Gearin restrains Pawlenty unallotment

Dec 30th, 2009 by admin

Posted in Uncategorized

3 Responses to “Gearin restrains Pawlenty unallotment”

Law Lacky says:

December 31, 2009 at 8:42 am

What is curious about the order is that Judge Gearin never actually discusses the language of Minn. Stat. s 16A.152, subd. 4(b). She cites a Minnesota Court of Appeals case to state that it is constitutional and then writes an ode to “separation of powers.” Writing an order without discussing “the law” undermines the credibility of the judiciary and in the present case, suggests result-oriented jurisprudence.

Judge Gearin states in her opinion, “The Court is aware that the actual revenues received by the State since the beginning of the 2010/2011 biennium are even less than predicted in the February 2009 dismal forecast.” So, the Court acknowledges that although, in her mind, the Governor acted unconstitutionally at the time of the unallotment, he would act constitutionally if he decided to utilize his unallotment power today. I think that the TRO should have been denied as moot. To do anything more offends the separation of powers principle that Judge Gearin holds so dear. If Judge Gearin truly respected the separation of powers then she would let the legislature attempt to fix Minn. Stat. s 16A.152, subd. 4(b).
Duke Powell says:

December 31, 2009 at 4:11 pm

It appears to me that Judge Gearin’s decision is based, mainly, on very flimsy reasoning. She seems to hang her hat on the Governor’s timing and that, due to his veto of the tax bill, a budget shortfall was “neither unknown or unanticipated” as the law requires.

Well, let this non-lawyer ask a couple of questions. First, the law says “less than anticipated” the term “unanticipated” does not appear in that statute. Why did she not use that phrase instead? Secondly she uses a second adjective, “unknown,” which also does not appear in statute. Can I assume that the term unknown was used in conjunction with unanticipated merely to bolster a weak opinion?

The law on unallotment seems clear to me. There is no time designated in the statute on when the process can be used used by the administration to unilaterally balance the budget. Judge Gearin is making it up as she goes.
Reader says:

January 2, 2010 at 2:07 pm

While not directly stated, it is revealing that in Professor Morrison’s attack on the Governor’s unallotments she runs away far, far away from Judge Gearin’s reasoning.

Moreover, the Professor acknowledges what Judge Gearin didn’t: In order to overturn the unallotments, one needs to uproot the unallotment statute, root and branch, first.

As commentator “Law Lucky” suggests above, the text of the unallotment statute admits of exactly of the application that Governor Pawlenty made of it. Minn. Stat. 16A.152 (4)(b) reads:

“An additional deficit [beyond the amounts in the state's budget reserve account] shall, with the approval of the governor, and after consulting the legislative advisory commission, be made up by reducing unexpended allotments of any prior appropriation or transfer. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, the commissioner is empowered to defer or suspend prior statutorily created obligations which would prevent effecting such reductions.”

For most readers, “any prior appropriation” means “any prior appropriation.” Now Professor Morrison, Judge Gearin and legislative appropriators may claim that the unilateral reductions in the Supplmental Diet program were a surprising result — but that does not mean they were unauthorized.

Further, the reporting on this topic to date obscures the real source of the problem. Such a crisis would never have occurred if the Legislature had settled on the tax bill first (the bill providing for state revenues) before enacting the various spending provisions. In my house, my kids are obliged to finish their spinach before obtaining dessert.

Perhaps one day they grow up to be appropriators in Saint Paul.