monday in a case filed by 26 states, almost all of which have Republican governors. U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, a Reagan appointee expected to rule against health care reform, said the individual health insurance mandate which goes into effect in 2014 is unconstitutional, and because it’s integral to the entire statute the whole thing should be thrown out. Former Gov. Tim Pawlenty said he was proud to be a part of the lawsuit.

“Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications,” Vinson wrote in his opinion.

The case is the second in which a judge has ruled the mandate to be unconstitutional. Several other judges have dismissed challenges to the law, citing no evidence that the law is unconstitutional.

Pawlenty, who joined the suit in his capacity as governor but did not have the authority to make Minnesota a party to the suit, praised the decision.

“Today’s court ruling correctly affirms that President Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress’s health care takeover violates the U.S. Constitution,” he said in a statement. “An individual health-care mandate is an unconstitutional power grab by the Federal government and drags our health care system in the wrong direction. This ruling is a big victory for states’ rights, the U.S. Constitution and market-based health care reform. I was proud to join this federal lawsuit challenging Obamacare’s individual mandate and am optimistic that higher courts will uphold the ruling.”

Among the 26 states that joined the lawsuit are Minnesota’s neighbors Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wisconsin. Wisconsin joined the lawsuit several weeks ago after a Republican governor and attorney general were sworn in. Iowa joined at the request of its new Republican governor and has the unique distinction of both supporting and opposing health care reform. Its Democratic attorney general filed papers in support of the law’s constitutionality but didn’t block the governor from filing the lawsuit challenging its constitutionality.

North Dakota and South Dakota have been a party to the lawsuit since April 2010.

The case will be appealed in the 11th circuit appeals court.

A lawsuit was filed in federal court Friday afternoon over the Anoka Hennepin School District’s refusal to allow a lesbian couple to walk together in the Snow Days coronation ceremony at Champlin Park High School. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the two students by the Southern Poverty Law Center, alleges that the school district violated the students’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as the Minnesota Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

According to documents filed with the court, Desiree Shelton and Sarah Lindstrom campaigned for and were elected to the Royalty Court of the Snow Days celebration. In past years, the elected royalty walk in procession in male-female pairs, and two male students agreed to walk side-by-side so that Shelton and Lindstrom could walk in as a pair.

According to the complaint, Mathew Mattson, Assistant Principal for Activities, said, “[E]ven if the male couples stated that they were comfortable with the decision [to walk in as a pair] now, they may not be three months from now and when a picture of them processing together surfaces and rumors get started that they are gay.”

The school district initially decided to allow the royalty to walk in single file, but, after conversations with the two students, decided to cancel the procession and instead have the royalty simple sit on stage.

The girls said their desire to walk in as a couple was “to make a political and public statement about gender roles and the visibility of LGBT students and couples” at the high school.

The complaint states that the district’s actions “constitute impermissible viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, violate their equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution, and constitute prohibited discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.”

The district’s spokesperson, Mary Olson, told the Minnesota Independent, “We dispute the facts and the legal analysis. We believe we have come up with a better practice that is more tolerant and acceptable of all students.”

Here’s the court filing:

SPLC_anoka_complaint

The Republican Party of Minnesota and Tom Emmer’s gubernatorial campaign filed a petition Wednesday with the Minnesota Supreme Court alleging that more people voted in the 2010 election than registered. The GOP claims it has information from election judges who “did not witness” other election judges counting precinct sign in sheets and that “tens of thousands”of  “phantom votes” exist. The recount team of Mark Dayton said that votes have been reconciled twice in post-election reporting, and that the GOP is engaged in an eleventh-hour “Hail Mary” to postpone the recount process.

“We’re receiving reports today from election judges stating they did not reconcile the ballots cast with the number of signatures on the polling roster on Election Night 2010,” said GOP chair Tony Sutton. “These reports raise concerns about the instructions and written guides given to election judges by the Secretary of State’s office as to the statutorily required reconciliation procedures for Election Day but more importantly, raise serious questions about the integrity of the result of the election.”

Added Republican Party of Minnesota Deputy Chairman Michael Brodkorb, “Our petition today is simply asking the Supreme Court to confirm that the number of votes matches the total number of voters on Election Day, as required by state law and that election officials follow the clear statutory remedy for the removal of phantom votes before the results are certified.”

Dayton recount spokesman Ken Martin said the petition to the Supreme Court amounted to nothing more than a “Hail Mary” and that the timing shows that the ultimate goal is to delay the recount.

“There are six days now until the State Canvassing Board meets and in the eleventh-hour the Emmer campaign launched a hail mary pass,” said Martin. He said there is no way for the Supreme Court to rule on the petition and for a reconciliation to occur before that meeting.

“We respect their right to ask for info, but my question is why now? And if they are doing it now six days before the State Canvassing Board meets, does it in effect mean it’s gong to delay the process? And that’s our greatest concern,” said Martin.

He said that the reconciliation occurred on election night when election judges are required by law to count the number of votes cast and match them to the number of voters signed into each precinct. If there are more votes than voters signed in, judges are required to discard that number of votes at random.

Martin added that during the county canvassing, which is also required by law, the votes are again reconciled with the voter sign-ins.

“This whole process has worked,” he said. “We live in a state that around the country election observers have a great sense that the Minnesota system is the finest in the nation.”

“Our perspective is that the Republcan Party is calling into doubt the integrity of our election system,” he added.

Here’s the court filing:

20101117PetitionwithSupportingAffidavit

With a recount looking more and more likely, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has laid out a plan for the canvasing operations. The recount of the governor’s race is set for Nov. 29, which will follow the Canvassing Board’s decision on whether a recount will happen. That board is scheduled to meet on Nov. 23. Leading up to those meetings, counties are prepping for the recount and dealing with an enormous number of data practices request from the campaigns. DFLer Mark Dayton leads Republican Tom Emmer by more than 8,700 votes.

