Photo: Wikipedia

A bipartisan bill introduced in the Minnesota House on Monday could give the state’s agricultural sector a boost in the form of a new cash crop: medical marijuana. Gov. Tim Pawlenty last year vetoed an effort to legalize medical cannibis, but this measure has a different aim — to give farmers the OK to grow pot for export to states where its medicinal use is legal.

The Medical Marijuana Production and Export Act is sponsored by DFL Reps. Phyllis Kahn, Tom Rukavina, Al Juhnke, Tom Huntley and Frank Hornstein, joined by Republican Rep. Jim Abeler.

The Minnesota Independent’s requests for comment from the bill’s sponsors weren’t returned on Wednesday, but the bill spells out its aim:

The purpose of the Medical Marijuana Production and Export Act is to strengthen the state economy and its agricultural sectors by authorizing the development of a regulated medical marijuana production and export industry while maintaining strict control of marijuana.

Currently 14 states allow for the use of medical marijuana, although none are neighbors to Minnesota: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

A gay couple is married in Iowa. Photo: Bobster855, Flickr

It’s unlikely same-sex marriage will become law in Minnesota this year — Gov. Tim Pawlenty will undoubtedly veto it and skittish DFLers may vote against it in an election year — but the bill’s chief author in the Senate says it could get a hearing and possibly make it out of committee.

For three years, Sen. John Marty has been the chief sponsor of the Marriage and Family Protection Act, a bill that would equalize marriage laws to include same-sex couples. The bill was drafted by Doug Benson, a citizen who wants to marry his partner of more than twenty years. On his own time and his own dime, Benson has lobbied to get the support of 28 legislators.

What the bill needs most is a hearing and a committee vote. The bill’s chief sponsor in the House, Rep. Phyllis Kahn, told the Minnesota Independent a hearing is possible, but getting it out of committee isn’t likely.

But on the Senate side, the chances are better.

“I agree that it is unlikely that the bill is going to pass this year, but think we would have the votes to pass it out of committee in the Senate if we get a hearing,” Marty told the Minnesota Independent.

“I’d like to have a hearing and a vote — assuming we have the votes–  to begin moving the bill through the process,” he said. “Attitudes are rapidly changing, and by having a thoughtful discussion in committee, I think we can assist in that effort.”

Benson is much more optimistic about the bill’s chances.

“No one will actually know how the bill will do until a vote is taken… I think our attitude should always be, ‘This bill CAN pass,’ because that’s the truth.”

He added that Republicans continue to push for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, even though such a measure has no chance of passing a DFL-dominated Legislature.  On the other side of the issue, “that’s the kind of dedication we need” in the marriage equality movement, he said.

“We can sustain a negative vote and come back, but we cannot sustain a failure to act,” he said. “We are drowning in inertia at the Capitol over this and the thousands of gay and lesbian families across the state, including my own, are suffering because of it.”

To Sen. Marty Benson added, “I know you agree that we can’t afford to waste another session waiting for someone else to make the first move. The pendulum is swinging and time is slipping away from us.”

As the legislative session starts and the campaign season kick into high gear, every DFL candidate for governor has come out in support of marriage equality. Whether that support will translate into votes in committees and pressure from leadership to move the bill forward remains to be seen.

Photo: Lavverue, Flickr

The Marriage and Family Protection Act is still alive in the Minnesota Legislature, but Rep. Phyllis Kahn, DFL-Minneapolis, the bill’s chief author in the House, says it’s unlikely it’ll make it far this session. But with same-sex marriage legal in Iowa and domestic partnerships protected in Wisconsin, pressure is building in the DFL controlled Legislature to deliver some relationship rights for the key LGBT constituency.

Having been submitted last session — the first part of a biennium — the same bill will be continued during this session, Kahn said.

A committee hearing is seen by some, including Sen. John Marty, the state Senate’s sponsor, as a way begin thoughtful debate on the issue.

“We are looking at having a hearing,” Kahn said, but she says whether that happens rests with LGBT-rights groups. “That will depend on what the advocates want.”

Doug Benson of Marriage Equality Minnesota, the group behind the bill, says he’s lobbying to get the bill passed in the Legislature. OutFront Minnesota, the state’s largest LGBT advocacy group, says it will take 3 to 5 years to get such a bill passed. With Gov. Tim Pawlenty openly hostile to any expansion in relationship rights for same-sex couples, the groups are hopeful that a new governor in 2011 would be more receptive to the idea.

Would the bill pass the House or the Senate this session?

It’s unlikely in both cases. And Kahn said even passing it out of a committee would be difficult, if not impossible.

“We do not believe we have the votes to pass it out of committee, and we’re not sure what value a negative vote would have,” she told the Minnesota Independent.

Elsewhere in Minnesota news this morning ….

