Free Speech and the Minnesota Legislature   

A very concerning action by the Minnesota House of Representatives occurred this week.  A “House Resolution” was introduced and passed by a vote of 111 Yes, 8 Nays, and 14 did not vote (one absent) that denounced terrorism against elected officials in very broad terms and denounced anyone who questioned the results of the November elections or election law violations. 

House resolutions by vote are rare, they carry no official action, and are typically proposed to memorialize someone or a significant event. This House Resolution was unique in that it effectively called on House members to pledge an oath denouncing anyone who disagrees with these statements and to condemn the people who speak or act in a way that challenges a government official.

To be clear, I do not support violence against anyone. That should not even have to be said. Our political system and our country cannot stand if we condone destructive behavior by individuals who are intent on tearing our institutions apart or threatening the lives or health of anyone. However, this House Resolution went further, and I believe placed free speech itself into question. 

The resolution included vague statements like, “efforts to thwart the will of Minnesota voters are undemocratic.” While this sounds good, what does this include? The same day of the Washington D.C. rallies, protests, and sadly riots, there was a peaceful demonstration in St. Paul. At the peaceful St. Paul rally, six of my legislative colleagues spoke about election integrity and the unlawful acts by Secretary of State Steve Simon when he changed election law without the consent of the legislature.

For their speaking, these six representatives were rewarded with vicious accusations against their character from the Speaker and Majority Leader of the Minnesota House of Representative. The Speaker called for an investigation as to whether the words of the six representatives were acts of domestic terrorism. However, the Speaker’s allegations were proven false last week. It was determined that the six representatives did nothing wrong, yet the Speaker seemingly did not care that she falsely accused these individuals.

Just last week I was talking with about eight DNR Conservation Officers armed and guarding the Capitol. I thanked them for their service and asked if they had any trouble. They said there had not been any disturbances. One officer’s response was, “there is no chance those people are coming back to protest at the Capitol after the Speaker put the fear of God into them!” What a chilling statement by an armed officer! 

Below is my response on the House floor to what the officer said and my opinion on this resolution:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ijos3LZ4GTU

As an elected official, I am going to defend the right to free speech. That right has been challenged by this House resolution. I did not vote for the resolution either yes or no. I refused to vote on such a damaging statement.

In other news, Governor Walz announced a $4 billion tax increase which includes tax increases on many businesses and individuals. The Governor stated the taxes will only create a tax increase on .7% of the population and many more will see tax cuts. These numbers do not make sense or add up. I am on the Tax Committee and we have been told we will see the actual tax increase proposals by the Governor in the next week or so. When I have that information, I will share it with you.

Committees have begun to hear bills and some COVID-19 related legislation has been coming to the House floor for final passage. Most of these relate to extending deadlines which allow people to do things online that normally require in-person signatures. For example, on Thursday we extended the window of time for people to file for marriage licenses online through May 31, 2021. We also froze unemployment insurance fee rates for employers to reflect the impact of the pandemic so that rates do not increase unnecessarily.  Expect more bills like this as we move forward.

I remain committed to ending the Governor’s Peacetime Emergency Powers in a stable and organized manner. This is not a political move but instead an attempt to bring Constitutional government back into order. Currently, there is no reason for the Governor to have all the power in the State. Separation of powers should return now.

Tim Miller