Jesse "The Senator" Ventura?

In multiple interviews today, former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura hinted that he is considering joining the state's 2008 U.S. Senate race.

NPR, the AP, the Politico, the New York Times all have reports on his possible candidacy against Norm Coleman and Al Franken.

A recent poll shows Ventura would draw support from Franken, Coleman, and undecideds. Without Ventura, Coleman leads Franken 52-40. With Ventura, Coleman polls at 41%, Franken at 31%, and Ventura at 23%.

Then again, when Ventura was elected Governor in 1998, he was also polling in third.

What do you think? Should he do it? Can he win?


 Enjoy the Law and Politics Blog? Subscribe to our RSS Feed

Shakeups Continue in Minnesota Attorney General's Office

After nearly a year and a half in office, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson's office continues to be plagued by staff dissension.

The Star Tribune reports that an independent investigation of the office by St. Thomas Law Dean Thomas Mengler cleared the Attorney General of wrongdoing related to her handling of cases in the office. In response to the investigation report, Attorney General Swanson fired the attorney who brought the original complaint.

"Mengler said Swanson did not ask him to address broader concerns raised by [the fired attorney] on office morale and attempts by staff attorneys in the attorney general's office to form a union...

Mengler's 19-page report comes as the legislative auditor is conducting a separate probe into the attorney general's office."

At the same time, local online newspaper, MinnPost, has published a critique of the Attorney General's Office and lays the blame for any mismanagement there at the feet of former Attorney General Mike Hatch.

"The recent agonies of the Minnesota attorney general's office under Lori Swanson (an alarming turnover rate in the office, a futile unionization effort blocked by Swanson, a series of allegations that lawyers in the office felt pressured to do things they considered unethical and a preliminary investigation by the legislative auditor, which may be released any day now) are really the latest symptoms of trauma that goes back nine years and starts with two words:

Mike Hatch.

One former assistant attorney general said that when people ask him what he thinks about the turmoil of Swanson's first year, he replies: 'Are you kidding me? None of this is new. All of this has been happening since Hatch took over...'

[Hatch] defends his management of the office and blames the current controversies on a 'small cabal of attorneys' who are trying to unionize the office. He said they hide behind anonymity to throw mud at their bosses and look 'for any scribner to serve as their hand maiden.'"

To what degree do internal staff frustrations impact the operations of the Attorney General's Office and its service to the State of Minnesota?



 Enjoy the Law and Politics Blog? Subscribe to our RSS Feed

Thursday, April 24: Governor Al Quie and Representative Steve Simon to Discuss Judicial Selection in Minnesota

On Thursday, April 24, Former Minnesota Governor Al Quie (R) and Minnesota State Representative Steve Simon (DFL) will discuss possible reforms to Minnesota's judicial selection system.

Governor Quie recently chaired a state commission to study possible reforms to Minnesota's system. A copy of the commission's report is available online.

This event is part of the Institute for Law and Politics' regular Lunch Discussion Series. It is co-sponsored by the Law School Democrats and Minnesotans for Impartial Courts.

The lunch will be from 12:15pm - 1:30pm in Spannaus Commons at the University of Minnesota Law School. (Click here for parking and directions).

The discussion is free and open to the public. Lunch is provided.

 Enjoy the Law and Politics Blog? Subscribe to our RSS Feed

It's Our Party (we should be allowed to vote if we want to)

[Senior Fellow David Schultz asked me to submit this post on his behalf]

Imagine the Minnesota DFL Party adopting a rule that no people of color could participate in their caucuses, or the Republican Party adopting one barring women from attending. Could they do that? Proponents of the political parties seem to imply such a right when arguing against a law calling for primaries instead of caucuses for the selection of presidential and other candidates. While the courts have given broad deference to the First Amendment freedom of association rights of political parties, those rights are limited.

There is no question that political parties should generally be free to determine who can be a member and how they select their candidates. Over the last 20 years the Supreme Court has ruled that parties are free to associate with whomever they wish. This means, for example, that the Republican Party of Connecticut could invite independents to participate in their primaries even though a state law prohibited it. Conversely, the Court also voided a California law permitting voters in primaries to select candidates in any party, citing the right of political parties to limit who can participate in their selection. Paraphrasing the Leslie Gore song, the reason for these decisions is that “It’s my party and I’ll invite whom I want to.”

