The Minnesota State Supreme Court has ruled that Governor Pawlenty’s unallotment of the Minnesota Supplemental Aid-Special Diet (MSA-SD) program last year exceeded the authority granted by the state’s unallotment statute. MSA-SD provides cash supplements to disabled Minnesotans whose health conditions require them to follow strictly prescribed diets.
Although the case before the Supreme Court focused on the unallotment of this specific program, the decision has far-reaching implications. In the court’s words:
We cannot conclude that the Legislature intended to authorize the executive branch to use the unallotment process to balance the budget for an entire biennium when balanced spending and revenue legislation has not been initially agreed upon by the Legislature and the Governor. Instead, we conclude that the Legislature intended the unallotment authority to serve the more narrow purpose of providing a mechanism by which the executive branch could address unanticipated deficits that occur after a balanced budget has previously been enacted. (from page 18 of the decision)
Because the legislative and executive never enacted a balanced budget for the 2010-2011 biennium, the use of the unallotment power to address the unresolved deficit exceeded the authority granted to the executive branch by the statute. (from page 21 of the decision)
What are the practical implications of this ruling on the state’s current budget deficit? The Supreme Court’s decision was focused on the Governor’s unallotment of MSA-SD. This ruling voiding the Governor’s unallotment of this program does not have any current budget implications because a lower court had already issued a temporary restraining order reinstating payments to these disabled individuals.
It is still unclear whether the Governor’s other $2.7 billion in unallotments are immediately impacted. If the other unallotment actions aren’t reversed by this ruling , it at least opens the door for affected parties to bring forward additional lawsuits to overturn other unallotment actions. There is already a lawsuit pending regarding the Governor’s unallotment of the Renters’ Credit. So, we’ll have to wait and see what the budget implications will be.
What are the implications of this ruling for future unallotment actions? The Supreme Court did not rule that the unallotment statute is unconstitutional, so the Governor’s unallotment authority remains in place. However, it did rule that the Governor cannot use the unallotment power until the Legislature and Governor have first arrived at a balanced budget solution. That takes a very powerful tool out of the Governor’s arsenal. Just yesterday, Pawlenty demanded that the Legislature cut an additional $536 million out of the state’s budget: “If they won’t do it, I’ll do it for them,” said the Governor. With the threat of unallotment removed, the Governor will be forced to return to the old practice of negotiating an agreement with the Legislature to solve the state’s remaining budget deficit.
Of course, this is just our first look at the Supreme Court decision. We’ll let you know if the experts (meaning people who actually have a law degree) come up with a different interpretation.
-Christina Wessel
