Protecting Seniors (MN Governor's Race)

Minnesota is the least tax-friendly state for retirees. It is one of only 13 states where retirees need to pay state income taxes on social security benefits in addition to federal income taxes. Couples making less than $32,000 and individuals making less than $25,000 are fully exempt. There is a 50% exemption for slightly higher incomes, and couples with income under $77,000 get to subtract up to $4,500. No more than 85% of anyone’s benefits are taxed. Pensions, distributions from individual retirement accounts, and 401(k) plans are also taxable.

GOP leaders have been pushing for phasing out the state tax on social security income for many years, claiming it causes retirees to leave the state. They had some success in 2017’s special session omnibus tax bill which allowed for new subtractions for social security benefits. Democrats warn that such a large loss of revenue from a full exemption would damage future state budgets. Some support some tax relief for seniors, but thinks a complete reduction would create too large a hole in the state budget (an estimated $500 million per year). They support raising the income thresholds which haven’t changed since 1994. Exempting all who make under $60,000 a year would cost the state $15 million, but it is argued that a full exemption would benefit people with the highest incomes the most saying that the vast majority of the money would go to those making over $100,000 a year.

Elder abuse is another issue facing seniors and their families. Research estimates that 1 in 10 seniors are a victim of abuse, neglect, or financial exploitation. In 2016, the Minnesota Department of Health received 25,226 reports of elder abuse, but 97% were never investigated. This doesn’t include cases reported directly to law enforcement or those that go unreported. The number of unreported instances is estimated to outnumber those of reported instances. There are 82,000 Minnesotans in elder care facilities.

On May 9, 2018, the leaders of AARP of Minnesota, Alzheimer’s Association of Minnesota, Elder Voice Family Advocates, Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid, and Minnesota Elder Justice took out a full page ad in the Star Tribune imploring the Minnesota House & Senate to pass comprehensive legislation. They called for licensure of assisted living centers to ensure safe standards, protections against arbitrary discharges, protections against retaliation for families who speak up, an end to deceptive marketing practices that allow facilities to promise more than they can deliver, and legal tools for families to seek justice.

Elder Voice Family Advocates suspects that lobbying and cash for the nursing home industry is influencing legislators, especially rural legislators who are counting on help from owners of local elder care facilities for help in the coming election. The senior care industry is fighting legislation that requires facilities to be licensed and inspected. They have two dozen lobbyists patrolling the capitol and spent nearly $1 million lobbying in 2016 and 2017, a 56% increase from the previous legislative session. As a result, the 2018 combined health and transportation omnibus bills focused on reforming state practice rather than putting rules in place for elder care facilities.

Here is where the candidates stand on social security benefits taxes and/or elder abuse:

Jeff Johnson (R): Candidate Johnson would like to see Minnesota do away with social security benefits taxes.

Erin Murphy (D): Candidate Murphy voted against the 2017 omnibus tax bill which ultimately passed and allows new subtractions for certain social security benefits. Elder care was addressed in the passage of the 2018 combined health and transportation omnibus bill during which she gave an emotional speech imploring her fellow legislators to do more on the topic citing concern for her own 84 year old father who lives in an assisted living facility and is vulnerable to abuse and neglect.

Tim Pawlenty (R): Candidate Pawlenty is the only candidate to address this on his website. He says that Minnesota should stop taxing social security benefits. Ending elder abuse, neglect, and incompetent care will be one of his top priorities as governor. Complaints will be properly reviewed and safeguards will be put in place.

Tim Walz (D): Candidate Walz supports raising the income thresholds subject to social security taxes. He is a co-sponsor of the Social Security 2100 Act at the federal level which will provide a tax cut for 10 million social security recipients by raising the threshold on taxable benefits, if passed.

Protecting the Constitution and Democracy (MN Governor's Race)

The Constitution of the State of Minnesota was approved in a special election on October 13, 1857 and ratified by the United States Senate on May 11, 1858 making us 160 years old this year! It contains 14 articles, each with numerous sections. It has been amended nearly 120 times. The constitution contains our fundamental principles, the law of our land.

Article 1 contains 17 sections and makes up our Bill of Rights, many of which mirror the United States Bill of Rights. I’d like to highlight the first three sections as I’d argue the outline the fundamentals of democracy.

Section 1. Object of government. Government is instituted for the security, benefit and protection of the people, in whom all political power is inherent, together with the right to alter, modify or reform government whenever required by the public good.

Section 2. Rights and privileges. No member of this state shall be disfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the state otherwise than as punishment for a crime of which the party has been convicted.

Section 3. Liberty of the press. The liberty of the press shall forever remain inviolate, and all persons may freely speak, write and publish their sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of such right.

The term “democracy” comes from the Greek roots, demos and kratos. Demos means common people and kratos means strength. So, democracy is a form of government which gives strength to the common people, you and me. And, it’s right there in the first section of the first article of our constitution. Government is instituted for the security, benefit, and protection of the people. All political power is inherent, together with the right to alter, modify, or reform government whenever required by the public good. And, no member of this state shall be disenfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof.

So, how do we claim this inherent right to create a government that gives strength to the common people? Voting. We choose representatives from amongst ourselves that form our governing bodies. We choose these people. This is on us. What Minnesota stands for, what the United States stands for, who represents our voices and speaks for us, is on us.

For the most part, Minnesotans know this. In the 2016 election, we had the highest voter turnout by percentage in the country. Nationwide, only 55% of voters actually voted, but in Minnesota, our number was close to 75%. Still, that was a drop for our peak performance of 78.77% in 2004. But, those are presidential elections. During our last midterm election (2014), only 50.51% of eligible voters voted. Midterms matter. A lot. This midterm matters. A lot. Voting is our strongest opportunity to make our voice heard. Voting is our democracy in action. And, only half of us are showing up. Only half of us are exercising our strength, our power.

The right to vote is a powerful, hard-fought-for right. It is the foundation of our democracy, it belongs to every citizen, and it faces ever-present threats, probably the greatest of which is sheer apathy. And, there are many that benefit from that apathy. They don’t want you to know your own power or strength. They don’t want you to be paying attention. They don’t want you to vote.

Voter suppression has thrived throughout our history and is alive and well today. African Americans have experienced voter suppression throughout the history of our country. The constitution was amended to ensure that no person was refused the right to vote based on race (15th amendment in 1870), yet states have found ways around that ever since. Immediately, southern states started amending their constitutions to enact various voter restrictions such as literacy tests, poll taxes, property ownership requirements, moral character tests, and grandfather tests which allowed people to vote only if their grandfather had voted (excluding African Americans as their grandfathers had been slaves.) Not until the 1950’s and 60’s during the Civil Rights Movement was a whole host of legislation enacted to protect the African American vote.

So, we’re good now, right? Everybody gets to vote and it’s totally fair? Of course not. Because in recent years, thinly veiled attempts at suppressing the African American vote have sprouted up in the form of Voter ID laws. The claim is that Voter ID laws are common sense and that they prevent voter fraud despite the fact that multiple sources have found instances of voter fraud to be rare. From 2000 to 2014, there were only 31 instances out of 1 billion ballots cast that would have been prevented by voter ID laws. In-person voter fraud, as it currently happens, would have no chance of swinging an election.

