The bill was introduced by Drazkowski, along with Reps. Ron Shimanski, R-Silver Lake; Bob Dettmer, R-Forest Lake; Peggy Scott, R-Andover; Mark Buesgens, R-Jordan; and Greg Davids, R-Preston.

“We have an illegal immigration problem here in Minnesota,” Drazkowski told Politics in Minnesota. “We’ve had it for years. We’ve tried as Republicans to bring some reforms to immigration policy in Minnesota. We’ve run into roadblocks each and every time.”

The bill says, “For any lawful stop, detention, or arrest made by a law enforcement official… where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made… to determine the immigration status of the person.”

It also includes punishment when “a person is guilty of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document.”

Related: Cops, church group oppose GOP’s Arizona-style immigration bill

It passed the state Senate too. If Gov. Pawlenty were to sign it, the revenue raised would close the state’s budget gap.

Here’s a video of the last eight minutes in the Minnesota House, as posted to YouTube by the Minnesota GOP (without apparent editing besides the clip’s given title):

Photo: Ryan Bushby, Wikimedia Commons

“I have tried to accommodate concerns along the way,” Rep. Tom Rukavina (DFL-Virginia) told the committee. “Thirteen other states have not had the problems that law enforcement is talking about in this state.”

He said they have made significant changes to the bill including a sunset date in fall 2011 and a reduction in the number of plants per patient from 12 plants to 6 plants.

“We’re seeing remarkable momentum for medical marijuana legislation this year, in the House as well as the Senate,” said Rukavina, the House bill’s sponsor, in a statement. “Scientifically, there’s just no doubt that medical marijuana can relieve suffering for patients who are terribly ill, and the experience of 13 medical marijuana states shows that we can protect those patients without any of the problems that the doomsayers keep warning about.”

Voting for the bill were DFL Reps. Lyndon Carlson, Sr., John Benson, Loren Solberg, Jean Wagenius, Bobby Joe Champion, Karen Clark, Alice Hausman, Bill Hilty, Thomas Huntley, Al Juhnke, Phyllis Kahn, Steve Simon, Michael Paymar and Tom Rukavina. They were joined by Republican Reps. Pat Garofalo, Tom Hackbarth and Mark Buesgens

Voting against were DFL Reps. Kate Knuth, Gene Pelowski, Jr., and Nora Slawik. They were joined by Republican Reps. Ron Shimanski, Mary Kiffmeyer and Tom Emmer.

“It’s simply a matter of fairness and respect for our members,” said Russ Stanton of the Inter Faculty Organization, representing the employees of Minnesota’s state colleges and universities. “Our members that are in domestic partnerships work just as hard, and we think that they deserve equal respect and equal benefits.”

The bill would allow health, dental and life insurance benefits to a domestic partner which is defined as “a person who has entered
into a committed interdependent relationship with another adult.”

Stanton said that Minnesota’s public schools are at a disadvantage in hiring. “It’s a recruitment and retention issue for the state universities as they seek to recruit high-quality faculty,” he said. “State universities compete nationally and internationally, and many higher-education institutions that we compete with do offer domestic partner benefits.”

Dr. Sarah Ford, a faculty member at Inver Hills Community College, told the committee about one award-winning colleague who is looking for work in California because she can’t get health benefits for her family.

“We pay the same dues to our unions. We pay the same co-pays and deductibles. We make the same retirement contributions as everyone else,” said Ford. “We do the same work as our married colleagues, and we pay the same taxes that everybody else pays except we are not offered the same benefits that married people are.”

Ford pointed out that 16 states and the District of Columbia offer domestic partner benefits to state employees.

Monica Meyer, public policy director for OutFront Minnesota, countered a common contention  frequently offered by social conservatives about domestic partner benefits: that some people will try to game the system. “People don’t sign up to say they are domestic partners when they are not domestic partners,” she said. “One of the issues is the cost factor: Domestic partner benefits are taxed as federal income, while benefits for married couples are not. That’s why we have written in the definition of domestic partners in the bill.”

Bill sponsor Rep. Phyllis Kahn, DFL-Minneapolis, and Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Delano, had an awkward but humorous exchange over the bill.

“I will start out with an apology to Rep. Emmer,” said Kahn. “The last time I presented this bill, Rep. Emmer suggested an amendment, and I didn’t accept the amendment because I thought it broadened it in an unacceptable way.”

In 2007 Emmer wanted to change “domestic partner” to “significant other,” which, Kahn felt, would have created an over-broad bill and compromised its chances. The current bill includes elements of Emmer’s amendment such that it is not specific to gay and lesbian couples.

