Constitutional amendment; special sessions. Proposes a constitutional amendment that would allow the legislature to call a special session that could last up to seven legislative days. This would be done upon the written agreement of a majority of the members elected to each house or upon the order of the presiding officers of both houses. Provides that any bill may be considered whose subject is stated in the agreement or order that convened the special session.

Submission to voters. The proposed constitutional amendment would be submitted to the voters at the 2008 general election.

The thought of legislators setting their calendar is scary. First off, it isn't a good idea to give the legislature this much power, regardless of which party controls the legislature. The last thing we need is to give legislators more time to spend more of our money. They've got enough time to do that already.

There's another good reason why the Minnesota Constitution says that the governor is the only official who can call a special session. He's the only constitutional officer in the legislative chain who's accountable to each citizen of this state.

Having legislators controlling their schedule is inappropriate because it doesn't incorporate anything to hold legislators accountable. How can someone in Fargo or St. Cloud or Owatonna hold speaker Kelliher or Majority Leader Pogemiller accountable? It's only logical that the governor, the person at the top of the legislative food chain, be held accountable for calling a special session. This amendment seeks to abandon the constitutional principle of checks and balances.

Frankly, this amendment won't have a chance to pass once people explain the impact this amendment might potentially have.

This constitutional amendment all but removes deadlines on getting bills done. Let's also recognize that it's an attempted end run around this governor. Those aren't the only negative things to this amendment. According to the amendment's text, it doesn't specifically limit the legislature to only calling one special session per year:

Section 1. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSED.

An amendment to the Minnesota Constitution is proposed to the people. If the amendment is adopted, article IV, section 12, will read:

Sec. 12. The legislature shall meet at the seat of government in regular session in each biennium at the times prescribed by law for not exceeding a total of 120 legislative days.

The legislature shall not meet in regular session, nor in any adjournment thereof, after the first Monday following the third Saturday in May of any year. After meeting at a time prescribed by law, the legislature may adjourn to another time. "Legislative day" shall be defined by law. Upon the written agreement of a majority of the members elected to the house of representatives and a majority of the members elected to the senate or upon the order of the presiding officers of both houses, the legislature shall convene in special session. Any bill may be considered whose subject is stated in the agreement or order that convened the special session. A special session called by the legislature may not exceed seven legislative days. A bill may be passed on the day prescribed for adjournment of the special session. A special session of the legislature may also be called by the governor on extraordinary occasions.

Neither house during a session of the legislature shall adjourn for more than three days (Sundays excepted) nor to any other place than that in which the two houses shall be assembled without the consent of the other house.

2.1 Sec. 2. SUBMISSION TO VOTERS.

The proposed amendment must be submitted to the people at the 2008 general election. The question submitted must be:

"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to require the legislature to meet inspecial session for up to seven days upon the agreement of a majority of the members of each house of the legislature or upon the order of its presiding officers?

Yes .......

No ......."

Because it's vaguely worded, the legislature could call a special session for education, another for transportation, still another for jobs, another for health care, etc. Based on that information alone, why would we want legislators to have that much authority? Their authority would all but exceed that of the governor.

This is intolerable. It's an unprecedented attempt to rewrite the basic structure of Minnesota's Constitution. One thing further: I'll bet that the DFL knows that this constitutional amendment doesn't stand a prayer in hell of passing. I'l bet that they're using this to push turnout. That's why it's imperative that we use it to push turnout on our side.

Let's use this initiative to highlight how power-crazed the DFL is.