What does swing elections? Voter ID laws (which happen to be rather expensive as well as discriminatory). Voter ID laws disproportionately exclude minorities, young people, low-income voters, seniors, and women. Voter ID laws are the modern day version of literacy tests, property ownership requirements, and grandfather tests. Any barrier to voting, manipulating the vote, or having each vote count is a threat to democracy.

And women, we didn’t secure the right to vote until 1920 (19th amendment)! And, it wasn’t as though the men running the country at that time just woke up one day and said, “Hey, let’s have the women vote now.” It was a movement. It took over 40 years from the introduction of the 19th amendment to the adoption of the 19th amendment. It was a hard fought battle marked with protests, imprisonments, and many of the arguments we hear to justify oppression today: giving women the right to vote would threaten the family institution, a woman’s highest duty is motherhood, women’s suffrage opposes God’s will, women can’t handle the responsibility and lack the necessary knowledge and would thereby weaken the government due to this ill-informed electorate (note: literacy tests and property owner requirements suppressed the female vote, too). And, before you go rage at the men in your life for the sexism of their ancestors, note that the most prominent anti-suffragists were women.

Many powerful people don’t want you to vote. Why? It lessens their power and gives it back to the people, where it belongs. It lessens their power to buy off their legislators. The 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court Decision determined that corporations and unions could contribute unlimited funds in essentially advertising for or against a candidate. Out of this decision, Super PAC’s were born. These Political Action Committees cannot directly contribute to a candidate’s campaign, but raise more money than either political party giving them power on behalf of the candidates or issues. There is a strong argument for the viewpoint that this enabled elections to simply be bought by the super wealthy and the government is no longer “for the people.” No longer a true democracy. This extends into the belief that elected officials do not represent the people and they are forced to vote on issues based on where their funding comes from or risk losing their seat.

"Latin Earmuffs"

And, then there’s gerrymandering-drawing election boundaries for partisan gain. Take a look at Illinois’s fourth district, for example. It is nicknamed “Latin Earmuffs” because it connects 2 predominantly Latino neighborhoods by just one road! This packs all the votes for Democrats into one district, weakens the Latino vote, and gives Republicans a stronger chance to win surrounding districts despite being vastly outnumbered. Gerrymandering is one of the strongest threats to democracy. Not only does it create a governing body that is not representative of the people, it encourages voter apathy by ensuring that their vote won’t carry the weight that it should. Additionally, it removes motivation for legislators to compromise because voting districts are manipulated to include or exclude voters who primarily identify with only one party, so that elected officials become vulnerable to only primary challengers and not general election challengers from an opposing party. Why compromise when you know you’ll get elected over and over again?

Now, what about Article 1, Section 3 of our constitution? The liberty of the press shall forever remain inviolate. Inviolate=free or safe from injury or violation. A free press is foundational to a democracy. The people in power should never control the information because they can then bend it in any way they please. The press serves the people. Attacks on the press are dangerous and irresponsible, yet very intentional. Today’s effort to discredit the press undermines our democracy by attempting to control the information and discredit facts and information that run contrary to the messaging of the administration. In the words of Hugo L. Black, while arguing the landmark 1971 case, The New York Times Company vs. The United States, which made it possible for The Times and the Washington Post to publish the classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government punishment or censorship, “Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people.”

Democracy means strength of the common people. This is our government. These are our representatives. This is our vote. Voting is how we make our voice heard. It’s how we decide the laws of the land and the voices that represent us. There are many intentional barriers to exercising that fundamental right to vote and they threaten our democracy. Don’t let yourself be one of them. Cast it with pride. Cast it in every election. Be a part of our democracy in spite of voter suppression efforts, in spite of having to register first, in spite of insurmountable campaign financing flaws, in spite of gerrymandering. Overcome the obstacles. They are there to keep you from voting. Don’t let them. Make your voice heard. Exercise your power, your strength. Vote.

Here is where the candidates stand on the constitution and democracy:

Jeff Johnson (R): Candidate Johnsons says that the state and federal constitutions are not a list of suggestions, but concrete operating rules for our government. He views the constitution as his job description as governor.

Erin Murphy (D): Candidate Murphy says we must pass meaningful campaign finance reform, including the expansion of public financing of elections, to make it easier for citizens to see who is funding elections. She supports having an independent judicial panel making decisions about how district lines are drawn to avoid gerrymandering. She wants automatic voter registration when Minnesotans turn 18. She will veto Right-to Work legislation and work to expand collective bargaining. She will work with the press to make sure they have the information necessary to inform Minnesotans about policy-making at the capitol. She will restore the vote to Minnesotans who have served their time for felony convictions.

Tim Pawlenty (R): Candidate Pawlenty vetoed automatic voter registration in 2009 saying that registering to vote should be an intentional, voluntary act. In 2010, he signed a bill that brought Minnesota’s campaign finance laws in line with the Citizens United Case.

Tim Walz (D): Candidate Walz recently held a town hall in Mankato and called gerrymandering a fundamental problem. He said, “I gave the pledge that my goal is that in Minnesota we should have nonpartisan, citizen or judicial redistricting to have fair districts.” At that same town hall he called the money in campaigns for public office a fundamental flaw because it discourages people from running.

Opioid Crisis (MN Governor's Race)

In October of 2017, the federal government declared the opioid crisis a national public health emergency. It kills 115 people a day and has accounted for the majority of the 64,000 drug overdose deaths since 2016. In 2016, 395 Minnesotans died of an opioid overdose which was an 18% increase from 2015. 186 of these deaths were from prescription opioids. Since 2000, opioid overdoses have increased by 1000% and deaths from overdoses have increased by 600%. American Indians are 5 times more likely to die from an opioid overdose than white Minnesotans, and black Minnesotans are twice as likely.

Opioids are a class of drugs that include illegal drugs like heroin, as well as a variety of prescription drugs such as oxycodone, Vicodin/hydrocodone, morphine, and codeine. (Side note: I have a prescription for hydrocodone sitting in my closet unopened. It was prescribed to me on my way home from my wisdom teeth removal in June. I was too afraid to use it and didn’t need it, anyway. Ibuprofen managed the pain just fine. I haven’t gotten around to safely disposing of it.)

My own bottle of hydrocodone
 that I was too afraid to open.

In 2016, Minnesota health care providers wrote 3.5 millions prescriptions for opioids. The epicenter for this crisis is in Aitkin, Kanabec, and Mille Lacs counties where enough prescriptions were written for each resident to have one. Yet, Minnesota opioid use rates below the national average. Places like Ohio and Kentucky prescribe opioids twice as often. 

So, why is this a political issue? What can lawmakers do about this? Some options include imposing a fee for each unit of opioid prescribed, while having the money used to mitigate the hazardous effects of the drug like combating addiction and addressing contaminated water when the pills enter the sewer system. Legal action can be brought against the drug producers who misled doctors about the addictive qualities. Investing in prevention and addiction treatment is another option for lawmakers. Democratic state senator, Chris Eaton, lost her daughter to a heroin overdose in 2007. She notes, “We don't have a system setup for opioid addiction in Minnesota. We have kind of a system for alcohol, but they are kind of different animals. We are in the middle of an epidemic and we need a more organized and concerted effort to tackle the problem.”

