Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto - Minnesota State Legislature

More documents

Recommendations

Info

constitutional authority to appropriate state funds. Because the District Court order of June 29 th and all subsequent orders are not "appropriations by law" - they are invalid appropriations. The Constitution directs the Commissioner not to expend the state funds. When the Commissioner did, he usurped a power allocated to the state legislature under Articles III, IV and XI. 63. Additionally, the Petitioners also allege injury because the Ramsey County District Court proceedings unconstitutionally tip the balance ofpowers in favoTof the executive and judiciary branch at the expense ofthe legislative branch - at a critical juncture in budget negotiations between the Governor and the Legislative leaders. The legislature's power to appropriate funds is its paramount power and its leverage in budget negotiations. When the executive and judiciary branches usurp the power oflegislative appropriation, they unconstitutionally deprive the legislature ofits power and leverage at the negotiating table. 64. For these reasons, the Petitioners who are state senators have standing as legislators to bring their claims ofunconstitutional actions against the Respondents. B. Because the central issue involves the unlawful disbursement of public moneys, the Petitioners have standing as taxpayers. 65. "[I]t is well settled that a taxpayer may, when the situation warrants, maintain an action to restrain unlawful disbursements ofpublic moneys; to recover for the use ofthe public subdivision entitled thereto money that has been illegally disbursed, as well as to restrain illegal action on the part ofpublic officials.,,60 "[I]t has been 60 McKee v. Likins, 261 N.W.2d 566,571 (Minn. 1977) (citation omitted). 26
generallY recognized that a taxpayer has sufficient interest to enjoin illegal expenditures ofboth municipal and state funds. ,,61 Taxpayers have the right "to maintain an action in the courts to restrain the unlawful use ofpublic funds. ,,62 66. The Court in McKee v. Likins recognized the well-settled doctrine that taxpayer standing existed to challenge illegal expenditures. The issue in McKee was whether taxpayer standing "injury in fact" existed where the expenditure oftax moneys was made under a rule which the plaintifftaxpayer alleged was adopted by a state official without compliance with the statutory rule-making procedures. The Court held that taxpayer standing existed and that the expenditures were illegal for lack offollowing statutory procedure: An important political issue like public financing ofabortions ought to, ideally, be decided by the legislature where everyone can have his say. Ifthe legislature has placed the issue in the hands ofan administrative official that official's decision ought to be based on a careful expression ofall interested viewpoints ...Therefore, it logically follows that if the legislature delegates authority to an administrative agency and ifthe administrative agency elects to adopt rules pursuant to that authority, the procedure outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act should be followed in promulgating those rules. 63 61 Arens v. Village ofRogers, 240 Minn. 386,392,61 N.W.2d 508,513 (1953). 62 Conant v. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, L.L.P., 603 N.W.2d 143, 146 (Minn. App. 1999). 63 McKee, 261 N.W.2d at 578. 27
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 and 22: 38. Similar to 2001, the court orde
Page 23 and 24: exigent ofcircumstances" to justify
Page 25 and 26: an appropriation by law. The need f
Page 27 and 28: lost because the judiciary has usur
Page 29: The Court stated that a single legi
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?