HENNEPIN COUNTY: They told us it would come to this. The county’s medical center will stop seeing uninsured patients who don’t live in the county: fallout from  Gov. Pawlenty’s line-item veto of funding for indigent care. [Minneapolis-St. Paul Business Journal]

STATEWIDE: Cities face “horror show” from state budget cuts. Metro area city officials meet today to try to figure out how to avoid the slasher. [League of Minnesota Cities]

MOORHEAD: “Downward spiral” from underfunded schools feared. New residents drawn to new schools will simply leave.  [Minnesota Public Radio]

ST. PAUL: Gentrification coming down the track. Along the planned Central Corridor light rail line, property tax hikes can kill a neighborhood sure as bulldozers.  [Twin Cities Daily Planet]

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: Recreation and entertainment infrastructure not core to mission. The U of M’s “intransigence” (to use one key legislator’s word) on its Central Corridor complaints threatens funding for its budget requests at the state Capitol. [Minnesota Daily]

FOLEY: Native son nabs National Book Award. T.J. Stiles, a Carleton College grad, won for his biography of Cornelius Vanderbilt. [St. Cloud Times]

Kahn’s bill — which would have had the immediate effect of making Al Franken a temporary U.S. senator — died in committee earlier this year, despite an expert’s warning that without it, Minnesota’s second U.S. Senate seat could stay empty for five months. (It stayed empty for six.) Hamline University School of Law professor David Schultz helped Kahn craft the bill because Minnesota is one of only a few states without a provisional-certificate law.

“Minnesotans have had only one U.S. senator for over five months,” a statement (pdf) from Kahn said. “This just isn’t fair to the citizens of Minnesota. Providing a provisional certificate of election to the winner of the recount is a common-sense remedy that would ensure this never happens again.”

Another thing that never happened: election reform, as passed by the state legislature during the session that adjourned this spring. Gov. Tim Pawlenty vetoed all three bills that came to his desk.

(Lavverrue, Flickr)

An unprecedented number of bills has been introduced this legislative session that would grant same-sex couples legal status similar to that of married couples. But the five bills have died quiet deaths, as leaders say they don’t have the votes to pass them, even out of DFL-dominated committees.

Advocates say the energy around marriage equality this session is new. “We went from fighting a constitutional amendment just three years ago to now seeing marriage equality bills being introduced … and instead of having a ‘defeat the constitutional amendment’ rally there was a ‘Freedom to Marry’ day rally,” said Jo Marsicano, communications director for OutFront Minnesota.

“This has clearly been made possible by the election in 2006 of a fair-minded majority with the majority being fortified in 2008.”

But for many, this session has been a disappointment. All bills in the Legislature must make it through a committee by deadline in order to stay alive. None of the marriage equality bills made it that far.

One measure, HF 1655, SF 1988 would have created a study group to “determine the extent to which structural barriers exist that negatively impact single people, same-sex couples, and co-habitating couples.” Another, HF1740, SF1732, would have allowed marriages performed in states where same-sex marriage is legal to be recognized by Minnesota. HF0999, meanwhile, would create civil union contracts as the standard across the state by removing the religious-based “marriage” from statutes.

HF893, SF120, the Marriage and Family Protection Act, would make marriage a gender-neutral institution in Minnesota, and
HF1644, SF1210 would beef up that language by specifically exempting religious leaders from having to perform or participate in any marriage for any reason.

Rep. Joe Mullery, DFL-Minneapolis, is the chair of the Civil Justice Committee, the first hurdle for the bills. He is also chief author of the civil unions bill. He had scheduled informational hearings for the bills — but not a vote — which left the bills sitting in committee. Advocates said they had enough votes to pass the bills, but Mullery insisted they didn’t.

Rep. Phyllis Kahn, DFL-Minneapolis, the chief author of the Marriage and Family Protection Act, agreed with Mullery.

“I strongly support Joe Mullery and his decision to have an informational hearing only. Why? The votes do not exist in that committee at this time to pass these bills. Many supporters believe that a vote to defeat the bills is more harmful than no vote.”

David Strand, one of dozens of citizens who have been lobbying legislators almost daily for marriage equality this session, said, “We learned that we and Mullery were counting the votes differently as one of the votes in favor has vascilated back and forth,” he said. “Without certainty whether the votes were there to pass the bills, he didn’t want the bills to be killed for the biennium by a tie vote.”

Doug Benson, a citizen who wrote the Marriage and Family Protection Act and lobbied heavily for its consideration, was disappointed that the bill is technically dead for the session.

“I naively assumed that huge DFL margins in both houses of the Legislature in a non-election year would provide a secure enough environment for the DFL leadership to allow some effort to end state sponsored discrimination against our families to progress this session,” he said. “My education continues.”

But he says they will continue to work on the issue next year. “There is a lot of outdated thinking, fear-mongering and passive anti-gay bigotry that must be dealt with at the Capitol in order for us to move forward. Those obstacles will be overcome.”

Marsicano of OutFront Minnesota agreed that marriage equality still faces serious roadblocks. “We know that marriage equality won’t become a reality under the current governor,” she said. “So we’re looking ahead to the election of a pro-equality governor as one of the vital steps in this campaign.”