Here is where the candidates stand in relation to opioids:

Jeff Johnson (R): Candidate Johnson has no public commentary on this issue that I could find.

Erin Murphy (D): Candidate Murphy has no public commentary on this issue that I could find.

Tim Pawlenty (R): Candidate Pawlenty is the only candidate to address this issue on his website. (It is one of only 5 issues he addresses.) He says that a key step is holding big drug companies and others involved in this crisis accountable. He says that those companies need to partner with the state to provide resources to help fix the problem. He says we also need better monitoring of prescription drug abuse by doctors and patients. We need to provide first responders training and access to Naloxone kits, ensure we have more treatment options for patients, and stop the importing of cheap and dangerous drugs from Mexico to Minnesota.

Tim Walz (D): Candidate Walz has pushed the VA to actively study medical marijuana for veterans as a way to combat the overprescription of opioids. He will invest in families that want to combat the opioid epidemic.

Mining (MN Governor's Race)

Minnesota is the largest producer of iron ore in the United States. Nearly all of the high grade iron ore in Minnesota has been mined, however advances in technology have allowed for taconite, a lower grade iron ore, to continue to be mined. Minnesota is also the U.S.’s largest producer of taconite. Minnesota currently has seven operating taconite plants which produce pellets that are then shipped to steel mills where the pellets are melted and blown with oxygen to produce steel. In the past, iron ore was mined on three northern iron ranges: the Cuyuna, Mesabi, and Vermillion, as well as in Fillmore County in southeastern Minnesota. Now, only the Mesabi range is operational. The mining of iron ore and taconite is known as ferrous mining-ferrous pertaining to metals containing iron.

Minnesota is also home to one of the largest deposits of copper, nickel, and other precious metals, in a location known as the Duluth Complex, but these are not currently mined. Currently, the United States imports 40% of its copper and all of its nickel. In fact, there is only one active nickel mine in all of the U.S. and it is located in Oregon. However, two major projects are currently in the works to change that. The mining industry says that this could exceed the iron ore industry in the state, becoming a global leader in supplying copper, nickel and precious metals, while creating jobs for years to come and generating money for the economy. The Duluth Complex holds the 2nd largest copper deposit in the world (34% of the U.S.’s copper) and the 3rd largest nickel deposit in the world (with 95% of the U.S.’s nickel). The mining of copper and nickel is known as sulfide mining.

PolyMet
PolyMet Mining Corporation has proposed a mining project called the NorthMet Project. They plan to mine using open pit methods to a depth of 700 feet. They plan to rehabilitate the former LTV Steel Mining Company processing plant which is approximately 8 miles from the mining site, and construct a hydrometallurgical plant. They say that at peak production, they will produce 69.3 million pounds of copper, 9.6 million pounds of nickel, 352,000 pounds of cobalt, and 166,000 troy ounces of precious metals in concentrate annually.

Minnesota has some of the strictest environmental standards in the country and PolyMet says that they are complying with all state and federal standards to protect Minnesota’s water, air, and other natural resources. According to a study by the University of Minnesota Duluth Labovitz School of Business and Economics, they will employ 360 workers directly and create an additional 600 indirect jobs creating $515 million for St. Louis County annually.

Twin Metals LLC
Chilean-owned, Twin Metals LLC, has proposed a second sulfide mine a few miles from the Boundary Waters Canoe Area and about 9 miles south of Ely, MN. They say that their project will bring 650 direct full-time jobs and 1,300 spinoff jobs to Ely, Babbitt, and surrounding communities.

Concerns
Sulfide mining has never been done in Minnesota. When sulfides meet air and water, sulfuric acid is produced leading to Acid Mine Drainage. Acid Mine Drainage kills fish, wildlife, and plants. In high levels, mining by-products have been shown to increase the risk of cancer and other illnesses. Given that mining takes place below the water table, there is concern that contamination will leak into the groundwater, threatening drinking water supplies and human health. In 2010, hardrock mining was responsible for 41% of all toxins released into the air. The industry is the top toxin producing industry, as identified by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mining companies are unable to point to a sulfide mine that has not polluted water bodies. Studies show that the stage agencies and companies reviewing the plans often predict no pollution, but are wrong. Efforts taken to remedy pollution problems fail 64% of the time. At that point, the cost of cleanup is left to taxpayers. Companies file for bankruptcy leaving cleanup costs, which include long-term water treatment and management, to the public.

The PolyMet mining site would destroy 1,000 acres of wetlands, the single largest loss of wetlands ever permitted in Minnesota. PolyMet also predicts that 55% of the jobs for its mine would be non-local and filled by people relocating to the area. 20% would be commuters leaving only 25% local hires.

Additionally, the tourism industry generates $1.6 billion in northeastern Minnesota. There is concern that the new sulfide mines could affect the rivers and lakes in that area that draw tourists. For this reason and the environmental concerns, Friends of the Boundary Waters is one of the most vocal opponents of sulfide mining.

Here is where the candidates stand on sulfide mining:

Jeff Johnson (R): Candidate Johnson points to mining as one of the parts of Minnesota’s economy which provides a rock-solid foundation upon which many other industries have been built. He says miners lose jobs because of bureaucrats and regulations. He believes we can have copper/nickel mining in Minnesota and protect our environment. He will be an advocate as governor to move these projects forward.

Erin Murphy (D): Candidate Murphy says that when water gets pitted against jobs, we risk losing one to the other, and for our future, we need both. She says that it is imperative that if PolyMet is issued a permit, that strong financial assurances are secured and enforced, and that any production would need to stop if agreements are not kept. She says that if the permitting process isn’t doing enough to protect Minnesotans, than we need to fix it. And, if a corporation violates their permit, production should be halted until they can prove they are in compliance. She says she will protect our state from corporate interests who seek to weaken our permit process for financial gain. She would not allow any lease to be issued to Twin Metals for any use without going through our state-mandated process, nor would she shortcut any research or study needed to inform that decision.

Tim Pawlenty (R): Candidate Pawlenty supported the sulfide mining projects during his term as governor and did not see any need for additional environmental regulations.

Tim Walz (D): Candidate Walz voted against Representative Tom Emmer’s bill in the House of Representatives that would stop environmental review of the impact of copper and nickel mining in Minnesota. He supported a bill introduced by Representative Rick Nolan that allowed PolyMet to get the land needed to proceed with their project. After voting in favor of it, he issued this statement, “Our can-do spirit of innovation and ability to reject false choices are hallmarks of who we are as Minnesotans. We know that we can help each other achieve economic security for our families and be good stewards of our state at the same time, which is why we must follow the science and require a robust, credible environmental review process. That’s also why I cosponsored and voted for Congressman Nolan's legislation. After years of environmental review and approval by the Obama Administration, we have an obligation to honor the process that is in place by ensuring this exchange moves forward.”

Metropolitan Council (MN Governor's Race)

“Ninety percent of the people don’t know it exists. And the other 10 percent go to bed each night worrying about what it might do.” In 2014, those were the words of former Metropolitan Council chair, Peter Bell, who served as chair during all 8 years of Tim Pawlenty’s term as governor. If you’re among the 90% who have never heard of the Met Council, allow me to shed some light on this issue.

