Who new that Minnesota state politics would have been such a treasure-trove for a democratic theorist?  First we had the 2008 (9) Senate Race.  We have also had the saga of Governor Pawlenty’s use of a power called unallotment.

What is an unallotment?  Well, here’s the memo that was sent around the Minnesota State Legislature on the subject.  The Governor essentially has the power to personally re-balance the budget if it is decided that there is an emergency change in budget expectations that was unforeseen while the legislature was in session.

Last year, our esteemed governor used the power as a way of driving a hard bargain with the legislature.  Arguing that he could leave the negotiating table and the legislature could not because if talks stalemate, he would just invoke this power, which he did.

Now, some might think that using a power designed for unforeseen changes in budget expectations cannot possibly be legitimate if you are broadcasting using the emergency power before the time window in which the unforeseen emergency is to take place.  This is the budget equivalent of a governor declaring that he has scheduled a state of emergency for the first week of July.

Beyond this, one might notice that there could not be a worse situation from a standpoint of governance than giving the executive an exit option with far superior strength to the legislature’s exit option.  For one thing, it is unclear why ANY governor would be likely to negotiate a budget with an opposition legislature.

The other problem with divesting the power of budget disproportionately in the hands of the governor as opposed to the legislature comes from the very problem we see now. Governor’s are a single individual who holds the position on a state level that most likely leads to the important jobs in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. Whereas the legislature is a state institution whose continuity is dependent on satisfying the interests of the state, the career interests of governors are more likely to wander towards satisfying those who might be the source of their next job.

One final note: the courts have been lambasted by politicians in both the Minnesota Senate race controversy and the unallotment controversy.  A final note on Governor Pawlenty’s recent reaction, as reported in the Star Tribune,

Ramsey County District Court Judge Kathleen Gearin “has inserted herself into a political dispute,” Pawlenty said at a news conference. “That degree of involvement by the court is concerning, to say the least. We believe the judge misapplied and misinterpreted the statute in significant ways.”

This is simply an outlandish mischaracterization.  Pawlenty was sued by groups denied money by unallotment. The courts did not choose to get involved at all. Once someone files a suit, the court system IS involved.  That’s what filing a suit DOES.  He may not have wanted to be involved in the suit, but, not surprisingly, NO ONE who is ever sued wants the Court to get involved because before they were sued, they were presumably getting away with what they did without punishment or inconvenience.

What Pawlenty is really saying is that he does not like the decision, which, as the losing party in the decision, is again not surprising.  Most people who lose a court case don’t think they deserve to lose, which some would say is the point of court.  The whole point of a court is that we do not let defendants or plaintiffs decide for themselves whether or not they are right - we already KNOW that they think that they are right.