“Mr. Chair,” Emmer interrupted. “I mean we need to clear up when someone doesn’t tell the truth here. The bottom line was that Rep. Kahn didn’t trust me.”

“Right,” said Kahn — and the room erupted in laughter. “And I have now apologized for that lack of trust, and I have incorporated Rep. Emmer’s amendment from the start. I did make the mistake in not getting to him in time to co-author the bill.”

That generated more laughter, as Emmer has consistently spoken out against and voted in opposition to bills that would recognize same-sex couples.

The bill now heads to the State Government Finance Division.

At the state Capitol Monday, the revolution arrived earlier than expected. It wasn’t rioting over the economy but some very civil unrest by members of the mainstream media, upset over proposed restrictions at the Minnesota House of Representatives that would affect not only new media but all media.

The draft rules surfaced Friday to outrage among a local media that didn’t like to be told what and when they could videotape at House committee meetings. By Monday afternoon there was enough outrage for a meeting of a couple dozen media people led by the House DFL Caucus’ Andrew Wittenborg in a Capitol hearing room.

The proposed rules were the product of the House attorneys and leadership, the Sergeant-at-Arms office, Republicans and individual members of the media, Wittenborg said. But after hearing back from the media, the new strictures are out the window. To each item on a form video- and audio-tapers were to sign to get access to ply their trade in House committee hearings, Wittenborg repeated again and again: “I don’t see that as a restriction that will go forward.”

That was good news to the assembled news-gatherers, but many remained aghast.

“If a lawyer actually looked at this [he or she] should be disbarred” in view of First Amendment violations, said TPT’s Mary Lahammer, later adding that she found legal approval of the document “shocking.”

“I’m amazed we even got to the point where we’re discussing it publicly,” said KSTP-TV’s Tom Hauser.

Wittenborg was asked to explain the fear behind the House’s trepidation. “It runs the gamut: space concerns, security concerns.” Of the latter, he said, “We’re not talking about trackers,” adding that videotaping “has weirded people out.” Then, turning to KFAI-FM’s Marty Owings: “I think you weirded people out.” (Owings has probably had the most run-ins with the House Sergeant-at-Arms in his attempts to videotape during House committee hearings.)

That explanation didn’t sit right with Jason Barnett of The UpTake, who argued for broad rights for all citizens to shoot video at the Capitol and House committee hearings. The first thing you hear on a tour of the Capitol is “This is your building,’” he said. “If you’re not allowed to record in it, it’s not your building.”

Wittenborg said he’d bring the reporters’ concerns back to House leadership. Exactly what the next step will be is unclear.

Photo: MNHS.org

The Minnesota Health Plan Act, a bill that would make the state the sole health insurance provider, had its first hearing in the House on Thursday, but the outcome wasn’t what supporters would have liked.

HF 135 was introduced by Rep. David Bly, DFL-Northfield, with a whopping 33 co-authors, all DFLers, and was heard in the Health Care and Human Services Policy and Oversight Committee, where the vote was tabled for lack of support.

The Minnesota Health Plan would essentially make the state into a health insurer, with premiums based on individuals’ ability to pay. Supporters say the bill would reduce costs, cover everyone and eliminate gaps in care when people are laid off.

At today’s hearing, health insurance industry representatives, Republicans and a few DFLers hammered on bill supporters, despite physicians and small business owners signaling the urgency of the issue.

Rep. Laura Brod, R-New Prague, started in on the bill with concerns that the oversight functions would violate providers’ privacy.

“I’m concerned about opening up somebody’s records just because they happen to be with the plan,” she said. She also had concerns with creating a health board that would set the standards for which treatments are medically necessary. “This board determines what [providers] would pay for.” It doesn’t take a big leap, she said, to say it could deny treatments to individuals.

Bly responded that the board wouldn’t review individual cases but would be responsible for setting policy for the plan. “I don’t think what you are worried about, this plan would do,” he said.

After those initial disagreements, supporters testified for the bill. Dr. Ed Ellinger of the University of Minnesota’s Boynton Health Service said that after 40 years of practicing medicine, he sees the need for change.

“Year after year, we call for reform, yet access to care has not changed,” he said. “After four decades of effort, what have we achieved?”

He said the clinic employs 20 people to handle just the insurance administration, which costs upwards of $250,000 a year.

“A national health system would be ideal, but Minnesotans cannot afford to wait for that to happen,” he said.