The Met Council is the 4th largest governing body in Minnesota as measured by annual budget. It serves the 7 county metro area. It has the power to tax and delivers some of the most important services in the metro area. And, the entire 17 member council is appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate, so none of them are elected by the public. There really isn’t an unelected governing body like this anywhere else in the United States.

The Met Council was created by the legislature in 1967 in response to a federal law requiring regional bodies to review loan and grant applications. Initially, it was charged with crafting regional growth plans, and then getting local and regional land use, as well as road and sewer projects to conform to those plans. It had the authority to approve budgets of the regional transit agency and regional wastewater agency, even though it wasn’t directly responsible for delivering those services. In the 90’s, a new bill folded the transit and sewer agency into the council which is how the council stands today.

It’s 2018 Operating Budget is $1.057 billion. 37% of those funds come from user fees for wastewater treatment and transit services, 48% come from state and federal funds, 9% comes from property taxes in the 7 counties, and 6% comes from “other” sources. A 2014 report in the MinnPost said that it had 4,200 employees. Their employees drive the buses, plan the parks, support development, treat wastewater, and plan for future growth.

Their current priorities are creating a sustainable 21st century transportation system, promoting affordable housing for all, and investing in infrastructure that supports economic development for all. Their regional planning initiatives include community planning, housing, parks, transportation, and wastewater and water services. They operate Metro Transit, Metro Mobility, and Transit Link. They collect and treat wastewater. They work to ensure clean water for the future. They plan for future growth, plan and develop parks and trail systems, and provide affordable housing for qualifying low-income residents.

Given that the council is unelected, critics wonder how the council would operate if they were accountable to the people and not accountable to the governor. They say the fact that they are unelected reduces their credibility and members aren’t sufficiently held accountable for their decisions.

Supporters say that the Metropolitan Council is an easy political target and the council is not the all-powerful council that some critics claim. Sixteen of the members serve districts of equal population and govern the agency, but major decisions are made by the chair in concordance with the governor and nothing can be done without approval from the governor. Governors can bypass the council on decisions. Additionally, its budget and programs are regularly scrutinized by the legislature. They also say that the Met Council is far more effective and efficient that other regional bodies that are elected and often end up with partisan gridlock.

Back to Peter Bell, “People who say it should stay the way it is are naive,” he said. “And those who say it should change 100 percent should know that would create all sorts of problems.”

Here is what I could find on the candidate’s stances related to the Metropolitan Council:

Jeff Johnson (R): Candidate Johnson will eliminate the Metropolitan Council entirely and start over with a limited regional body which has no taxing authority that will coordinate sewer and water service lines and an integrated bus system. He says, “We can not tinker with the Met Council. It must go.”

Erin Murphy (D): Candidate Murphy has no public stance on this issue from what I could find.

Tim Pawlenty (R): Candidate Pawlenty vetoed a bill that easily passed both houses when he was governor. The bill would have had the 17 members of the council stagger their terms by 2 years instead of serving concurrent 4 year terms.

Tim Walz (D): Candidate Walz has no public stance on this issue from what I can tell, but in 2011, his deputy chief of staff left her job to become the communications director for the Metropolitan Council. That’s the only connection I could find.

Immigration (MN Governor's Race)

Asylum seekers and migrants descend from a large fishing vessel used to transport them from Turkey to the Greek island of Lesbos. October 11, 2015.
 © 2015 Zalmaï for Human Rights Watch

Before we get started, first of all, some definitions. A refugee leaves their country out of fear or necessity such as war, violence, human rights violations, or loss of home due to natural disaster and enters the country legally. An immigrant leaves their country to settle in another and enters legally. An undocumented immigrant either entered the country illegally without proper authorization or documentation or entered legally and violated the terms of their visa or overstayed their limit.

But, why don’t they just come here legally like everyone else?
Yeah, that’s not as easy as it sounds. It is universally agreed upon that our immigration system is broken. The system has lacked reform for such a long time, that the pathway to citizenship is wrought with roadblocks forcing many into undocumented status not because they want to be, but because there is no other option. Millions are contributing positively to society and the economy and may even have family members with that are legal citizens, but fear being sent back and having their family torn apart because the pathway to citizenship is so broken.

Here is one example of the broken system. Let’s say you are here as an undocumented immigrant. Maybe you came here legally as a tourist or on a temporary visa, and didn’t leave. Or maybe you’re on the waitlist due to annual limits and your parents or children are legal, but you’re not. Or, maybe you even came here illegally to escape danger in your own country. You may have relatives with legal status or even want to marry a U.S. citizen. One way or another, you are illegally here. Well, in order to apply for a green card, you have to leave the country. And, once you do, you are banned from returning to the country for 3 to 10 years because you were previously in the U.S. illegally. So, you stay...illegally.

Undocumented Immigrants: Myths vs Facts
There are a lot of myths about immigrants, both documented and undocumented. One of the biggest is that immigrants hurt communities economically. The truth is that immigrants have revitalized economies throughout the country. For example, in Michigan, only 6% of the population is foreign born, but ⅓ of high-tech companies founded in the state over the last decade were by immigrants.

It is also commonly believed that undocumented immigrants don’t pay taxes, thereby forming a drain on our societies and economies. In fact, undocumented immigrants pay billions of dollars in taxes each year. They pay sales tax and property taxes, even if they rent. And, more than half have federal and state income taxes, Social Security taxes, and Medicare taxes even though they are not eligible for any of the benefits their taxes help fund. In 2010 alone, undocumented immigrants paid $13 billion into the Social Security trust fund and, if they stay undocumented, will never benefit from that service. If they were allowed to work legally, they would contribute $12.7 billion in state and local taxes, up $2.1 billion from what they pay now.

Contrary to popular belief, undocumented immigrants are not eligible for so-called welfare benefits, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps. Even legal immigrants have to be in the United States for 5 years before they can receive these benefits. Immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits. A study in Florida found that, per capita, immigrants pay $1,500 more in taxes than they receive in benefits.

Sanctuary Cities
In light of the Trump Administration’s immigration policies, the public is hearing a lot about sanctuary cities. A common misconception is that sanctuary cities don’t follow immigration law or that they interfere with ICE enforcement. That’s false. Sanctuary cities are not cities where immigrants are free of prosecutions or deportation. Sanctuary cities do not break the law.

Just like the term “sanctuary city” does not hold the same meaning as the public thinks it does, it doesn’t even hold the same meaning from one jurisdiction to the next. Typically, it refers to a city or county that limits their cooperation to enforce immigration law in order to protect low-priority immigrants from deportation while still turning those over who have committed serious crimes. But, that could mean any number of things as not all sanctuary cities operate by the same set of norms.

Common actions of sanctuary cities include not asking about legal status, not deputizing local law enforcement as ICE agents, not giving ICE agents advanced notice when immigrants are released from jail, and not detaining immigrants for extra time so that ICE can get them. And, that last one is especially important because holding an immigrant past the point of when they should be released, just so ICE can pick them up, is unconstitutional.

Being undocumented in itself is not a crime. It’s a civil violation. Therefore, police cannot arrest undocumented immigrants just because they are undocumented, because police can only arrest people suspected of committing a crime. Undocumented immigrants have rights under the U.S. Constitution. If an undocumented immigrant is arrested under suspicion of committing a crime and then that person is cleared, the police must let them go. So, police can’t arrest someone for being undocumented, but ICE can. The police force and ICE are completely separate entities governed by a completely different set of laws.

