One newly elected DFL state senator beat her opponent in the east metro by just 321 votes. Another squeaked by a well-known GOP rival endorsed by an influential Iron Range lawmaker. A third held a district including Moorhead many thought would flip to the GOP. And another suburban Democrat was the only one to oust a Republican incumbent senator.
The DFL owes its new one-vote majority in the state Senate and its narrow control of Minnesota government to just a handful of candidates who won close elections last week. And when the Legislature convenes in January, those newly elected lawmakers will be critical to the party’s agenda, because the DFL will need to band together to pass most major legislation.
In this era of politics, most legislative districts in Minnesota are won by modest to blowout margins. Only a few parts of the state are actually considered politically purple.
So who are the majority-makers who handed power to the DFL? And what are their priorities for next year as the DFL considers issues ranging from education funding to new gun laws to the legalization of recreational marijuana?
The metro suburbs
Two key races won by Democrats were in the east metro, including Senate District 36, where Heather Gustafson ousted incumbent Republican Sen. Roger Chamberlain of Lino Lakes in a district that includes Vadnais Heights, White Bear Lake and North Oaks.
Chamberlain was elected four times to the state Senate and has chaired the Senate’s Education Finance and Policy Committee. But his district was much more favorable to Democrats after courts drew new legislative maps following the 2020 Census. And he lost to Gustafson by 5.7 percentage points in the only example of the DFL beating a sitting senator this year.
Gustafson is a former radio broadcaster and high school history teacher who lives in Vadnais Heights. She ran on procuring more money for police and public safety efforts, protecting abortion access, and like many DFL candidates in close districts, she highlighted support for eliminating a state tax on Social Security benefits — an issue that some DFLers have embraced but didn’t always broadly favor. Gustafson said whether to eliminate the tax was a “top question” she heard when she started door knocking in April.
“We were talking to people from all points on the political spectrum, and that kept coming up,” she said.
As lawmakers ponder what they can pass this year under DFL control, Gustafson said she knows she is serving an area “that had been a red district for a long time” and said she has told others she still supports what she campaigned on.
She said the Senate DFL has also appeared “very mindful of the fact that this (majority) is not something that anybody expected, and so we want to be very cautious and thoughtful with how we go forward.”
Still, Gustafson also supports legalizing recreational marijuana and while she emphasized her family hunts, she said she supports some form of a “red flag” gun law, which typically strip access to firearms for people deemed a threat to themselves or others. “I respect the gun culture and hunting as a Minnesota tradition,” Gustafson said. “But I’m also a public school teacher who has had to conduct five active shooter drills a year and tell my kids about which window is safe to jump out of and if the door is bulletproof or not.”
Gustafson said that Senate DFLers haven’t done anything formal as a group to test whether they have support for specific policies. Incoming lawmakers have been going through orientation this week to learn how the Legislature works.
Another crucial east metro victory for the DFL came in Senate District 41, where DFLer Judy Seeberger beat Republican Tom Dippel by 321 votes in the closest election, by far, won by a Democrat in Minnesota’s state Senate.
The newly fashioned district is a mashup of old ones represented previously in the Senate by a Democrat and a Republican. It snakes along the St. Croix River south of Stillwater and includes Hastings and Cottage Grove. But it also stretches north to Lake Elmo and contains part of the small city of Grant.
Seeberger, of Afton, is a public school teacher and lawyer. And as the GOP accused many Democrats of not sufficiently supporting police, Seeberger often touted the other part of her resume: paramedic and local fire department employee.
She ran many ads pitching her ability to help first responders like police. “I support our police and serve alongside them as a paramedic and know that investments in mental health and crime prevention are critical,” Seeberger said in a questionnaire for the League of Women Voters.
In advertisements and on her website, Seeberger campaigned on “responsible” tax cuts — a phrase used by many DFL candidates in tough elections — for “families, seniors and small businesses.”
Seeberger has also pledged to cement abortion access rights that are outlined by a state Supreme Court ruling. Senate Majority Leader Kari Dziedzic of Minneapolis and House Speaker Melissa Hortman of Brooklyn Park both said they have a “pro-choice majority” in their chambers, meaning they attempt to codify protections for abortion in some fashion next year.
Seeberger appears to support a new paid family and medical leave program based on her questionnaire, as well as “red flag” gun laws. But she did not respond to a request for comment about her views on other DFL priorities, like legalizing recreational marijuana.
Not every DFL-supported issue faces total opposition from the GOP. Eliminating the Social Security tax is widely favored by Republicans. A handful of GOPers also have supported legalizing marijuana in some fashion. It’s possible DFLers could sway Republicans who won close legislative races to vote for some legislation. GOP Sen. Jim Abeler of Anoka was reelected by less than 200 votes.
Still, Republicans are likely to offer vociferous objections to many DFL proposals while pushing for less state spending and more tax cuts. The GOP has generally opposed gun regulations as infringing on Second Amendment rights or not effective solutions to violence.
Greater Minnesota
Two of the DFL’s closest victories came in northwestern and northeastern Minnesota. One was in the Moorhead area and the other district stretches from Hermantown to International Falls and Grand Marais.
In Senate District 3, DFL candidate and Hermantown councilman Grant Hauschild beat Republican Andrea Zupancich of Babbitt in a contest to determine who would replace Sen. Tom Bakk, the longtime Democrat turned independent. Hauschild worked for the former U.S. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and the U.S. Department of Agriculture before moving to Minnesota, where he also runs a large health care foundation.
Hauschild’s victory had some drama: It was the last competitive race to be called, leaving the balance of the Legislature in limbo till the wee hours of Wednesday morning after election night. In the end, he won out by 1.6 percentage points.
