Pawlenty Administration files appeal of unallotment case

by T.W. Budig
ECM Capitol Reporter

The Pawlenty Administration yesterday (Tuesday, Jan. 12) filed its appeal of a recent Ramsey District Court ruling pertaining to a lawsuit brought by six recipients of a state special diet program — a lawsuit bringing into question the legality of Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s unallotment of $2.7 billion from the state budget last summer.

The district court ruled the unallotment of the diet program was unlawful, citing separation of power.

The administration filed court documents asking the Minnesota Supreme Court to speedily review the case and requesting the Minnesota Court of Appeals to do the same should the supreme court refuse to do so.

The plaintiffs, some from Anoka County, want quick court action, too.

They originally filed their lawsuit on Nov. 3 — House DFLers filed a brief in support of the suit.

In its appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court, the Pawlenty Administration argued that a decision by the court will help develop, clarify, and harmonize state law.

The district court ruling creates a potential for confusion, the administration argues.

Beyond this, the basis for the ruling confuses clearly defined statute, the administration argues.

The district court acted without analyzing the statutory language, and the applicable principles of statutory interpretation and construction, they argue.

The resolution of the question of the unallotment has possible statewide implication, the administration argues to the Supreme Court.

While Pawlenty made his unallotments last summer, the state still confronts an immediate $1.2 billion state budget deficit.

Further, the administration argues the question of the unallotment is likely to recur unless resolved by the Minnesota Supreme Court.

“A deficit in the State’s biennial budget becomes increasingly difficult to resolve as the months pass and less of the biennium remains,” the administration states.

“Reductions in spending are more difficult to plan and absorb, and less effective financially, when they have to be compressed and implemented over a shorter period of time,” the administration argues.

A quick review of the matter by the Supreme Court is more important now than when the court dealt with the issue of the health impact fee on cigarettes brought by tobacco companies several years ago, the administration argues.

“More than 70 years ago the legislature granted Minnesota governors the authority to unallot and the district court’s decision misinterpreted that law in key respects,” said Pawlenty Deputy Chief of Staff Brian McClung.

“We hope the Minnesota Supreme Court will more clearly and directly address this issue,” he said.