Given that there is no one common definition, it can be difficult to count how many sanctuary cities there are, but there could be around 300-500. Minnesota has no sanctuary cities. However, both Minneapolis and St. Paul have a separation ordinance that prohibits city employees, including police from asking people for their immigration status. I’ve seen some accounts count Hennepin County as a sanctuary city, though a spokesperson says the county does cooperate with immigration officials, but does not hold people for ICE after local charges have been settled.

Why are there sanctuary cities? Leaders do this in order to reduce the fear of deportation and family break-up so that people will be more willing to report crimes, use health and social services, and enroll their children in school. Studies on the relationship between sanctuary cities and crime show that sanctuary cities do not experience and increase in crime. In fact, some studies show lower crime and a stronger economy in sanctuary cities. Immigrants are incarcerated at one-fifth the rate native born citizens are. Opponents of sanctuary cities argue cities should assist the national government in enforcing immigration law.

Drivers Licenses
Only 12 states and the District of Columbia allow undocumented immigrants to legally drive. Minnesota is not one of them. However, in many cases, undocumented immigrants still need to drive at which point they have committed a crime. If that person is caught, they would go to jail and their information would go into the federal database at which point ICE would put a detainer/hold on that person. However, as has been stated many times now, holding that person past the point of that they should be released is unconstitutional and the immigrant can sue.

Refugee Resettlement Program
Okay, shifting our focus now to refugees. Recall that refugees leave their country out of fear or necessity such as war, violence, human rights violations, or loss of home due to natural disaster and enters the country legally.

In Minnesota, the Refugee Resettlement Program is defined as “a federally funded office in the Minnesota Department of Human Services that supports the effective resettlement of refugees in Minnesota, and ensures their basic needs are met so they can live in dignity and achieve their highest potential. This office ensures accessibility to mainstream programs for people with refugee status, distributes federal dollars to local agencies for supplemental services, and provides education and information about refugees in Minnesota.”

Minnesota has the most refugees per capita in the U.S. It is home to 2% of the population of the United States, but 13% of the country’s refugee population. Overall, 8% of the Minnesota population is foreign born (including refugees and immigrants). In 2017, 696 refugees arrived in Minnesota from 20 different countries, the majority being from Burma (150) and Somalia (294). The majority settled in Hennepin (316), Ramsey (132), and Stearns County (107). The 2017 number is down significantly from the 2016 number of 3,059. That’s a result of the Trump Administration’s policies. Obama had agreed to accept 110,000 of the world’s 22.5 million refugees in 2017, but Trump cut that number to 45,000. The actual number ended up being 29,022, the lowest since 2002.

Refugees spend an average of 17 years in refugee camps before being resettled. Refugees arriving in the United States receive a one-time grant of $925 and 90 days of case management. Refugees are responsible for paying back their plane ticket to the United States. A recent study by Notre Dame found that each refugee costs the U.S. about $107,000 over 20 years-$15,000 in relocation costs and $92,000 in social services. However, they pay nearly $139,000 in taxes over that time. That same study found that refugees initially have low employment, high welfare use, and low earning, but after 6 years, they work at higher rates than natives, but do not attain the same earnings as native born residents and are more likely than native born citizens to be receiving welfare and food-support.

Refugee Vetting
On average, the vetting process for refugees takes 18-24 months. However, given that staff members travel to the refugees to begin the vetting process, it may take longer given that certain refugee camps are more difficult to reach and the rainy season in Africa causes delays.

Staff members from Refugee Resettlement Programs travel and conduct face to face interviews, cross check their personal information, and enter the information into the State Department’s Refugee Admission Processing System. It’s then reviewed by the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Then, the National Counterterrorism Center, FBI, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, and the State Department conduct security checks. Fingerprints are run through the FBI’s Next Generation Identification System, the Department of Homeland Security’s Automated Biometric Identification System (which includes the U.S. watch-list), and the Department of Defense’s Automated Biometric Identification System which includes fingerprints collected from scenes of attacks in Iraq. The Department of Homeland Security has additional measures for refugees from Syria including iris scans. Once refugees are cleared to enter the U.S., they they undergo health screenings by the Department of Health and Human Services to make sure they don’t have any contagious diseases. They are then sent to resettlement offices.

Here is where the candidates stand on issues related to immigration:

Jeff Johnson (R): Candidate Johnson will not allow Minnesota to become a sanctuary state and will work with the legislature to ban sanctuary cities. As governor, he will meet with President Trump and Attorney General Sessions to end our participation in the federal refugee resettlement program.

Erin Murphy (D): Candidate Murphy supports drivers licenses for all and says that our state and law enforcement cannot serve as an extension for ICE, nor should Minnesota prisons be used as detention centers.

Tim Pawlenty (R): Candidate Pawlenty will make sure people receiving government benefits are here legally and actually qualify for them. He is calling for a pause to the Refugee Resettlement Program until there are stronger vetting procedures.

Tim Walz (D): Candidate Walz has extensive views on federal immigration reform, but I couldn’t find much for his view on how immigration affects Minnesota in his own words. Candidate Pawlenty claims Walz wants Minnesota to be a sanctuary state, but I couldn’t find Candidate Walz saying that. Former candidate, Rebecca Otto, calls him anti-refugee, likely based on his voting record, but I couldn’t find where he stands with refugees in Minnesota.

Housing (MN Governor's Race)

The standard metric for determining whether housing is affordable or not is if a household is spending 30% of their income on housing. If a household makes $30,000 a year they shouldn’t spend more than $750 on rent/mortgage & utilities. If they make $100,000, they shouldn’t spend more than $2,500. If you pay more than the 30% mark, you are cost-burdened.

43% of all renters in the metro area are cost-burdened. 22% are extremely cost-burdened, paying more than half of their income on housing. Extremely low income families are characterized as making less than $25,750 for a family of 4. 27% of this population are disabled and 30% are seniors. 78% of that population are cost-burdened with 63% paying more than half their income.

Minnesota is the 21st most expensive state to live in with the 2nd most expensive housing market. The minimum wage is $9.65 per hour. In Minnesota, a worker making minimum wage would have to work 61 hours a week to afford a modest 1 bedroom rental home at a Fair Market Rate. The hourly rate needed to afford a 2 bedroom rental in Minnesota is $18.60 or $3,225 per month. There are 1,749 low income apartment complexes in Minnesota which contain 99,966 affordable apartments. 63,449 of these apartments set rent based on your income. By clicking here, you can see the apartment communities and wait lists by county.

Still, there is deficit of nearly 65,000 affordable housing units for extremely low income families in the metro area. There is a deficit of 92,439 units across the state.

According the Minnesota newspaper, the Union Times, “Minnesota has lost thousands of units of “naturally occurring” affordable rental housing — older units with modest rents. As rents have risen and vacancies fallen, they’ve become plums for investors to pluck, update and put back on the market at much higher rents. Strong growth among renter households with higher incomes has prodded the trend, symbolized most notably in the Twin Cities by the upscaling of the 700-unit Crossroads at Penn complex in Richfield, where many low-income renters lost their homes.”

