DFL legislative leaders, union officials, attorneys and representatives of some of the groups that expect to be hammered by Gov. Tim Pawlenty's "unallotment" plans have been meeting to strategize ways to fight back.

A legal challenge is under discussion, as well as political counterattacks.

Three meetings have been held over recent days, including one Wednesday. House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher seems to be running or at least coordinating the effort. She presided over two of the three meetings and another legislator close to the speaker represented her at the third.

The group has been looking to former U.S. Attorney David Lillehaug, who has recently been part of Al Franken's recount legal team, for legal advice and analysis of the unallotment statute.

In addition to DFL elected officials and labor leaders, representatives of cities and counties and representatives of health care organizations that serve lower income Minnesotans -- all groups that expect to lose state aid under unallotment -- were at the meetings.

The account above is reliable and is based on interviews with people who attended, most of whom were unwilling to be identified until the effort gets further along. But Eliot Seide of St. Paul, executive director of the 43,000 member AFSCME Council 5, confirmed that meetings have been held. Seide's union hosted the one Wednesday.

"We’ve gotta stop Govenor Pawlenty from making these draconian cuts from the hospitals, nursing homes and local governments," Seide said.

A lawsuit challenging unallotment is definitely under discussion, although it would probably have to wait until at least the new fiscal year (which starts July 1) because Pawlenty doesn't plan to use the extraordinary unallotment power right away.

The lawsuit could argue that Pawlenty's plan violates the intent of the statute that creates the unallotment power, since the statute talks about unanticipated shortfalls in revenue. The current shortfall has been anticipated for months.

Or the legal challenge could be based on the constitutional argument that Pawlenty's plan fundamentally violates the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches by removing from the Legislature any meaningful role in budgetary matters.

Seide said that even if the courts blocked Pawlenty from unallotting, it wouldn't solve the budget crisis because Pawlenty will use his much better established line-item veto power to remove funds from key state functions. There is talk of more federal "stimulus" money that could shelter some states from budgetary shortfalls in key areas. But ultimately, Seide said, if Pawlenty sticks to what he has threatened, the real solution would be to muster the votes to override Pawlenty's line-item vetoes.

That, of course, would require some House Republicans to buck the governor. So far, none have indicated any willingness to do so. But there will be future opportunties, which is why the group that has been strategizing includes political strategies.