Dr. Mike Thorstenson, who took vacation time to testify as a constituent, said, “The Minnesota Health Plan is the only plan addressing the structural dysfunction of our health care system.”

He documented his struggle, his wife’s struggle, and the struggles of family friends when they were diagnosed with cancer and tried to navigate the insurance system to make sure treatments were covered — sometimes in mid-treatment.

He noted the plan’s mandate for all Minnesotans to have a primary physician to coordinate their health care. “There needs to be a system of care,” he said.

But Rep. Steve Gottwalt, R-St. Cloud, wasn’t buying it. He said the plan wouldn’t necessarily fix the issues Thorstenson addressed. “I’m part of a system, and I have been taken care of very well,” said Gottwalt, a remark that was met with boos and hisses from the packed hearing room.

Bob Sarnia, a publishing company owner from Northfield, spoke of how his company of five employees was stifled by health care costs. It costs him $60,000 a year to cover his employees and their families, he said.

“One of the reasons I am reluctant to hire new employees is that it might easily cost $15,000 a year or more [per employee]. My company’s health care premiums are the primary reason preventing me from hiring,” he said. “Small companies are being strangled by the costs.”

Elaine Torpet of Fertile, Minn., moved to the state from Canada when she married her husband. “I’ve tried for 47 years to gain back the kind of health insurance I gave up when I got married,” she said. “We are still where Canada was in 1867.”

Katherine Kmit of the Minnesota Council of Health Plans repeated her organization’s mantra: “Health care is not expensive because of insurance. Insurance is expensive because of health care,” she said. “Approaches like this bill are fundamentally flawed because it assumes health plans are the problem.”

She pointed to legislation and industry efforts to bring down administrative costs such as electronic record-keeping and administrative efficiency, all issues that the committee had addressed in the past.

But it was her final comment that sent the hearing room into a tizzy. To Bly she said she was sorry he wasn’t a member of the committee. “Maybe next year you can be on the health care committee and learn about those things that are happening.”

Kmit’s statement was met with gasps and boos from the audience.

Beth McMullen of the Minnesota Business Partnership spoke against the bill and in favor of a “market-based, patient-centered system.”

McMullen expressed concern over the business taxes contained in the bill. The Minnesota Business Partnership represents some of Minnesota’s largest corporations, and McMullen pointed to the fact that her clients have health insurance coverage for people in many states. She said she worried about how those corporations would navigate a drastic policy change in Minnesota.

But Rep. Tina Liebling, DFL-Rochester, got to the heart of the matter: Large corporations enjoy a competitive advantage over small businesses that would disappear under the health plan. She asked McMullen whether those corporations’ ability to provide comprehensive health care as a part of employment was an advantage.

“Yes, I do believe that recruitment and retention are helped by offering competitive health insurance to employees,” said McMullen.

Said Liebling: “I just want to make a point that I think there is a competitive disadvantage to those [businesses that can't afford comprehensive coverage] and I think it hurts small businesses in our state.”

While Republicans hammered supporters, many were glad to have the discussion. Rep. Jim Abeler, R-Anoka, told Bly, “I’ll give you credit for a great heart and good intent. But it’s a really hard topic and we are all looking for a model that could work. For people in the audience who are so eager to fix this … it can’t be free!”

Gottwalt told Bly, “I appreciate the effort. I don’t agree with it but I commend you for it. But this is a massive expansion of state government.”

In the end the bill was tabled and no vote was taken. Speculation was that not enough DFLers were sold on the bill, and that all Republicans would vote against it.

Rep. Julie Bunn, DFL-Lake Elmo, was one such member. She said she had concerns and wasn’t ready to support it.

“But we definitely share your commitment to fixing health care,” she told Bly.

Because the bill has been tabled, it will either be heard again in the same committee or be rolled into an omnibus bill later in the session.

House Rules Committee Chair Tony Sertich didn’t let the committee take up the proposal because the amendment’s current official sponsor, Deputy Minority Leader Steve Smith, wasn’t present. Sertich — who warned in a floor debate this month that the rule change would open access to “www.anybody.com” — said he’d consult with Smith and “we will be coming forward with something on the bill.”

To at least one interested observer, that smacked of legislative run-around. ”There’s procedural gimmicks that have been put in place for the purpose of not seriously resolving this,” Shawn Towle of Checks and Balances told a group of online media workers after the committee adjourned.

“I’ve got to take that back,” Towle continued. “They’re going to seriously resolve it, but it’s going to be on their time, not on our time.”

Towle said it wasn’t clear how or when the proposed amendment — which would insert the words “online media” into existing House rules on press credentials to achieve parity across print, broadcast and Web-based media — will get a public hearing.