Last fall, Minnesota invested $126 million in affordable housing to address the statewide shortage by building or restoring 1,800 units across the state. At the time, Minnesota Housing Commissioner Mary Tingerthal said, “The cost of housing is going up faster than people's incomes. We're seeing a shortage of low-cost homes for sale for first-time homebuyers and we're losing affordable rental properties at a pretty rapid pace. They've (lawmakers) really understood on a very bipartisan basis that housing is the foundation for success and it really makes sense for the state to invest, alongside with private investors to make this housing possible.”

Here is where the candidates stand on housing:
Jeff Johnson (R): Candidate Johnson says, "Government has created a larger problem than anything else. The average cost (of housing construction) is considerably higher than anything across the borders because state government has created regulatory requirements that drive up the cost by a lot." According to the Pine and Lakes Echo Journal Johnson believes, “It is not the role of government to fund and build affordable housing, though there are a number of ways the state government in St. Paul can incentivize housing projects and the private sector, including businesses, to spur the creation of housing for workers. Aside from that—between over-regulating building ordinances or taxing initiatives to the point of unprofitability—it's often government that stymies housing. Rolling back regulations in this regard forms a crucial part of his platform.”

Erin Murphy (D): Candidate Murphy will propose and sign bonding bills annually and will commit to dedicating $100 million to affordable housing every year. She will work to protect naturally occurring affordable housing that we lose each year to conversions and disrepair. She will work with communities throughout the state to make sure their unique circumstances are addressed.

Tim Pawlenty (R): Candidate Pawlenty’s website says, “He has consistently championed policies that promote safe, affordable housing; balancing resource protection and the needs of Minnesota families.” He is endorsed by Housing First Minnesota, the state’s leading voice for homebuilding and remodeling. President, Tom Wiener, said, “Tim Pawlenty is an experienced and proven housing leader who knows that the American dream of homeownership is central to the lives of Minnesotans, the communities where they live, and to the fabric of Minnesota’s economy.” Last year, Housing First Minnesota engaged 11 gubernatorial candidates, including all highlighted here, in housing policy discussions. They reviewed written responses to policy questions, reviewed measures of demonstrated policy support, and completed extensive discussions. They unanimously selected Tim Pawlenty. Executive Director, David Siegel, said, “Minnesota is experiencing a housing affordability crisis that is negatively impacting first-time homebuyers most directly. We need bold, experienced leadership to improve the housing market, which is what Tim Pawlenty offers.”

Tim Walz (D): Candidate Walz hosted a Workforce Housing Summit in March of 2016 where about 100 people came together to seek solutions to workforce housing shortages in southeastern Minnesota. He recently tweeted, “Together we can build coalitions to address the lack of affordable housing. Every Minnesotan deserves a home. This is a human issue, we must see the dignity in each individual and recognize that housing isn’t a privilege, it’s a right.”

Health Care (MN Governor's Race)

Minnesota consistently ranks near the top when it comes to health care. It was tied for 1st on the Common Wealth Fund’s Scorecard on State Health System Performance in 2015 and it ranked 2nd in 2017. It has one of the nation’s lowest uninsured rates.

In 2015, 4.3% on Minnesotans were without health insurance. In 2017, it had risen to 6.3% leaving about 349,000 Minnesotans without health insurance. This rate still remains lower than it was prior to the adoption of the Affordable Care Act in 2010. This increase in the number of uninsured corresponds with 2 other data points. In 2015, 55.9% of Minnesotans had coverage offered by employers versus only 52.9% in 2017. Also in 2015, 6.2% of Minnesotans were enrolled in the individual market versus only 4.4% in 2017.

53% of people who no longer had coverage in 2017 said they could no longer afford to maintain the coverage they had or purchase new coverage. Other factors included losing a job or losing eligibility to coverage. The uninsured are more likely to be aged 18 to 34, in a lower income bracket, have lower levels of educational attainment, and/or b people of color or American Indians.

Minnesota Health Commissioner, Jan Malcolm, noted, “People without health insurance report poorer health, especially mental health, and are more likely to experience barriers to getting health care. 2017 was a disappointing year in which higher costs, undercutting of the Affordable Care Act at the federal level and declining coverage by employers moved us away from our public health goal of achieving universal access to health care.”

Our elected leaders, both in the legislature and in the governor’s office, have a direct impact on these matters as can be seen below. They are the ones that create and sign the bills that impact who has coverage, the quality of that coverage, and the affordability of that coverage. They have done much in the state of Minnesota to keep our uninsured rates low, primarily through the establishment of MNSure, the expansion of Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act, and the expansion of MinnesotaCare.

MNSure
MNSure is Minnesota’s online health insurance marketplace where individuals, families, and small businesses can shop for health insurance. Here, insurance can be purchased at a federally subsidized rate. Health insurance exchanges such as this were established as a part of 2010’s Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). In 2012, Democrats took control of both the House and Senate in Minnesota. Therefore, Minnesota’s marketplace was established in 2013 when the legislature passed the Minnesota Insurance Marketplace Act. Minnesota’s uninsured rate was 8.2% prior to this.

In 2017, premium hikes for Minnesotans who buy their own insurance, both through MNSure and outside the exchange, were some of the largest in the nation. Therefore, at the end of January 2017, Governor Dayton signed S.F. 1 which provided 25% premium rebates for the affected Minnesotans. Minnesota was the first state to take an active role in alleviating premium-increases through a state-funded subsidy.
In 2018, average premiums in MNSure decreased slightly. This was a direct result of action from the governor and the legislature. They submitted a federal 1332 waiver proposal to Secretary of the Treasury, Steve Mnuchin, and Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tom Price, through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). 1332 refers to a section of the Affordable Care Act that allows states to waive certain provisions in order to seek innovative ways for the states to pursue high quality, affordable access to health care. It was a necessary part of House Bill H.F. 5 which created the Minnesota Premium Security Plan which created a state-based reinsurance plan and covers a portion of the claims that insurers face, resulting in lower total claims costs, resulting in lower premiums.

Medicaid and MinnesotaCare
In addition to the development of MNSure, another benefit of the Affordable Care Act was the expansion of Medicaid, which the state calls Medical Assistance. The bill expanded access to Minnesotans who made up to 138% of the federal poverty line. From before the expansion to June 2016, Minnesota saw an 18% increase in enrollment.

Minnesota also established a Basic Health Program (BHP) which is known as MinnesotaCare and covers Minnesotans that are not eligible for Medicaid but make between 138% and 200% of the federal poverty line. There was a bill in the House to expand this to 275%, but it didn’t make it out of committee this year. Minnesota is one of only 2 states to have a BHP, the other being New York.

Single Payer Health Care
The United States currently has a multi-payer healthcare system, meaning that individuals or employers pay for and receive health insurance via multiple private (insurance companies) and public (government programs) sources. A single-payer system is financed solely by taxes and all are covered by one public system (the government).

Senator John Marty has proposed the Minnesota Health Plan for Minnesota. It would be a single, statewide plan that would cover all Minnesotans and their medical needs. He says, “There are currently over 260,000 Minnesotans without any health insurance, and at least a million more who have insurance, but still cannot afford to pay their medical bills due to co-payments, deductibles, and care not covered by their insurance, on top of their premiums!’

