Democrats show discord over rollbacks of paid family leave, other past priorities


After two years of banding together to pass a slate of Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party priorities, fractures are showing among lawmakers over rollbacks of measures they passed under full DFL control in St. Paul.

Those disagreements could delay or potentially stall out final negotiations over a two-year state budget. The prospect of an on-time finish to the session is already dimming as the May 19 adjournment deadline nears and much remains to be done.

Moderate members of the DFL have sided with Republicans to advance efforts to exempt some businesses to a pair of programs designed to give workers guaranteed time off. They are covered by the relatively new earned sick and safe time law and the soon-to-launch paid family and medical leave program. 

Both were priority policies for Democrats in 2023 and passed with few votes to spare. But now DFL lawmakers from political swing districts say they want exemptions to relieve some of the financial burden on smaller employers.

Members of the People of Color and Indigenous Caucus on Thursday said they’re not willing to budge over those exemptions or efforts to pare back benefits for hourly school workers or expanded health care options for immigrants in Minnesota without proper documentation.

“We’re trying to protect Minnesotans,” Rep. Kaohly Vang Her, DFL-St. Paul, said. “And so what we’re saying is ‘These are the things that are not negotiable.”

Lawmakers are rapidly approaching their constitutionally required adjournment deadline but haven’t yet struck a global budget framework. That is needed to help guide how much the state government spends on education, health programs, public safety and other services. 

The proposed changes to the earned sick and safe time, paid family and medical leave, school worker unemployment insurance and health insurance access laws have been sticking points between Republicans and Democrats.

Members of the POCI Caucus and advocacy groups that pushed for the changes in 2023 have held news conferences and rallies aiming to highlight the value of the services. They’re hoping to pressure Democrats who have backed rollbacks.

Sen. Nick Frentz, DFL-North Mankato

Sen. Nick Frentz, DFL-North Mankato, speaks at a news conference at the Capitol Tuesday, Feb. 5, 2019, on legislation that would require Minnesota’s utilities to provide 100 percent renewable electricity by 2050.

Elizabeth Dunbar | MPR News file

Sen. Nick Frentz, DFL-North Mankato, sponsored a bill that limits the number of businesses that would have to offer paid family and medical leave benefits spelled out in state law. The program is set to launch in January. Frentz, a head of the new Blue Dog Coalition in the Senate, said he expects that he and other Democrats from politically purple districts would support that effort. 

A handful of moderate Democrats voted with Republicans this week to limit businesses required to offer earned sick and safe time, the program that gives employees better access to accrued time off to deal with short-term illness or family emergencies.

“The Blue Dog coalition was founded with a couple ideas, a little more bipartisanship, a little more fiscal responsibility, and I think we’ll stick to that to the finish line,” he said.

He noted too that the fate of the paid leave bill – and others – now lies in the hands of legislative leaders. They are writing the global agreement and chair committees that could decide whether bills move to a floor vote or get shelved.

Republicans have sought exemptions for the programs. They see full elimination of the MinnesotaCare benefits for undocumented people as a must-have in the budget negotiations.

“The elections changed the (DFL) trifecta here, and we take that very seriously,” Rep. Dave Baker, R-Willmar, said. “That has to be part of the final negotiations before we wrap up our session this year.”

DFL Gov. Tim Walz has a powerful say in those budget talks. He said he’s open to potential compromises when it comes to revisiting the newly enacted policies. 

“If some of those things are being asked to make modifications to, as long as the spirit and the impact that we get out of them remains the same,” Walz said this week. “We’re always willing to try and make some tweaks around them.”

Walz drew a clearer line on the proposal eliminating MinnesotaCare for people lacking legal immigration status. He said morally he thinks it’s important to ensure people in the country without proper documentation can access care – especially kids. Without it, he said the costs could be borne by others because hospitals can’t turn away people seeking emergency care.

Rep. Esther Agbaje, DFL-Minneapolis, is a co-chair of the POCI Caucus. She said so far House DFL leaders have heard concerns about maintaining benefits established over the last two years. 

“Folks are still talking and they are also listening to us. They’re also hearing us,” Agbaje said. “So we will see what comes from that. But what we want to do is make sure that the real stories of real impacted people are out there, to make sure that that’s part of the conversation as well.”