While these cases significantly protect party rights, the Supreme Court has never held that they are free to discriminate. In a series of decisions from the 1930s through the 1950s known as the “White Primary” cases, the Court struck down as unconstitutional party rules that excluded African-Americans from participating in the Texas Democratic Party primaries. The Court ruled that primaries are not always private affairs immune from regulation. The government had an interest in ensuring political parties were free from discrimination, especially when their actions—such as the selection of candidates—would appear on the general election ballot. To say that individuals have a right to vote but to deny them the right to participate in party affairs effectively undermines that right. The courts have also endorsed rules limiting party access to the ballot, and the Supreme Court upheld a Minnesota law preventing one party from cross-endorsing candidates from another.

What became clear on caucus night in Minnesota is how exclusionary and discriminatory the process is. While there was no official policy stating that neither women nor African-Americans could participate, many people were disenfranchised. They included those who worked second shifts or who were working second jobs, the elderly afraid to go out at night, parents with child-rearing duties, and others, such as those serving in the military in places like Iraq. None of them could participate via an absentee ballot, as would be the case in a general election. While the discrimination that occurred might not rise to the level of that found in the White Primary cases, it was nonetheless no less exclusionary and limited in whom it effectively allowed to participate.

The caucus system does promote important values. It encourages deliberation and opens up the parties to many who can suggest issues for it consider. But these values must be balanced against those favoring convenience and greater opportunity for more individuals to participate. Perhaps a hybrid system of all-day voting, absentee ballots, and caucuses at the end of the day can harmonize these competing objectives.

Minnesota prides itself on its high voter turnout. Unfortunately a record-setting caucus turnout of 10% of the voting population is dismal. Such a rate were it to occur in the south with its high minority populations, would be viewed with skepticism. The caucus system, while quaint, is a product of a Lake Wobegon era of Minnesota that is passing away and it may no longer be the most inclusive means of selecting candidates in the 21st century.


David Schultz is a Hamline University Professor in the Graduate School of Management where he teaches classes in government ethics, and at the University of Minnesota in the Law School where he teaches election law and serves as a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Law and Politics.

 Enjoy the Law and Politics Blog? Subscribe to our RSS Feed

Minnesota Caucus on "Super Tuesday", February 5

Minnesota will hold its caucuses at 7:00pm on Tuesday, February 5.

Partisan precinct caucuses will determine Minnesota's National Delegates for the Presidential nomination. Caucuses also elect local party officers, propose issue resolutions for party platforms, and elect delegates to local party conventions.

Click below for precinct caucus location information by political party:

Republican Party of Minnesota

Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) Party of Minnesota

 Enjoy the Law and Politics Blog? Subscribe to our RSS Feed

Advisory Board Member Tova Wang Questions the Value of the Caucus System

Institute for Law and Politics Advisory Board Member Tova Wang - a Fellow at the Century Foundation - recently authored a report arguing against the use of caucuses in the presidential selection process.

Her paper, "Has America Outgrown the Caucus? Some Thoughts on Reshaping the Nomination Contest" (pdf), argues that time-consuming, weeknight caucuses violate the principal that all citizens should have an equal opportunity to participate in the political system.

"Also, the caucuses actually discourage campaigns from trying to attract new voters to the system. Campaign workers know that only the most avid partisans will go through the tribulations of a caucus, and these avid partisans are likely to be people who have voted consistently in the past. Thus as a political calculus it makes no sense for them to reach out to infrequent or potential new voters."

What do you think? Is the caucus system broken? Do the benefits of in-person deliberation with one's neighbors outweigh the limited participation that caucuses historically exhibit? Are there any middle-ground reforms, short of scrapping the system, that might alleviate some of these concerns?

 Enjoy the Law and Politics Blog? Subscribe to our RSS Feed

Special Session Today to Address Flood Relief

Governor Tim Pawlenty has called for a special session to be held today at 5pm for the purpose of passing $150 to $160 million in relief funds aimed at easing the plight of flood victims in southeastern Minnesota.

Under the Minnesota constitution, the Governor alone holds the power to call a special session “on extraordinary occasions.” Though the Governor is required to inform the legislature of the purpose for the meeting, once underway, the agenda and length of the special session is at the discretion of the legislature. The floods that ravished southeastern Minnesota three weeks ago seems to satisfy the “extraordinary” element for the special session, as many Minnesota communities are reeling from the economic toll the floods damage inflicted. House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis, told the Star Tribune,

“Folks have homes and businesses that are gutted to the studs. They don't have heating. They have issues with employment. We don't want to make that any worse.”