He says that under his plan, patients would be able to see the medical provider of their choice and their coverage wouldn’t end when they leave their job or switch to a new employer. There would be no worrying about if a provider was “in network”, if a treatment was covered, or how one would pay for a drug. It would be fully funded by Minnesotans, based on their ability to pay, cover all health care costs, and replace premiums, co-payments, and deductibles.

Here is where the candidates stand on health care in Minnesota:

Jeff Johnson (R): Candidate Johnson says, “I will work to return the power over health care to patients and citizens, and take advantage of federal waivers allowing Minnesota to abandon the provisions of Obamacare that have limited choice and increased costs. I will also start negotiating with other Midwestern states to increase competition by creating an interstate compact to sell and buy insurance across state lines.”

Erin Murphy (D): Candidate Murphy was a nurse in a rural hospital and then on a transplant team. She was the Executive Director of the Minnesota Nurses Association and she was a legislative leader on health and human services. Healthcare seems to be her top issue and she says she knows it from every angle. “And from every angle, I see that corporate profits have been prioritized over patients and workers.” She supports a single payer health plan and was a co-author of Senator John Marty’s Minnesota Health Plan. She acknowledges that a full single-payer solution isn’t possible without a federal plan, but says “we can build the infrastructure here in Minnesota and lead the nation.” She wants to start the process by opening MinnesotaCare up to anyone who wants it. In 2014, she passed legislation that expanded a public option for public school employees and claims that they are seeing lower costs and higher-quality care. She wants to contract with nurses, doctors, and hospitals and invest in our healthcare workforce with training programs that target nurses and home healthcare workers which she says will revitalize local economies across the state.

Tim Pawlenty (R): Candidate Pawlenty says that “skyrocketing health care premiums are crushing too many Minnesotans.” He says he will deliver solutions to bring down the costs while still providing high quality care. He says that one key ingredient of that is to provide transparency about prices so that consumers know about the price and quality of care they will receive. He says, “With that type of information more easily in hand, consumers will be able to make more informed decisions about the health care they receive.”

Tim Walz (D): Candidate Walz will provide a strong public health care option for Minnesotans who want it. He says the Minnesotans don’t have to wait for the federal government to act because we have MinnestoaCare which he says “delivers high quality care at a price Minnesotans can afford.” He will build a One Minnesota coalition that will bring together the best health care minds and Minnesota families facing health care challenges which will focus on reducing costs and increasing access. He says that access to affordable mental health care is a right and will tackle barriers to mental health care. He will make additional investments to medical research in Minnesota. He says, “Minnesota is poised to make huge steps forward on the prevention side of health care, which experts agree will bring down costs. With Minnesota’s great public institutions, our medical device industry, and our premier medical facilities, Tim and Peggy think that Minnesota is where we can find the solutions that will change the game when it comes to bringing health care costs down.”

Gun Violence Prevention/Second Amendment Rights (MN Governor's Race)

It’s one of the most contentious debates of our time: gun violence prevention vs. second amendment rights. Can we have both? Can we support the second amendment while keeping guns away from criminals and other dangerous people? Republicans say that democrats want to abolish the second amendment and take all your guns away. Democrats say that republicans are bought and paid for by the NRA and have no concern for the general welfare. But, what are the actual facts related to gun violence and what are the actual legislative possibilities? I’m going to start with the facts and then outline 4 common state level laws related to firearms: assault weapons bans, universal background checks, stand your ground bills, and “red flag” gun laws.

The Facts
The second amendment protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. That doesn’t mean that the government can’t regulate or place some limits on the manufacture, ownership, and sale of firearms for the safety of its people. The Supreme Court has ruled as such. “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, concealed weapons prohibitions … possessions of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing condition and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

In Minnesota, more people are dying from guns than opioid use and car crashes. That’s certainly true in my experience. I have lost no family members to opioid use or car crashes, but I have lost 3 family members to guns. My grandfather was a police officer shot and killed in the line of duty. My father’s cousin was shot and killed as a bystander in a domestic dispute and my wife’s cousin was a victim of suicide by firearm. Nationwide, 52% of law enforcement officers shot to death were killed by individuals prohibited from possessing a firearm.

In 2016, 43,050 people died in Minnesota. Cancer, heart disease, and accidental injury are the leading causes, but gun violence plays a significant role. 432 people died from guns in 2016 while 395 died from opioids, and 392 people died from car crashes. The majority of these gun deaths in Minnesota (77%) and other states come from suicides.

Also in 2016, Minnesota’s violent crime rate hit a 50 year low, according to the FBI. In 2017, the state set a new record for firearm background checks. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System processed 683,544 checks on gun buyers in Minnesota: 473,975 permits, 94,383 handguns and 125,516 long guns. 283,188 Minnesotans have permits to legally carry firearms in public. What is not known for sure is how many total guns there are in the state, exactly how many gun owners there are, or how much ammunition is sold each year. But, an estimated 36.7% of Minnesotans own at least one firearm.

From 2006 to 2016, 673 Minnesotans were murdered with guns. An additional 83 died from accidental shootings or shootings with an unknown intent. From 2009 to 2013, 89 women were shot and killed by current or former intimate partners.

Assault Weapons Ban
On January 17, 1989, a 24 year old man with a long criminal history walked onto the Cleveland Elementary School playground in Stockton, California, and began firing with a semi-automatic AK-47. He killed 5 children and wounded 30 others. California then became the first state to pass an assault weapons ban. In addition to assault weapons, it also banned magazines that could hold over 10 rounds of ammunition. Guns and magazines that were legally owned prior to the passing of the law were grandfathered in as long as they were registered with the California Department of Justice. New Jersey and Connecticut both passed statewide bans before the federal ban in 1994.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was passed in 1994. At the time, the U.S. Department of Justice said, “"In general, assault weapons are semi automatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use.” The term is not to be confused with assault rifle, such as an M16, which has the capability to fire in semi-automatic, burst, or fully automatic mode. The assault weapons ban expired in 2004. Therefore, assault weapons, such as the Colt AR-15, are legal in the United States. Assault rifles capable of fully automatic firing have been illegal since 1934.

Assault weapons, and often the AR-15, are the weapon of choice for many high-profile mass shootings including the Pulse Nightclub Shooting, the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting, the Aurora Movie Theater Shooting, and the Columbine School Shooting. When assault weapons are used in mass shootings, 155% more people are shot and 49% more people die versus mass shootings that don’t include assault weapons. Restricting access to assault weapons has significant effects on mass shooting fatalities. During the federal ban, there was a marked decrease in the use of assault weapons and large capacity magazines in crime.

However, assault weapons do not significantly affect murder rates at the state level as handguns are responsible for far more deaths. Assault weapons bans do affect school shootings. Quinnipiac researcher, Mark Gius says, "Assault weapons bans reduced the number of school shooting victims by 54.4 percent. All other gun-control laws—concealed-carry laws, private-sale background checks, and federal dealer background checks—had no statistically significant effect on school shootings."

In the absence of a federal assault weapons ban, there are seven states that have assault weapons bans. The three listed above plus Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York which adopted statewide bans after the federal ban expired. These bans have been repeatedly challenged and repeatedly upheld by the courts as constitutional. The Supreme Court has rejected challenges to the bans.