Is the question, with its attendant First Amendment issues, ripe for a hearing in a court of law? “As soon as I find a lawyer” who wants to make a reputation with the case, Towle said.

Note: Minnesota Independent’s Paul Demko requested press credentials today. I requested permission from House Sergeant-at-arms Sandy Dicke to record today’s hearing on video but was turned down.

She cited fairness issues with allowing one online media outfit access without rules in place. And she’s been part of discussions that remain unresolved about how to let online media cover the House. Hang-ups include concerns about crowding, noise and lack of institutions to provide the House with recourse in the case of “bad information.”

“We understand that online could be the only media in the future,”  Dicke said.

What else isn’t allowed in committee hearing rooms besides online media cameras? Sandwiches. A spectator in the gallery seating was quietly eating one when a legislative staffer in a crisp white shirt approached and appeared to inform him of a House ban on food. Perhaps because of a subclause for cases like this in which less than 50 percent of the sandwich remains, the man was allowed to wolf down the rest. Within 10 minutes, the committee adjourned for lunch.

Even Ozment thinks that Lindsay might be too extreme for the district.

Minnesota’s DFL leaders are looking to expand their lead in the House by five votes in order to create a veto-proof majority in that body, while Republicans are looking to stave off any losses as more Republicans have left open seats in 2008. District 37B is seen as an opportunity for both sides.

Judy Lindsay has been a tireless opponent of gays and lesbians, is staunchly pro-life and is extremely anti-taxes. She’s made her mark in the district serving for eight years on a school board serving Apple Valley, Rosemount and Eagan. While on the board she relentlessly opposed increasing funding for the public school district while sending her own kids to private school. “I don’t have to worry about our values being undermined” in private school, she said in 2000.

An ambitious conservative, Lindsay challenged Ozment in the 2002 Republican primary and lost. She picked herself up and jumped back into politics in 2003 by assisting Rep. Arlon Lindner in his efforts to remove protections for gays and lesbians from Minnesota’s Human Rights Act.

That Minnesota’s gays and lesbians were protected from housing and employment discrimination frightened Lindsay. At a press conference supporting Lindner’s initiative, she said, “We are afraid of the sex pushers coming into our community and pandering to the curiosity of children and childlike adults.”

Lindner’s initiative failed, and because of inflammatory statements regarding the bill and about the Holocaust, AIDS in Africa and the Dalai Lama, Lindner was found in violation of House ethics standards in 2003.

The controversy caused a successful primary challenge to Lindner by Joyce Peppin. Judy Lindsay jumped on board to support Lindner’s losing campaign as an independent, and in the process engendered still more controversy. Lindsay’s overzealous campaigning resulted in a complaint with the Minnesota Campaign Finance Board.

Lindsay moved on for a stint as president of the conservative interest group the Legislative Evaluation Assembly as well as founding her own anti-homosexuality group, “In Defense of Innocence.” As spokeswoman for the group, she was tireless in demonizing gays and lesbians. “The facts speak for themselves. Homosexuality is dangerous and risky,” she wrote in a Rosemount newspaper. “Students should not be encouraged to enter this lifestyle. They should be warned of the dangers and the facts that many individuals have successfully left the homosexual lifestyle. It is too bad their schools lie and keep this important information from them.”

When Lindsay won the Republican endorsement in March, her Republican predecessor was not kind. “Judy’s an extremist,” Ozment told the Pioneer Press. “Everybody knows my opposition to Judy. She doesn’t support education. She’s just not electable. If they would endorse her, I’m afraid the Republicans would lose that seat.”

That’s exactly what the DFL is banking on. Phil Sterner is a moderate DFLer with long history in the district. An insurance agent, Sterner serves on the Rosemount City Council and the Apple Valley Chamber of Commerce. He’s a pro-life DFLer, as well as a supporter of green technology and renewable energy to create jobs. He took small steps to save the city money by reducing energy use at city facilities, reducing water use for city land and using prairie grass instead of lawn grass to reduce maintenance costs in city parks.

He says wants to use state funds for education in hopes of reducing the burden of property taxes.

Residents of the district are polarized between the two. Many are very enthusiastic supporters of Lindsay, while others claim the mantra “Anybody but Judy.” Accusations of push-polling phone calls have sprung up, with both sides denying involvement, and letters to the editor of the local paper have been heated.

As of the end of primary reporting, both campaigns had sizable war chests for a suburban House district. Lindsay had more than $13,000 in cash on hand and Sterner has just over $10,000.