On at least one issue, Democrats were able to divert a budget bill with a provision that they opposed. Co-chairs of the House Education Finance and Policy Committee struck a deal on a bill funding schools from preschool through high school. It moved through their committee and another key panel last week before hitting a wall. Democrats opposed efforts to take it up for a floor vote and it was ultimately paused.

DFL members said they wouldn’t support the bill if it contained a proposal to sunset a program in 2028 that now provides unemployment benefits for hourly school workers like school bus drivers, paraprofessionals and janitors during summer school breaks.

“It would be very disappointing to have our budget bill stalled because of a policy that was put in, especially a policy that wouldn’t come into effect for four years and along the way, does not save our districts any money,” said Rep. Cheryl Youakim, the DFL co-chair on the committee. “So hopefully we’ll get this straightened out and we can move forward.”

If lawmakers don’t approve a budget before July 1, the state would face a government shutdown.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — A coalition of 20 state Democratic attorneys general, including Minnesota’s, filed two federal lawsuits on Tuesday, claiming that the Trump administration is threatening to withhold billions of dollars in transportation and disaster-relief funds unless states agree to certain immigration enforcement actions.

According to the complaints, both Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy have threatened to cut off funding to states that refuse to comply with President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda.

While no federal funding is currently being withheld, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said during a news conference on Tuesday that the threat was “imminent.”

“President Donald Trump can’t use these funds as a bargaining chip as his way of ensuring states abide by his preferred policies,” Bonta added.

Department of Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement that the lawsuit will not stop the Trump Administration from “restoring the rule of law.”

“Cities and states who break the law and prevent us from arresting criminal illegal aliens should not receive federal funding. The President has been clear on that,” she said.

Duffy said in a statement that the 20 states have filed the lawsuit because “their officials want to continue breaking federal law and putting the needs of illegal aliens above their own citizens.”

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said in a written statement that decisions about how police resources are allocated should be made at the local leve.

“It is both wrong and unlawful for the Trump Administration to demand Minnesota law enforcement step away from their patrols, investigations, and community-engagement work to instead enforce federal immigration law,” Ellison said. “Furthermore, it is deeply disturbing that the Trump Administration is threatening to withhold important disaster relief and public safety funds if we do not do their job for them.” 

Both lawsuits say that the Trump administration is violating the U.S. Constitution by trying to dictate federal spending when Congress has that power — not the executive branch.

On April 24, states received letters from the Department of Transportation stating that they must cooperate on immigration efforts and eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs or risk losing funds.

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin criticized the timing of Duffy’s letter when Newark’s airport struggles with radar outages and other issues.

“I wish the administration would stop playing politics with people’s lives,” Platkin said. “I wish Secretary Duffy would do his damn job, which is to make sure planes land on time, not to direct immigration enforcement.”

Meanwhile, on Feb. 24, states received letters from the Department of Homeland Security declaring that states that “refuse to cooperate with, refuse to share information with, or even actively obstruct federal immigration enforcement reject these ideals and the history we share in common as Americans.”

“If any government entity chooses to thumb its nose at the Department of Homeland Security’s national security and public safety mission, it should not receive a single dollar of the Department’s money unless Congress has specifically required it,” Noem wrote in her letter.

Attorneys general behind the lawsuits include the following states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin and Vermont.

The cases are being spearheaded by California but were filed in federal court in Rhode Island, a detail that the attorneys general defended by saying they filed in “any court that is going to be fair and objective and consider our factual presentation and legal analysis.”

The lawsuits are the latest legal actions that Democratic-led states have taken against Trump since he took office earlier this year. Bonta noted that California has filed more than 20 lawsuits against the administration, while Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha said his state has launched more than a dozen.

While the lawsuits have challenged policies on tariffs, federal employee firings and health care research, Trump’s focus on immigration enforcement and the mass deportation of immigrants in the United States illegally have received the most attention.

This has included the president’s promise to mass deport people and the start of a registry required for all those who are in the country illegally.

“What we’re seeing is a creeping authoritarianism,” Neronha said.



Source link