Image of hemp field via Wikipedia

State Rep. Phyllis Kahn, DFL-Minneapolis, passed out chocolate truffles topped with industrial hemp seeds at the House Agriculture, Rural Economies and Veterans Affairs Committee on Wednesday. The nutritious seeds are legal to buy in Minnesota as food, but once they sprout, they are considered marijuana and subject to harsh legal penalties. A bill Kahn sponsored that would allow for the agricultural production of hemp  passed the committee on Wednesday.

“It’s the one product that we can buy here, but we can’t grow it here,” said Thom Peterson of the Minnesota Farmers Union. Peterson hopes that one day farmers will have an alternative crop in industrial hemp.

The chief supporter of industrial hemp in the United States is an unlikely figure: David Monson, the Republican Speaker of the North Dakota House. He’s a farmer near the Canadian border whose neighbors were growing hemp while his barley crop was failing because of a blight. His efforts helped Minnesota’s neighbors to the west move forward with industrial hemp and its production.

Kahn said concerns that hemp farmers would clandestinely grow the similar-looking marijuana plant among fields of hemp were unfounded. “They would both cross-pollinate and ruin each other,” Kahn said, and the marijuana plants would be rendered useless as a drug, she said. “I understand you’d have to smoke an eighth before [feeling any effects].”

One bit of testimony came from the chair of the committee, Rep. Mary Ellen Otremba, DFL-Long Prairie, who said she loves using hemp fibers in her sewing: “I really like hemp fabrics. They are very strong garments. It’s very easy to use.”

She added while laughing, “I just want to say that I do not smoke my fabrics.”

Kahn’s bill would begin the process of setting up a system of regulation for hemp production in Minnesota. But the bill stipulates that nothing can move forward until the Drug Enforcement Agency issues a permit, something the agency has fought in North Dakota.

The bill passed the committee by a voice vote and now heads to the Public Safety Policy and Oversight Committee.

“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.

In Schultz’s estimation, including time for appeals, the trial in Coleman’s lawsuit might last through June. “Do we want Minnesota to only have one U.S. senator [until then]?” Schultz said in an interview. That is a compelling reason for Gov. Tim Pawlenty to sign the bill, he said.

Kahn says she expects Schultz to testify in hearings on her bill, which she said will take a minimum of two weeks to pass the state Legislature.

One provision that Schultz said he suggested that’s not in Kahn’s bill is a requirement that the governor and secretary of state sign the provisional election certificate. Recently, in Illinois, the secretary of state refused to sign an election certificate for Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s appointee to fill President Barack Obama’s former seat in the U.S. Senate. The same thing could happen here, Schultz said, even under Kahn’s bill.

Schultz said that, to his knowledge, Minnesota is the only state, or one of very few, lacking a provision for temporary election certificates. He also believes the U.S. Senate has never seated a senator without an election certificate of some kind.

The bill’s language doesn’t name Franken; rather it requires a provisional election certificate be issued to any candidate with the most votes after a recount, pending the results of an election contest. If Kahn’s bill were to become law, former U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman’s DFL party challenger would immediately become the first beneficiary, even before the courts resolve Coleman’s election contest.

Eric Black at MinnPost is skeptical that Pawlenty would ever sign it. But Kahn told the Minnesota Independent that it wouldn’t look good for Pawlenty to have delayed seating a Sen. Franken “for no good reason.” Essentially, the governor would be taking what now seem long odds that his Republican colleague Coleman will win in state court.

Kahn also took issue with two Republican responses to her bill in the Star Tribune. The governor was wrong to call the bill flawed because of purported retroactivity, Kahn says. Indeed, it would not be retroactive but would apply to any election contest in process at the time it becomes law.

To the Coleman campaign’s assertion that her bill is a “cheap public relations gimmick” meant to do an end-run around the ongoing election contest trial, Kahn responds that seating a senator provisionally would take pressure off the court, allowing the three-judge panel more time to deliberate more carefully.

The idea for the bill came to Kahn, she says, while she was reading the Legislative Reference Library’s copy of “Recount,” the authoritative book about the statewide recount in Minnesota’s 1962 election for governor.  Back then, the incumbent governor, Elmer Anderson, was ahead when his term expired and stayed in office until he decided not to challenge the recount lead of his rival, then-Lt. Gov. Karl Rolvaag.

That was a convenient chain of events then, Kahn says. But what if Anderson, the incumbent, had been behind? What if an incumbent isn’t seeking re-election or runs for a different office? A recount/election contest scenario in the future could leave the state with another extended vacancy in high office — unless her bill passes, Kahn says, and the governor signs it.

“Two senators are clearly better than one senator,” Kahn says.

As for Franken’s bid to have the state Supreme Court order an election certificate be issued to him: “My prediction is he loses on Thursday.”

Related: Unless Franken gets temporary certificate, Senate seat could stay empty 5 months