Hennepin County conducted a post-election mandatory review and found that Dayton picked up three votes and Emmer lost 2 votes, for a net gain of 5 votes for Dayton. The process is part of a mandated review that all counties must undergo and is a hand count of random precincts. The county checked 13 precincts and 12,500 votes.

Ramsey County’s review showed there was no change from election night results.

St. Louis County, which has been the target of a lawsuit by the Emmer campaign and the Republican Party of Minnesota after the county said it would take at least 14 days to fill a request for voting machine tapes, summary statements, ballot security information, revisions to reported election night results, photocopies of all accepted and rejected absentee ballot information, names and addresses of everyone who applied for an absentee ballot, voter registration information, names of election judges, election night incident reports, and all information provided to the Dayton campaign. The county has announced that it is in negotiations to provide documents.

The duo also sued Pine County. Officials for the county told the Star Tribune on Tuesday they didn’t receive the data requests and only learned of the lawsuit in the local paper.

“I don’t think [the GOP and Emmer] handled it as well as they could have,” Pine County auditor Cathy Clemmer told Strib Eric Roper. “It would have been much simpler to pick up the phone and say, ‘Gee whiz, we haven’t heard from you. Did you get our e-mail?’ Instead of going directly to a lawsuit.”

While the statewide recount nears, three Minnesota House races are also at a razor thin margin. In District 15B, Republican St. Cloud State professor King Banaian has a 10-vote lead over DFLer Carol Lewis. In District 25B, Republican Kelby Woodard leads DFL Rep. David Bly by 31 votes and, in District 27A which contains Albert Lea, Republican Rich Murray leads Rep. Robin Brown by 57 votes. All three are within the 0.5 percent margin that triggers an automatic recount. Those recounts are scheduled for Nov. 29.

In an editorial on Tuesday, the Star Tribune questioned whether the 0.5 percent margin is too high a threshold to trigger a recount, noting that legislators had tried to scale it back to 0.25 percent.

“Had their bills become law, Gov.-elect Dayton likely would be announcing his top commissioner appointees this week,” the paper wrote. “Legislators of both parties would begin crafting legislation, knowing whose signature their bills would require in order to be enacted. And Minnesotans would at least be assured that their government was gearing up to tackle the biggest state fiscal crisis since the 1930s.”

The Republican Party of Minnesota and Tom Emmer’s gubernatorial campaign filed a civil suit against Pine and St. Louis counties on Friday saying the two have been too slow in getting requested documents related to the election.

But county officials and the recount team for Democrat Mark Dayton said the requests and timeline made by the Emmer campaign are burdensome and unreasonable. At the same time, the Dayton campaign is pressuring his Republican rival to forgo the recount following few changes in the vote total during the canvassing process.

Emmer and the GOP asked the counties on Nov. 4 to “immediately” turn over voting machine tapes, summary statements, ballot security information, revisions to reported election night results, photocopies of all accepted and rejected absentee ballot information, names and addresses of everyone who applied for an absentee ballot, voter registration information, names of election judges, election night incident reports, and all information provided to the Dayton campaign.

St. Louis County said it could not complete the request within 14 days and Pin County did not respond to the Emmer campaign, according to documents filed with the court.

“The unacceptable foot dragging of St. Louis and Pine Counties cannot persist,” said GOP chair Tony Sutton. “The Emmer for Governor campaign and the Republican Party of Minnesota should not have to go to court to get counties to respond to data practices requests in a timely manner. We will continue to pursue any counties that do not promptly meet their legal obligations during this process. Minnesotans deserve better.”

But, Dayton’s lawyers and at least one county elections official say that Emmer’s requests are burdensome and that the counties have election work they must complete before they can fill Emmer’s requests.

“It’s clear that the Emmer campaign has embarked on one of the biggest legal fishing expeditions in Minnesota history,” Dayton recount attorney David Lillihaug told reporters on Friday. “And that’s going cost the counties a tremendous amount of money.”

“At a time when they are preparing for a recounts and get the rosters in order, the Emmer team has put an enormous burden” on them, he added.

The Star Tribune notes that counties cannot, by law, send rosters or registration information until everything has been reported.

“No polling place roster may be inspected until the voting history for that precinct has been posted. No voter registration application may be inspected until the information on it has been entered into the statewide registration system,” state statute says.

There’s also the matter of redacting voters’ private information.

“Many of the documents they are asking for have some sort of private information on them,” Washington County elections director Kevin Corbid said on Wednesday at a panel discussion at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey Institute. “It’s not as simple as just shoving 13,000 documents through our copier.”

Corbid also added that small counties only have a handful of employees and as counties prepare for truth in taxation and other county functions at the end of the year, a massive document request can easily overwhelm already busy administrators.

The 8,700 vote margin that Dayton has over Emmer has been seen as insurmountable by experts and especially the Dayton campaign.

Dayton’s camp is urging Tom Emmer to waive the mandatory recount.

“It will be mathematically impossible for Tom Emmer to overturn these results, barring some unforeseen problem which we haven’t seen in this canvassing process,” said Ken Martin of the Dayton recount team. “We’re fairly certain this will not happen. In fact we’re hearing from county officials as well as others that this canvass has gone amazingly smooth. Now it is fairly likely that an automatic recount will be triggered. However, it should be noted that Representative Emmer still can decline this recount.”

Emmer’s lawyers have been adamant that the will proceed with the recount which they are legally entitled to.