Mark Dayton reread the Constitution, then vetoed legislative funding. Now it goes to court

ST. PAUL - The decision to veto the Legislature's funding was a slowly simmering idea for Gov. Mark Dayton until shortly before he took the action in June, he said in an interview.

It was not until he saw that the $130-million, two-year legislative appropriation was set off on its own in a larger funding bill - "kind of an inviting target," he said - and his administration calculated the long-term cost of the tax cuts lawmakers approved - about $5 billion over the next decade - that he started thinking seriously about nixing the funding.

"At that point, I gave it very careful thought and reread the Constitution and looked carefully and again considered some of the precedents," Dayton told the Pioneer Press.

Then, with a thick black marker, he crossed out the proposed spending for the House and Senate, initialed the line-item veto and signed the rest of the budget into law. That action, taken on the last Tuesday in May, set in place a month-long, statewide debate around one simple question: Was the Democratic governor's veto constitutional?

Ultimately, a court will judge the legality of Dayton's veto. The first hearing on the case is Monday morning.

Meanwhile, the Legislature threatened to shut down nearly all of its operations over the next few months, the House and Senate and the governor have hired top-rated Minnesota attorneys for the fight, and the state and the nation is again decrying the broken, bitter politics of the age.

"We feel good about our opportunities proceeding through the courts because of past legal precedents," House Speaker Kurt Daudt, a Crown-area Republican, said in early June when the Legislature moved to hire outside counsel to handle the case. "We think the governor trying to silence another branch of government is a clear violation of the Constitution."

Dayton said while there were "mixed reviews" when he consulted his senior staff and key commissioners about whether he should take the veto, "I think no one ever questioned the legality, the constitutionality of what I was doing. To me, it is just clear-cut."

Even when inking the veto, the two-term Democratic governor said that he expected that he would be sued. Once it enters a judge's hands, things become less clear.

"I'm prepared for surprises as we get into the proceedings," he said.

The case

The first appearance before a judge - Ramsey County Chief Judge John H. Guthmann, a Republican gubernatorial appointee re-elected twice - will be at 10 a.m. Monday. So acute is the interest in the case, the judge is allowing media to record and film the hearing.

Last week, both Dayton and the Legislature made constitutional and practical arguments.

On Thursday, the House and Senate outlined the impact if the governor's veto of their funding stood: A near-complete shut down of the Legislature.

Without judicial interference "the people of the state of Minnesota are deprived of their constitutionally-mandated voice in the administration of their government," the Legislature argued in legal pleadings.

That same day, Dayton argued the result would not be so bad, especially since he left $35 million worth of funding for nonpartisan staff in place. Do legislators really need all their staff - about 500 people - when the Legislature is not in session, his legal filings asked? Cannot lawmakers still communicate with Minnesotans without all their aides?

But soon after, the governor and the Legislature set aside those practical arguments. They agreed to keep the Legislature funded - taking the zing out of the governor's veto - while the case drags on. Guthmann would still have to approve that arrangement for it to go forward.

But the meat of the case remains: Can a governor veto the Legislature's funding as a negotiating tactic?

"We will see what the district court just says and ultimately what the Supreme Court says, but my read of it is crystal clear," Dayton said.

The legislative attorneys argue Dayton's "coercive" veto violated the Legislature's constitutional right to represent the will of the people through "unabridged communication with constituents and crafting legislation."

Minnesota courts have periodically curtailed governors' powers before - notably in 2010 when the state Supreme Court negated then-Gov. Tim Pawlenty's cancellation of funding for certain programs. Both the governor and legislative attorneys cited that case in their arguments.

But the courts have never decided a case quite like the one before it.

Although the first in-person hearing for the case will be Monday morning in Ramsey County District Court, the lawsuit will not end there. Last week, the two sides agreed that no matter what Judge Guthmann decides, they will appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court.