Can ‘habitual drunkenness’ get you kicked out of the Minnesota Legislature?
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.
As Minnesota Supreme Court justices in January considered whether Gov. Tim Walz had the power to speed up a special election to fill a pivotal state House seat, they took a deep dive into an obscure law.
Statute 351.055 details the process for preparing for special elections in cases of resignations. But the court ruled that Walz was wrong to use that instead of a different law to set the election date.
The case served notice that some laws long on the books can’t always be read at face value and their mere existence doesn’t mean they still carry force.
Another, perhaps more obscure law is just two paragraphs down. It allows for removal of a lawmaker in cases of habitual drunkenness, an issue that concerned Minnesotans long before Prohibition. That one has roots in the early years of statehood.
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.
The origins of the anti-drunkenness language stretch back to the 1800s and Rep. Samuel L. Campbell, a conservative Democrat from Wabasha. At the time, he was a prominent businessman, lawyer and also served as a judge.
“He’s sort of got that high moral standing,” said Christopher True, a reference librarian with the Minnesota Historical Society. “That may have had some influence over his thinking.”
In his research, True said he could not find any record of the statute ever being applied to any severing members of the Legislature. There was no incident with lawmaker in that century that might’ve influenced the creation of this law.
Vibe of the times
So what motivated Campbell to author this bill and get it to Gov. John S. Pillsbury’s desk? True chalks it up to the times. It was enacted and signed into law in 1878.
“Being the late 1800s, temperance is on everybody’s mind,” said True. “For whatever reason, they wanted to make sure that there were no habitual drunkards in office. It’s entirely possible that this was just kind of this kind of the vibe of the time too.”
Campbell turned out to be something of a visionary.
The law was revisited in 1905 — but only to change where it appeared in Minnesota statutes. That was also around the time when a rising number of states began passing laws outlawing the manufacture and sale of intoxicating beverages, according to the National Archives.
Fifteen years later, the Volstead Act, named for its author, Minnesota U.S. Rep. Andrew Volstead, would enforce Prohibition, the Constitution’s 18th Amendment.
The prohibition law almost cost one Minnesota lawmaker a seat.
In the 1920s, Ambrose Leo Lennon was convicted in federal court for violating the Volstead Act following a raid on a social lodge he belonged to. While he appealed that conviction, he had been elected to the Minnesota Senate after previously serving in the House. Some wanted him unseated or expelled. He served time in jail and got a presidential pardon. The expulsion vote was held in January 1929.
In defending himself to his Senate colleagues, Lennon refuted characterizations that he was a “bootlegger” or that he drank liquor in violation of the law.
He gave an impassioned, lengthy defense, saying in part “in the grind of partisan politics where charges flow thick and fast at times, it was never once suggested that there was a stain on my public record.”
He survived the expulsion attempt and would remain in the Senate representing Minneapolis for six more years.
‘Samuel was onto something’
When the removal law passed, Campbell and his 19th century colleagues didn’t leave any clues on how to define “habitual drunkenness” and how it would be used to force a lawmaker from the Legislature.
“I think modern times, it would be almost impossible to to fully do this without the definitions in place,” True said.
Many laws are added to the books each year, but there are seldom significant subtractions. Lawmakers and candidates have campaigned on a mission to weed Minnesota’s statutes of outdated laws.
Some have been been successful, but 351.07 lives on while many lawmakers are unaware of its existence.
Asked about whether the statute’s language holds up in today’s Legislature, Sen. Steve Drazkowski said it has merit.
“I don’t know removing somebody from office is still the right remedy,” Drazkowski said, a Republican from Mazeppa who represents Campbell’s hometown of Wabasha.
“Certainly we shouldn’t have people in positions of authority making our laws that are habitually drunk,” he added. “But the spirit of it and the the intent of it to hold officials accountable is good. I think Samuel was onto something.”
Election law revisited
The circumstances that tripped up Walz — and pushed what had been a late-January special election into one in mid-March — has caught the attention of lawmakers, however.
A bill was put forward this year to give the governor more power to accelerate special elections when a person elected to the Legislature forfeits a seat before even being sworn in.
Rep. Zack Stephenson, DFL-Coon Rapids, is working to allow for a swift election if someone elected to the House or Senate walks away before taking office. It would essentially validate what the court said a governor couldn’t do under the existing law.