_6.8 average___ On a scale of (0) strong
disagreement, to (5) neutral, to (10) strong
agreement, what is your view on whether decision-making in the 2008
was concentrated too heavily in three top offices, the Governor, the
the House and the Majority Leader of the Senate.
_6.5 average___ On a scale of (0) strong
disagreement, to (5) neutral, to (10) strong
agreement, what is your view on whether ranked choice voting, also
Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), should be used if a presidential
is conducted in Minnesota in 2012?
_7.7 average__ On a scale of (0) strong
disagreement, to (5) neutral, to (10) strong
agreement, what is your view on whether all contributions to, and
by, all organizations for or against candidates for elected office be
on-line within 24 hours?
Jan Hively (3) (9) (6)
Bob Brown (5) (0) (10)
I am a little confused by the assertion that decision making was too
concentrated. It seemed that in the previous session there was
criticism that the governor was not being involved early enough in the
process. One thing I have learned over the years is that one day's
solution becomes the next day's problem. Back when there were many
committees in the legislature the reformers proposed reducing the
number of committees to create a more open and visible process.
However, when the number of committees was reduced the number of
subcommittees increased dramatically making for an even less open
process as groups as small as three or four members could kill a bill
before the public was aware of it.
As I have said several times previously, changing the redistricting
process is probably the most important thing that needs to be done to
create a legislature that more broadly represents the population -
creating more marginal districts which would force the parties to
nominate candidates with broader appeal if they hoped to get elected.
Having been involved in legislative reapportionment and congressional
redistricting I know that as long as the legislature does it the goal
will be to protect as many incumbents as possible and to create safe
seats rather than marginal districts.
I agree with my friend (and successor a GOP chairman) Chuck on the
benefit of multiple endorsements. I think having multiple endorsements
may be the only practical way to modify the current caucus and
convention system. It would encourage candidates with reasonable
support to seek endorsement and then go to a primary. This should be
coupled with an earlier primary, for which there appears to be an
It was great to see Joe and Chuck oppose using constitutional
amendments to allow the legislature to avoid making policy decision.
However, Chuck's position on the current proposal undermines his
policy position. If everyone said we oppose the process except for
(fill in the blank), then we will continue to have legislation by
Staggered terms for the state senate is a fine idea. This was not
possible in the early years after the Baker v. Carr reapportionment
decision, but now that the great disparities in district population no
longer exist and the courts have loosened up the very narrow
population deviations they once required I think it would be worth
attempting to honor the "One man, one vote" directive on a reasonable
basis, but adjusting our election cycles so that there would be
staggered terms in the senate.
Alan Miller (5) (9) (2)
With the hectic pace of campaigning, it is unrealistic to burden
candidates with a 24-hour reporting requirement.
Ed Dirkswager (3) (7) (5)
What an incredible session! Just wish I could have been there.
Robert A. Freeman (7) (3) (8)
Question 2: Although IRV has been used in many elections world wide, I
have yet to see a single scrap of evidence that it has brought about
any of the benefits its proponents claim (i.e. increased turnout and
participation). I am comfortable allowing it to be used by parties to
select their own candidates since how they do that is really up to
them, but before it becomes the general method of voting in MN (or
anywhere) I would want to see evidence it measurably improves the
process. Also I think it is difficult to understand to the average
person which could lead to a disconnect between his/her voting
preferences and the final result.
Question 3: I think this is a terrific idea but I am concerned that 24
hours might be too quick for a small campaign who cannot afford
full-time staff and think perhaps 72 hours might be more reasonable,
at least for state legislative races. If the goal is to stop
last-minute donations from large donors wishing to conceal themselves
until after an election then perhaps a 24-hour rule in the last two
weeks before the election might be a fair compromise.
I have two more comments:
1/ I am completely opposed to a unicameral legislature. As someone who
has worked in the legislature both as a staffer and now as a lobbyist
I can attest that the majority of bills introduced by legislators are
poorly thought out, interest-group driven and have generally had
little or no public input. If anything new laws need more scrutiny,
and unicameral promises only to offer less. The fact that there are
many steps is a good thing because it offers the public many chances
to scrutinize proposed laws and requires legislators to compromise and
come up with solutions acceptable to everyone. We should certainly not
sacrifice a major part of the deliberative process to try and be more
efficient as this effectively removes half the chance for input by the
public and interested parties - a polar opposite to what we are
seeking to achieve with reforms.
2/ I fully support staggered terms for state senators, as is the case
in the U.S. Senate. This would prevent a Senate caucus from
deliberately seeking to scupper negotiations if it were also
accountable to the electorate. Otherwise the Senate is given the whip
hand every four years because it enters the negotiation process with
nothing to lose, knowing the House and governor are accountable to the
voters and it is not.
Eric Schubert (10) (10) (10)
Dan Loritz (0) (5) (5)
Donald H. Anderson (9) (5) (8)
Bill Frenzel (7) (8) (5)
Don't like unicameral!
Richard McGuire (5) (10) (10)
Wayne Jennings (8) (8) (9)
I like IRV but it has to be constitutional for me to support it.
Oshiro (3) (5) (0)
Question 1: This will vary from session to session depending upon
politics, personalities and more. Any attempt to develop rules or
legislation is likely to invite unintended consequences. Let the
legislators express their opinions to the leadership.
Question 2: Not enthusiastic about presidential preference primary. On
the other hand I am concerned about the ability of local parties to
find venues for caucuses if we have a repeat of 2008 - or even half
that turnout. Open primaries invite meddling in an opposing party's
business. They also involve much less participation that a caucus.
This year some came to caucus only to vote; but others have hung in
there and are fully participating.
