“Garbage Bills” lack transparency, prevent accountability, & are unconstitutional
By Senator John Marty
The 989-page legislation vetoed by Governor Dayton in May, was a “garbage bill.” It contained thousands of unrelated budget and policy provisions covering a vast range of issues. It lacked transparency and prevented accountability. It also violated the Minnesota constitution.
Although legislators accept this flawed process, voters have a chance to reform the process if they speak out during the campaign and demand change. Candidates from both parties are working hard to gain your vote.
Ask legislative candidates to commit to voting against garbage bills. Tell them it is not sufficient to say, “our longest bills are only 300 pages, not 900.” Tell them to fix the problem, not make it “less bad.” This means passing bills that deal with only one subject. This means keeping policy out of budget bills.
Many candidates will commit. Although they accept the garbage bills because of convenience and custom, legislators will gladly stand up to the customary practice if their constituents are paying attention and raising the issue.
However, if people don’t speak up now, there is little chance for reform.
To understand the scope of the problem, let’s examine that monstrous bill. Senate File 3656 was probably the longest piece of legislation ever passed by the Minnesota legislature. It contained funding and policies on subjects ranging from mandating insurance coverage of 3D mammograms, to allowing sugar beet transporters to leak beet juice on the road; from exempting hair braiders from cosmetology registration requirements, to prohibiting arts grants from being used to promote domestic terrorism.
With more than 350,000 words, it would take the average reader 30 hours to read through SF 3656. Yet the legislation was available just three hours before the Senate began debating it. Neither the public nor legislators could have known everything the bill contained.
This lacks accountability—by putting countless provisions in one bill, legislators can only vote for or against the batch. It lacks transparency—many provisions receive no public attention and become law only by being tied to other unrelated provisions.
With huge omnibus bills, legislative leaders have more control over what passes. Provisions leaders oppose can be quietly removed in conference committee, even if they have overwhelming support. When nobody enforces the constitution, nothing stops legislative leaders from gaining more power at the expense of a fair process.
Combining multiple subjects in one bill is not new and it is not partisan. However, the problem has been getting much worse, especially during the last couple sessions.
On top of these other problems, SF 3656 also violates the Minnesota constitution, which requires that legislation deal with no more than a single subject. This one bill likely contains as much as 2/3rds of all the subjects passed by the legislature this year! It does not have a “single subject.”
The Supreme Court has repeatedly warned the legislature not to violate the single subject requirement. Back in 1986, the distinguished Supreme Court Justice Lawrence Yetka wrote “…to add matters totally unrelated to either taxes or appropriations seems to me a clear violation of the constitution which this court should not tolerate.”
And the problem has been getting worse since then. Since the early 1970s, the number of laws enacted each year has declined more than four-fold. This is not a sign that the legislature is doing less legislating. The total number of pages of new laws has remained relatively stable over the years meaning the legislature is simply cramming more laws and more provisions into fewer bills.
It sounds ripe for a legal challenge. However, in a recent ruling the Supreme Court indicated that it will not rule that legislation violates the single subject requirement unless challengers meet an “extraordinary burden” of persuasion. Currently, the chance of success in court is slim.
I have repeatedly raised objections to violations of the single subject requirement and offered amendments to remove policy provisions from budget bills. Some legislators have been fighting for government reform against improper actions of both Republicans and DFLers.
We need a significant number of legislators to tell legislative leaders at the start of session that they will not vote for garbage bills. If candidates hear from their constituents now, we will get enough legislators to object. That alone could be sufficient to end the practice.
If voters don’t speak out, the process may continue to deteriorate. At the rate we are going, we will eventually have a single bill each year, containing everything, and legislators will have the opportunity to vote for or against the single annual piece of legislation.
Fortunately, there is hope. The public is disgusted with “garbage bills”.
This is campaign season. Make sure that candidates hear from you. When constituents become vocal, legislators take note. With a public uproar, legislators might actually commit to following the constitution.