Minnesota does not have an assault weapons ban, however Minnesota is one of only 2 states that have a training and background check requirement on assault weapons that is more stringent than that of other firearms. Minnesota prohibits the possession of “semiautomatic military-style assault weapons” to person under the age of 18.

A writer for the Pacific Standard summed up assault weapons bans concisely, “So if our goal as a society is to reduce the overall murder rate, an assault weapons ban would be highly ineffective. But if we want increased protection from people who aim to create mass casualties in schools—or concert venues like the one in Las Vegas—it could be of enormous help.”

Universal Background Checks

Over 90% of Americans support universal background checks for all gun sales, however the so-called “gun-show loophole” allows unlicensed sellers to sell without performing any background checks. This applies to sellers at gun shows and all private sales of guns. A 2017 study found that 22% of Americans purchased their firearms without a background check.

In 2012, a gunman killed three people, including his wife, and injured 4 others at a spa in Wisconsin after buying a gun through a private seller on-line. He was prohibited from buying guns do to an active domestic violence restraining order, but was able to do so anyway because the seller was not required to run a background check.

A survey of state prison inmates who were convicted of gun offenses found that only 13% of them obtained the gun from a store or pawn shop where background checks were required. 96% of them were already prohibited from possessing a firearm at the time of their crime and did so through an unlicensed private seller.

Nineteens states and Washington, D.C. have extended the background check requirement beyond federal law to include at least some private sales. Minnesota is not one of them. Of those nineteen, nine states and D.C. require universal background checks for transfers and sales of all firearms whether purchased from a licensed or unlicensed dealer. From 2009 to 2012, states that required background checks on all handgun sales had 35% fewer gun deaths per capita than states without the requirement. Additionally, states that require background checks on all handgun sales experience 52% fewer mass shooting incidents. They experience 48% less gun trafficking, 38% fewer deaths of women shot by intimate partners, and 17% fewer firearms involved in aggravated assaults.

Additionally, states with universal background checks have 53% fewer firearm suicides and 31% fewer suicides overall.

In Minnesota, our current background check system has blocked 28,499 gun sales to prohibited people since 1998. 19,456 were felons, 1,083 were fugitives, and 3,751 were people convicted of domestic abuse misdemeanors or subject to domestic abuse protection orders.

Stand Your Ground Laws
Castle Doctrine law is common law in the United States. It states that people have “no duty to retreat” from their home in the event of an intruder, but rather are justified in using deadly force to defend oneself. It’s a legal defense that bars a defendant from prosecution for murder if they kill someone in their own home for purposes of self-defense. Each state implements this slightly differently, but mostly the same. In Minnesota, “there is no duty to retreat before using deadly force to prevent a felony in one's place of abode; no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense in one's place of abode.”

“Stand Your Ground” laws are related to the Castle Doctrine law. Stand Your Ground laws are an extension of Castle Doctrine law by allowing a defendant to use the level of force that they see fit against any threat or perceived threat at any location outside the home where a person has a lawful right to be. Without Stand Your Ground laws, a person has a “duty to retreat” by any reasonable means before using deadly force by way of self defense. There is no federal law so it is up to the states to adopt this law. 34 states have adopted “Stand Your Ground Laws” in one way or another. Minnesota is not one of them.

Critics call “Stand Your Ground” laws, “Shoot First’ laws. They say it makes it very difficult to prosecute individuals who claim self-defense because the only other witness is the deceased. In 2005, Florida was the first to enact the “Stand Your Ground” law. It was a law promoted by the National Rifle Association. After Florida, the conservative, corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) adopted a model law in conjunction with the NRA and have lobbied states every since to adopt the law, being successful in a majority of the states.

By 2012, deaths by self defense were up over 200% in Florida. 2012 was also the year that self-appointed crime watch volunteer, George Zimmerman, shot and killed 17 year old Trayvon Martin in Florida. Martin was returning from a convenience store when Zimmerman deemed him suspicious. Zimmerman claimed that Martin attacked him and he feared for his life. In the trial, the judge instructed jurors that Zimmerman had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and use deadly force if he thought it was necessary to defend himself. Prior to this law, jurors would be instructed that a person had a duty to retreat using “every reasonable means” before using deadly force. Zimmerman was acquitted.

Race plays a significant role in prosecutions. Studies have found that when the attacker is white and the victim is black, the homicide is 281% more times likely to be found justifiable than when the attacker is black and the victim is white. When both are black, the attacker is more likely to be convicted than if they are both white. 73% of those who killed a black victim faced no penalty versus 59% of those who killed a white victim.

Red Flag Laws
In 1999, Connecticut became the first state to enact a “Red Flag” law which allows police to temporarily confiscate firearms from individuals determined to be a threat to themselves or their community. Indiana followed suit in 2005. A study published in the journal Psychiatric Services found a decline in gun suicides in these states.

In total, 8 states have red flag laws, including Florida which adopted the law following the Stoneman Douglas High School Shooting. Minnesota is not one of them. Most of these laws require some sort of judicial oversight and due process, however critics say firearms shouldn’t be taken away unless there is an actual conviction.

Here is where the candidates stand:

Jeff Johnson (R): Candidate Johnson says, “Self-defense is a fundamental individual right and creating new “gun control” restrictions on law-abiding citizens will only leave guns in the hands of criminals.”

Erin Murphy (D): Candidate Murphy is proud of her “F” rating from the NRA and has never receive money from the NRA. She believes Minnesota should ban assault weapons, ask law enforcement to intervene when a person either already has or is looking to purchase a gun and is a threat to themselves or their community, set restrictions on magazine capacity, require built-in safety measures and hold manufactures accountable when the standard isn’t met, require universal background checks, and lift the ban on researching gun violence as a public health issue.

Tim Pawlenty (R): Candidate Pawlenty does not address this issue on his website. However, in April he told the press corps that he supports banning bump-stocks or anything that would make a weapon a machine gun, giving local schools more money so they can decide if they want bulletproof glass, police officers, or mental health counseling, strengthening background checks by making sure that people who have mental health challenges or a history of being violent don’t have access to guns, and enforcing and enhancing penalties for people who buy guns with the intent of transferring it to someone else. When asked about background checks for private sales and the so-called “gun show loophole” he said, “Make the background check system available to those people in a way that’s easy and convenient and then offer them legal safe harbor if they use it. I think that’s common ground.”

Tim Walz (D): Candidate Walz says, “Minnesotans deserve to feel safe in their communities, and to have their second amendment rights respected.” He touts himself as a lifelong sportsman and hunter who has the credibility among law-abiding gun owners to build coalitions necessary to get something done on this issue. He has received money from the NRA in his past congressional campaigns. He says he donated all of the money received from the NRA to the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund. He says he will not accept any additional campaign contributions from the NRA. In Congress, he voted in support of universal background checks, “No Fly, No Buy” legislation, and funding the CDC to study gun violence. He voted against Concealed Carry reciprocity. And, he was an original co-sponsor on the bill to ban bump stocks. In Minnesota, he will support a ban on assault weapons, pass universal background checks, fight “stand your ground” bills, and institute the gun violence prevention order which would enable law enforcement and family members to petition the court to prohibit a person from having firearms if a judge finds they are a significant danger to themselves or others.