The first and only debate between Lindsay and Sterner was held on Oct. 14, and the Rosemount Town Pages offers the debate video on their Web site. One interesting question starkly caught Lindsay’s anti-government platform.

A question from the audience read, “How come most representatives don’t do more legislatively or through ordinances for the handicapped and the elderly?”

Lindsay responded, “It comes down to a basic issue of the proper role of the government. As much as we want to be able to help everyone, government can’t. So I’m thinking that the person might think that there needs to be more government programs for the elderly or the handicapped. And I don’t think the answer is government.” Lindsay said it should be the role of churches and other organizations. “I think that the proper role of government is not to give handouts to special interest groups.”

Sterner said that accessibility is an important role for government as long as it is economically feasible for businesses and taxpayers.

Minnesota House Speaker Steve Sviggum is friendly and energetic. He has more than once been confused for 1st District Congressman Gil Gutknecht, and though Sviggum’s hair is shorter and slightly graying, their facial features and personality similarities might lead an observer to think that they are brothers or at least cousins. And politically they are not dissimilar either, both wearing the mantle of conservative Republicanism, though in this election both have seemed to downplay that association a bit.

Sviggum, from rural Kenyon about 40 miles northwest of Rochester, holds what is considered to be a safe seat, so this gives him time to travel to parts of rural Minnesota, particularly in the south where he is well known, to stump for a new batch of GOP candidates. Two of these are Luke Robinson and Andy Davis, both running for open seats currently held by retiring DFLers.Robinson is facing longtime Mankato school board member Kathy Brynaert in District 23B, for the seat that’s been held by John Dorn for almost 20 years. Dorn has been known as a moderate DFLer and is respected for his quiet style and ability to secure bonding funds for Minnesota State University Mankato. It appears Brynaert, who is Dorn’s contemporary, would follow in the same tradition.

Robinson is much younger, a lawyer, a relative newcomer to the community, but also moderate and low-key in style. Perhaps feeling that Mankato is too solid a DFL stronghold, the GOP hasn’t put much effort into his campaign.

Andy Davis, on the other hand, who is running in the more competitive District 23A, has been given more attention by his party along with a better chance to win. The district includes the cities of North Mankato and St. Peter, as well as rural Nicollet County. The seat is currently held by Ruth Johnson, a dynamic and tireless campaigner known for her ebullient style, upbeat attitude and red campaign boots. The seat has vacillated in recent elections between parties, with Johnson having held it twice, her tenure interrupted by a campaign for Lieutenant Governor and a loss to Howard Swenson.

Davis is young (25), an Afghanistan and Iraq war vet, a student, and co-founder of a group that student veterans. He is also part of the Davis family of St. Peter and nearby Le Sueur, which owns Davisco Foods International, Northern Plains Dairy and Cambria, which manufactures and sells quartz countertops. The Davis family has a long history of supporting Republican candidates and causes.

Davis’s opponent, Terry Morrow, is a professor of communications at Gustavus Adolphus College in St. Peter and is Chair of the St. Peter school board. He holds both a Ph.D. and a J.D., and has been a St. Peter resident since 1995.

During Sviggum’s visit to North Mankato, the Speaker stressed the importance of sending representatives to the legislature who would represent rural interests. Electing DFLers from southern Minnesota, he emphasized, “would only enhance the liberals in St. Paul.” He stressed that he wanted to send a “positive message” that “Minnesota works,” and that Governor Pawlenty had turned a $3.5 billion deficit into a $1 billion surplus in less than four years.

Sviggum supports the proposed MVST constitutional amendment, which would dictate that state vehicle sales taxes go for transportation issues. Yet he cautioned that its 40% requirement for transit funding was written in as a minimum, and that without strong rural representation in the state legislature, Minneapolis and St. Paul would grab more of the appropriation for transit issues, starving outstate Minnesota of much-needed roads and bridges.

One reporter in the small gathering asked if the national political climate, where it appears that Republicans are on the verge of losing several major congressional races, will affect the chances of Republicans running for the state legislature. Sviggum replied that because of the Foley scandal Minnesota Republicans were facing a “headwind” but that it was unfair to relate the scandal to state races.

He acknowledged that there were twenty to thirty key races he was focusing on in the state. Though he didn’t seem to have the same level of confidence about the outcomes that he has had in previous election years, he maintained his upbeat, positive demeanor even as he said goodbye to the last, straggling members of the media interviewing him. Then he jumped into a small, blue American-made sedan to head west for more visits and into a headwind and a gathering snowstorm.