Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto - Minnesota State Legislature

More documents

Recommendations

Info

42. Soon after the Special Master Recommendations were made, ChiefJudge Gregg E. Johnson issued orders affirming the recommendations. 43 43. After the issuance ofChiefJohnson's orders, the Commissioner ofFinance issued checks from on or about June 30, 2005 through July 14, 2005 disbursing state funds pursuant to the Court's Orders - but without an "appropriation by law." 44. Meanwhile, by July 14, 2005, the Minnesota legislature had passed and the Governor signed all remaining appropriation bills completing its biennial appropriations for the funding ofall state agencies and programs. As a result ofthe District Court proceedings in 2005, State Legislators petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of quo warranto, but because the crisis had passed this Court relinquished its original jurisdiction and remanded to District Court. 45. On August 13,2005, 13 state legislators including the Speaker ofthe House Steve Sviggum and the Majority Leader, filed a petition for a writ of quo warranto in the Supreme Court against respondent Peggy Ingison, in her official capacity as Commissioner ofFinance. The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of expenditures from the state treasury made by the Commissioner on court orders issued in In Re Temporary Funding ofCore Functions ofthe Executive Branch ofthe State of Minnesota, No. CO-05-5928 (Dist. Ct. Ramsey Cty 2005), in the absence ofa legislative appropriation. 46. The Minnesota Supreme Court on September 9, 2005, dismissed the Petition without prejudice on the grounds that the petitioners had failed to show "the most 43 Id. 18
exigent ofcircumstances" to justify the Supreme Court exercising its original, jurisdiction. 44 The Court noted the reliefsought for the end ofthe next fiscal biennium was almost two years away and that timely District Court reliefwas possible. 45 The appellate court never reached the underlying constitutional issues presented here, determined moot moot because the legislature ratified the petitioned disbursements complained about. 47. After the Supreme Court quo warranto denial, 32 state legislators from both political parties, filed an amended petition for writ ofquo warranto in the Ramsey County D · . C 46 lstnct ourt. 48. The Ramsey County District Court denied the state legislators' petition for quo warranto. First, the court held that quo warranto as a remedy, was not an appropriate remedy for past official conduct but instead for a continuing course ofunauthorized usurpation ofauthority. Second, the court found the case moot, and not capable of repetition yet likely to evade review. Finally, the district court concluded the state constitution did not barjudicial action to preserve core government functions pending necessary appropriations by the legislature. 47 49. On appeal in 2007 the appellate court held that: (1) the doctrine oflaches did not preclude the legislators' action; (2) quo warranto could not be used to challenge the constitutionality ofcompleted disbursement offunds; and (3) the legislature resolved 44 State ex ret. Sviggum v. Ingison, Minn. St. Sup. Op. 4 (Sept. 9, 2005). Pet. App. 150. 45 1d. 46 State ex ret. Sviggum v. lngison, 62-C9-05-9413 (Dist. Ct. Ramsey Cty 2005). 47 1 d. 19
Page 2 and 3: TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE OF PETITI
Page 4 and 5: C. The Attorney General's "core fun
Page 6 and 7: INTRODUCTION 1. Minnesota's executi
Page 8 and 9: JURISDICTION The Supreme Court has
Page 10 and 11: ISSUES PRESENTED 1. Article XI requ
Page 12 and 13: STATEMENT OF FACTS Minnesota's fail
Page 14 and 15: 15 fd. Governor vetoed in 2011, Min
Page 16: Moneys appropriated in 2009 Minn. L
Page 19 and 20: 29. For instance, on May 21,2001, t
Page 21: 38. Similar to 2001, the court orde
Page 25 and 26: an appropriation by law. The need f
Page 27 and 28: lost because the judiciary has usur
Page 29 and 30: The Court stated that a single legi
Page 31 and 32: generallY recognized that a taxpaye
Page 33 and 34: While the consent ofthe attorney ge
Page 35 and 36: circumstances test, however, do not
Page 37 and 38: General Assembly enacted an executi
Page 40 and 41: the constitution grants the Governo
Page 42: fund that state program. But what c
Page 45 and 46: Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, p. 19
Page 47 and 48: Commissioner is to credit revenue f
Page 49 and 50: Supremacy Clause applies. However,
Page 51 and 52: 118. For example, the state is requ
Page 53: C. The Attorney General's "core fun
Page 56 and 57: 131. State statutes are explicit in
Page 58 and 59: appropriate state funds. Because th
Page 60 and 61: PRAYER FOR RELIEF For the foregoing

Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto - Minnesota State Legislature

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?