Past special sessions dealing with flood relief took months to be called after floods, leaving many Minnesotans upset with the lack of government response in the face of crisis. Governor Pawlenty recounted today,

“'I know there has been some concern about timing, but the fact of the matter is that those two other floods, the special session was three months later. We've moved this up for understandable and good reasons and it needs to be moved up.”

Though there is general agreement in St. Paul on the urgency and need for a special session aimed at providing flood relief, recent calls for special sessions to address transportation finance packages, a tax bill to grant local governments aid, and funding for the Interstate-35W bridge collapse recovery have gone unanswered by the Governor.

Though the DFL has been frustrated with Governor for saving these issues for the regular session, a compromise leading to today’s special session has made some room on the agenda for a few issues outside of flood relief. According to the Star Tribune, the agenda will include approval to release about $57 million in federal disaster money tied to the 35W bridge and appropriations from various state agencies, including money to repair state and local highways and bridges, property-tax abatements, grants to address anticipated drops in school enrollments in cities such as Rushford, and money for child care and nursing homes.

Though there is some disagreement of whether this emergency spending should come out of the state surplus or instead should be covered by long term loans, it is likely that the special session will be short and to the point with little fireworks. That said, the DFL controlled House and Senate get to decide when the party is over and will certainly have to deal with the temptation of delving deeper into some of the issues they have been clamoring to get a special session for.

Enjoy the Law and Politics Blog? Subscribe to our RSS Feed

New Senate candidate in Minnesota?

Nobel Laureate Peter Agre is exploring running for the U.S. Senate as a DFLer next year.

Joe at MNCR interviewed Dr. Agre yesterday. However, unmentioned by Joe is Dr. Agre's appearance on the Colbert Report.

Here's the video (Part One):


Part Two:


Also yesterday, a national blog claimed the DFL has done a poor job recruiting a candidate against Norm Coleman. In the current landscape, Peter Agre's candidacy might be looking rather attractive.

 Enjoy the Law and Politics Blog? Subscribe to our RSS Feed

Minnesota Secretary of State speaks about his views of democracy

Eric Pusey at MNBlue has a recap of Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie's speech last night at the FairVote Minnesota 10th Anniversary Dinner. FairVote is the organization advocating Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) in Minnesota.

Ritchie spoke about voter participation, the inadequate teaching of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution in our schools, his dislike of electronic voting machines, and his advocacy for IRV.

 Enjoy the Law and Politics Blog? Subscribe to our RSS Feed

Minnesota Legislator Blames Virginia Tech Shootings on Mental Health Treatment

Minnesota Rep. Mark Olson blames the Virginia Tech shootings (and all other school shootings) on psychotropic drugs, such as anti-depressants:

Law and Politics Roundup 04.18.2007

In today's law and politics news:

Minnesota:
Trial lawyer Mike Ciresi enters the U.S. Senate race. Michael Brodkorp has some video from the announcement:



ThinkProgress reports on alleged flip-flops by Senator Coleman regarding his role in the appointment of U.S. Attorney Rachel Paulose.

Nation:
McClatchy reports that the White House is demanding to see RNC emails before they are handed over to the House Judiciary Committee. This is likely to be a battle.

Politico has an interesting commentary on the technology divide between Republicans and Democrats.

Speaking of campaign technology, presidential candidate Duncan Hunter could use some major help with his emails.

And when campaign technology and marketing data collide, we find out that Obama supporters are obsessed with their Blackberrys.

April 17, 2007 Law and Politics Blog Roundup - Tax Day Edition

The belated-tax-day edition of the law and politics blog roundup:

The Washington Post has a rundown of 2008 Presidential campaign Q1 fundraising numbers.

Related to that, the New York Times has a cool interactive map detailing the geographic sources of candidate money.

The House Judiciary committee is considering offering Monica Goodling immunity to disclose what she knows about the U.S. Attorney investigation.

The Star Tribune also notes that the House Judiciary Committee has requested testimony from Minnesota U.S. Attorney Rachel Paulose.

Minnesota's Fifth District Representative Keith Ellison is a member of that committee.

Mike Ciresi is expected to announce his candidacy for the U.S. Senate in Minnesota tomorrow.  Here's a refresher from 2000:

Local Theories of Representation

On the home front, St. Louis County Commissioner Keith Nelson espouses his views of representation theory...