A Capitol jargon cheat sheet as Minnesota lawmakers approach crucial session deadline
Go Deeper.
Create an account or log in to save stories.
Like this?
Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.
The Minnesota Legislature has fallen into a more-normal pace after a series of tumultuous twists and turns that colored the early part of the session.
Lawmakers saw a bunch of activity in committees last week and will continue that cadence this week ahead of another deadline on Friday. For those trying to keep up with the action from afar, it can be difficult because not all bills are being put to up-or-down votes at this stage.
In an effort to translate the process, here are some basics:
What does it mean for bills to get ‘laid over for possible inclusion,’ which happens a lot?
When a bill is “laid over for possible inclusion,” it means lawmakers aren’t saying it’s going to pass but they’re not saying it won’t be included in a bigger bill. It means the bills could be folded into a larger bill — an “omnibus” bill.
Turn Up Your Support
MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all.
What is an omnibus bill?
The omnibus bill is a catch-all bill that can cover a lot of different changes in several areas. They can run hundreds of pages and capture changes to policy, finances or both.
Last year, there was a 1,400 page omnibus bill that passed in the final minutes of the session, which even by Capitol standards was unusually big and sprawling.
The legislation is now the subject of legal challenges in state and federal court for trying to pack too much into a single bill.
This year there’s an evenly divided House — half Republicans and half Democrats — so there is a lot being laid over. That’s one way to avoid tanking the other party’s plans now and also could foreshadow blended legislation needed to get buy-in from both parties.
Unless there is bipartisan support, one-party bills that would reach the floor could very well fall to a tie vote.
What legislation looks doomed?
The Equal Rights Amendment went down in committee after a deadlock last week. Referred to commonly as the ERA, it would have put a ballot question for a constitutional amendment before voters. The defeated bill would have led to a statewide vote on whether to add firmer protections against discrimination based on race, color, national origin, ancestry, disability, or sex, including pregnancy and decisions made about a person’s pregnancy, gender and sexual orientation.
Bills to legalize sports betting come up year after year. But both Republican and Democratic leaders in the House say they’re not going anywhere this year.
Other bills likely to fall short: Republican proposals to add fees for prison inmate communications services and to eliminate a state account that funds mental health and chemical dependency services for people who commit drug-related offenses. They failed when a committee deadlocked over them.
Competing bills on the same topic have been coming up in committees, especially in the evenly split House. For example, two proposals were heard last week in the House Workforce, Labor and Economic Development Committee to extend unemployment benefits for miners on the Iron Range who were laid off.
The Republican-introduced plan would have also made some environmental regulation changes to the mines where they work. A DFL-crafted bill that ultimately passed with unanimous support did not include the regulation changes. Both would add 26 weeks to the window of benefits available to those mine workers.
It’s possible, maybe even probable, that the regulatory plans for mining could resurface in a separate bill that heads through an environmental committee.
What about the budget?
Democratic and Republican leaders met with DFL Gov. Tim Walz and his key advisers last week. The leaders have crafted blueprints and they’re trying to get on the same page. Walz sounded optimistic last week.
"We want to get an agreement where that is a public document to say `look we all agree on inflation, we all agree on where these numbers are at’ and we can start working from there,” Walz said after a midweek meeting.
The next budget covers two years of spending, which will probably fall around $66 billion. That’s smaller than the current $72 billion budget given that some temporary spending done last time will automatically fall away.
But lawmakers are also attentive to pressure that could be on the following budget, when a potential shortfall is brewing that could reach $6 billion.
There are also worries about the impact of federal government actions — from President Donald Trump’s tariffs to potential cuts in spending that flows to states — that could put a further dent in Minnesota’s budget.
Don’t rule out a special session later in the year if those moves poke a big hole in the budget.
And a bonding bill?
Bonding bills get their name from the borrowing, or bonds sold, to pay for various construction projects.
Last year, one failed to pass in part because lawmakers ran out of time at the end of session as Republicans were protesting on the floor. They take a three-fifths majority so there must be extra effort to get support from both parties.
Both Republican and DFL members seem eager to get a bonding bill passed this year.
“Last year would have got us back on track, but we just can't go two years without a bonding bill,” Sen. Sandy Pappas, DFL-St. Paul said. “So while being on track is nice, it's not as important as really funding those projects.”
The key question here is how much will lawmakers agree to borrow, with the range falling somewhere between $700 million and $1.3 billion. Once that’s settled, the mix of projects can fall into place.
MPR News correspondent Peter Cox and senior politics reporter Dana Ferguson contributed to this story.