Question 3: We currently have prompt reporting of large contributions
just before the election. Have pity on the candidates' treasurers. Are
they to be prevented from taking a vacation during an election year?
Maybe Chuck Slocum's experience is different from mine, but
treasurer's I have known are reluctant to let others get involved in
recording and reporting because CFB holds TREASURERS accountable. And
I have sometimes needed to authorize an expenditure without knowing
the exact amount. How report that within 24 hours?
On reapportionment: I don't recall the MN legislature ever enacting
the final reapportionment unless it was they who established the group
that handled 2002 and then enacted their recommendations. But, yes,
set up a commission to do it. Make one of the important parameters be
honoring city/county boundaries where feasible. I thought last
reapportionment did a good job - at least for us and some surrounding
communities. Perhaps others got little pieces of many communities. In
1990s we had pieces of 4 cities in 3 counties in just the house
Multiple endorsements: Only if we move the primary to June.
On senate terms: Yes, rotate. Can't remember why it was set up without
rotation to begin with.
How is having lots of polling places open for days going to save
money? I don't disagree with the principle, but think it would be
Clarence Shallbetter (6) (3) (10)
Let's also include contributions in excess of $100 from individuals
and all contributions by individuals that are bundled with others.
Charles Lutz (5) (9) (6)
Tom Swain (7) (8) (7)
State Sen. David Senjem (0) (0) (10)
The 24 hour notice would further expose the millions of dollars the
tribes, through their gaming proceeds, are putting into state
Ellen Brown (9) (10) (_)
This last point sounds great but the reality of it is very difficult
from a candidate's point of view. I was Peter Hutchinson's campaign
treasurer for about 8 months and the paper and computer work
associated with the finance stuff was overwhelming. This suggestion
might be fine for folks with big campaign teams and parties behind
them, but for the little guy, it is a real challenge. And we do want
to encourage minor parties, don't we? You might want to get Craig
Swaggert in on this discussion; maybe an interview with him focusing
on some of the challenges third parties face.
Royce Sanner (5) (_) (10)
Roy Thompson (8) (9) (6)
Marianne Curry (10) (10) (10)
Ray Schmitz (10) (_) (_)
Question 1: Agreed 10+ I think I may have earlier quoted the comment
from New York that everybody other than the leadership should be
charged with theft for not earning their pay. Slight digression, I now
find it increasingly frustrating to not have the ability to
participate electronically in hearings. When there was somebody paying
my mileage or getting paid to lobby on my behalf it was one thing but
even though I can afford the gas I don't want to spend the carbon. I
have taken part in several interactive internet courses and programs
recently, there is no good reason why the legislative hearings could
not include that ability.
Question 2. Strongly favor IRV, only way to give third party and other
independent voters a chance
Question 3. Strongly favor, but with the ability of other groups to do
advertising I wonder if such reporting would be meaningful.
Al Quie (10) (0) (10)
Lyall Schwarzkopf (8) (1) (9)
On the last item, I believe that all contributions given to a
candidate should be disclosed within 2 or 3 days and all expenditures
disclosed the same way. In addition, the contributions to candidates
should be only made by an individual. We need to get all the special
interests out of politics. Special interests are creating the
unfriendly atmosphere in legislatures and Congress and the things that
need to get done, don't get done because of the cross pressure on
elected officials. The contributions to candidates should be as much
as anyone wants to give because it is disclosed nearly immediately. We
should stop all public campaigns funds.
Thanks again for this great work!
Bright Dornblaser (10) (10) (10)
Pam Ellison (10) (10) (10)
Larry and Ann Schluter (9) (6) (5)
Regarding the last question since I was a treasurer for a Senate
district and along with having a full time job I was in no position to
enter contributions within a 24 hour period or even in a week. Monthly
would be the best time frame.
Scott Halstead (10) (10) (10)
It is time for the unicameral legislature, at large election of the
majority and minority leader and appropriate controls on last minute
Chuck Slocum (10) (5) (10)
I enjoyed being a part of this report and do want to encourage the
Civic Caucus to continue to advance the public spirited dialogue.
Ray Ayotte (8) (10) (10)
David Hutcheson (8) (9) (10)
Glad to hear the confidence that it's feasible; so see no reason not
to do it at once.
Paul and Ruth Hauge (5) (9) (6)
Carolyn Ring (8) (3) (10)
No matter if you have contributions recorded in 24 hours or whatever
finance reforms are adopted, someone will find a loophole and way
around any attempt to limit finances. Anything that would reduce the
money spent on campaigns however, is helpful. The 2 biggest deterrents
I found in recruiting good legislative candidates were the time
consumed in campaigning and raising funds.
David Broden (3) (0) (3)
Question No. 1: The fact that the legislative process involving
members has not been moving thru effective committee and floor debate
it seems that the only approach to moving toward resolution of some of
the state issues is for the leadership to establish positions which
can then be acted on by the larger body and appropriate committees.
While this may not be the preferred approach for effective legislative
process, until responsibility to resolve issues becomes the focus vs.
partisan focus, it is then only way to change the process toward more
participation at all levels.
Question No. 2: Any voting process by citizens cannot be multiple
choice--we are based on a simple yes or no on issues as well as yes or
no on candidates. Ranking simply is not part of our process nor should
it be presented to the voters in this way--we need to focus on up or
down on topics--we are a decision based government not a maybe --or if
not this then that--I just do not see where a ranking has any place in
any way in our system.
Question No. 3: Simply not practical. Also we should be free to
express our thoughts without having to state who and why --reporting
on a realistic time frame makes sense but to limit the time such as 24
hours and force disclosure seems to move the discussion from what the
candidate stands for to who gave what to whom --another attempt to
monitor something that is not directly a factor.