Galen Robinson, a legal aid attorney at Mid-Minnesota Legal Assistance, is challenging the constitutionality of Minnesota's Gov. Tim Pawlenty cuts to a state medical nutrition program on behalf of six low-income Minnesotans. Oral arguments are scheduled today to begin before the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Robinson is "one of the state's lowest-paid attorneys" reports the Star Tribune. He also rides his bike to work and is an adjunct law professor, a "child of the '60s", a Peace Corps veteran, and wears his hair in a ponytail.
Up until now, "Robinson has devoted much of his quiet legal career to taking on landlords who don't return deposits and lenders who target low-income people who are in a financial bind."
But last summer, it wasn't a deadbeat landlord targeting low-income Minnesotans that caught Robinson's attention, but rather Minnesota's Republican governor.
Robinson and his small legal team are challenging a signature political move of Pawlenty's, that, if the challenge succeeds, could dial back the governor's budget-cutting authority and lay down a bolder line between legislative and executive powers.
Robinson and others noticed that Pawlenty made his cuts at the start of the state's two-year budget cycle in response to a "financial crisis" the governor created "when he signed the appropriations bills and later vetoed the tax bill that was to have paid for the spending."
Pawlenty then used his "unallotment authority to cut money for the poor, for local governments and colleges and universities" making $2.7 billion adjustments to the state budget.
One of the programs Pawlenty eliminated was "a small nutrition program for medically prescribed diets to some of the state's poorest, sickest residents". The $5.3 million program helps low-income Minnesotans who require a doctor-ordered special, health-related diet.
While the Democrats in the state legislature cried foul at Pawlenty's actions, Robinson looked for a way to challenge "the constitutionality of Pawlenty's actions" and on behalf of six Minnesotans who were helped by the low-income nutrition program, Robinson filed suit.
"I've always been about giving people open access to courts," he said. "I like to bring that to people who don't have it."
MinnPost.com reported last October on the people who are being hurt by Pawlenty and that Robinson is trying to help.
Deanna Brayton, 49, is disabled by multiple health problems: autoimmune disorder, rheumatoid arthritis, degenerative disc disease, osteoporosis, underactive thyroid, irritable bowel syndrome, traumatic brain injury. She has undergone 47 surgeries since being involved in a severe car accident — not her fault, she says — more than a decade ago. She also suffers from migraine headaches, anxiety and a host of other problems.
The Anoka County woman tries to do the best she can with her health by maintaining a doctor-prescribed low-cholesterol, lactose- and gluten-free diet.
"The foods I need always cost more," she says. "Go down the aisle of the store for diabetics and you'll get a sense of the difference in cost."
Brayton is "totally disabled" and cannot work. "She currently spends about $400 a month on food" and "the state cut she faces means a loss of $334."
"I try to think positive," she said, "but I honestly don't know what I'll do. I feel like I'm backed into a corner with no way out." ...
"I wonder if Gov. Pawlenty understands who the people are who rely on this," she said.
Robinson's "key legal point centers on the state's unallotment statute, which allows the governor to use that authority in cases of 'un-anticipated' budget shortfalls."
Pawlenty used unallotment at the start of the budget-balancing process, completely bypassing the traditional approach of moving to a special legislative session to resolve problems...
It was classic showdown politics, with DFL (Democratic) legislators passing a budget bill they knew the governor would reject. The Republican governor did reject the bill, but then, instead of negotiating, used his powers of line-item vetoes and unallotment to reshape the budget.
In his legal strategy, "Robinson takes both sides, in a sense, of the constitutionality argument" explains Eric Black of MinnPost.com.
If the court decides that Pawlenty's actions in 2009 exceeded the powers granted to Minnesota governors under the 1939 unallotment statute, then the statute is constitutional but the 2009 unallotments were improper. If the court decides that the 2009 unallotments were consistent with the statute, then the statute must be struck down as unconstitutional because it represents a fundamental alteration of the constitutional balance of powers between the executive and legislative branches.
Robinson's arguments are built to demonstrate that "Pawlenty had known for months that revenues were falling below previous projections... and he knew it when he signed all of the appropriation bills and when he vetoed the revenue bill that would have produced a balanced budget as of May." Robinson wrote in a brief last month:
"When in the course of these events did the probable receipts for the general fund become 'less than anticipated'? The answer is 'Never.'
Black writes that Robinson listed the many fiscal tools Pawlenty had at his disposal including the fact that "Pawlenty could have signed the revenue bill, which was projected to raise enough new taxes to balance the budget, but he vetoed it." But, concludes Robinson:
It would dramatically change the structure of government created by the Minnesota Constitution if this Court were to sanction a process in which this or any other Governor could sign appropriations into law, then veto revenue bills, and then use unallotment to ignore legislative appropriations and to rewrite the budget according to the Governor’s own legislative priorities. This in fact is what has occurred. This use of unallotment was unauthorized by any law and was unconstitutional.
All the Republican hallmarks are here in this case: a unitary executive power grab, unfunding programs that help the poor and sick to get medical assistance, and the refusal by a Republican governor with presidential ambition to raise taxes. Regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit, Pawlenty proves once again that 'compassionate conservative' is truly an oxymoron. People in need are hurt most by Republicans refusal to tax the most fortunate.