On the campaign trail, Hauschild talked about different priorities across the many parts of his vast district. But like Gustafson and others in close races, he said he will push for eliminating the state tax on Social Security benefits. He supports abortion access. And he has backed copper-nickel mining projects in the region that are often controversial within the DFL.
In an interview, Hauschild also said Senate DFLers are still figuring out their priorities and are in the process of figuring out who will serve on what committees. And he said he will be “microfocused” on his district, advocating for things like “equitable funding” for schools in the region, improving infrastructure and putting “hardworking laborers and other folks to work” and other economic issues like publicly-financed construction projects that will help local governments avoid higher property taxes.
“We told people that we would stay out of the nonsense and the side issues that both parties get distracted by that don’t produce results and that gridlock that existed in the Legislature for a long time,” Hauschild said.
What does he characterize as nonsense or side issues? “I’ll leave that to interpretation,” Hauschild said.
Hauschild does support legalizing recreational marijuana and said he supports progress toward a clean energy economy that could help address climate change. But he declined to comment further on specific policies he might support and also wouldn’t expand on his views on gun laws.
On the campaign trail earlier this year, Hauschild told MinnPost he would need to learn more about the specifics of any red flag proposal, but said it’s not something he was proposing or looking into. He said he’s “not somebody that is favorable towards major gun control issues,” though he also said the Legislature should consider “what it is we can do to make sure that we’re reducing gun violence and gun deaths.”
“It’s just I think up here a lot of folks are concerned about outdoor recreation, having hunting land, being able to do that with their families and have that tradition,” Hauschild said at the time. “That’s something that I’ll always protect, and it’s not really an issue that I’m focusing much on.”
Rob Kupec won the seat that includes Detroit Lakes, Moorhead and a swath of rural area outside the border city. The district was held by DFL Sen. Kent Eken for a long time, but he didn’t run again. And despite the district being conservative — voters there favored Donald Trump by more than 3.5 percentage points in 2020 — Kupec beat Republican Dan Bohmer in Senate District 4 by about 5.7 percentage points.
Kupec also campaigned on getting rid of the state’s Social Security tax and said this week that he ran on more money for K-12 schools, lowering property taxes and the cost of health care. He also called for addressing “pent up infrastructure needs,” including for roads and bridges in rural areas. And while he said it wasn’t a top issue for him, he’s assuming legal marijuana “will probably happen.”
The television meteorologist said climate change poses a threat to the agriculture and tourism industries central to his region. When asked if he would support Gov. Tim Walz’s proposal to require a carbon-free electric grid by 2040 opposed broadly by the GOP, Kupec said the state could encourage power producers to shift to cleaner energy while a lot of utility companies are “doing a great job moving towards that on their own.”
“I think there’s a realization in the private sector that some of these things are just going to be more cost effective to move towards more renewable energies, and I think they’re doing it naturally,” Kupec said. “Do we set a date? I’m not sure.”
On guns, Kupec said he’s seen some evidence that “red flag” laws work, but he said he’s concerned with the details and would want to have discussions with law enforcement and people in his district about gun issues before he would “move anything in that direction.”
[cms_ad:x104]Those four DFL candidates were not the only ones in close races. Incumbent DFL Sen. Aric Putnam narrowly won again in his St. Cloud district. And the House DFL will have a slim majority of its own. But the caucus in that chamber may be more ideologically aligned and will certainly be more metro-heavy: Some Democrats in Greater Minnesota lost this year, but the party picked up seats in the suburbs.
Still, incoming lawmakers like Seeberger, Gustafson, Hauschild and Kupec, from the few purple areas of Minnesota, will be in the spotlight.
Kupec said he’s not sure where he might break from other DFLers. And he said so far, DFL leadership has shown a desire to win ground back in Greater Minnesota. But Kupec also said “sometimes things that work one way in the Twin Cities don’t work that way in western Minnesota, particularly when you border North Dakota.”
“I think with whatever legislation comes through, you always need to look at it through that western Minnesota lens,” Kupec said.
More money for police and public safety efforts, eliminating the state income tax on social security benefits, respecting the gun culture, backing copper-nickel mining projects … sounds an awful lot like what a republican would run on.
And then there’s this: “I think there’s a realization in the private sector that some of these things are just going to be more cost effective to move towards more renewable energies, and I think they’re doing it naturally,” Kupec said. “Do we set a date? I’m not sure.”
“On guns, Kupec said he’s seen some evidence that “red flag” laws work, but he said he’s concerned with the details and would want to have discussions with law enforcement and people in his district about gun issues before he would “move anything in that direction.”
So either they hold republican views, much to the chagrin of their democrat neighbors, or they just said those things to get votes from their republican neighbors. We will see which is true.
Quite right.
“DFLer Judy Seeberger beat Republican Tom Dippel by 321 votes in the closest election, by far, for state Senate in Minnesota.”
“GOP Sen. Jim Abeler of Anoka was reelected by less than 200 votes.”
321 is “by far” closer than 200?
Disappointing that these four DFLers have fallen for a purely regressive Republican tax scam. Exempting Social Security from taxable income would result in no tax cut at all — zero — for 55% of Minnesota’s retirees. Every cent will go the 45% of higher-income retirees. And the higher your other retirement income is, the bigger the tax cut you get.
It is sold as a tax break on your Social Security, but it acts more like a tax break on your other income. An average retiree might have $16,000 in SS and $12,000 in other income. They get no break. Another retiree might have the same $16,000 in SS income plus another $50,000 and they will get a nice break. And if you have $16,000 in SS plus $100,000 in other income you get a bigger break.
All these canards about “double taxation” and keeping retirees in the state are nothing but cover for a giveaway to more affluent retirees. Social Security income is not magically different from other income. Excluding it from taxable income just makes our state tax system more regressive, which is why Republicans like it. The question is why any Democrat would fall for it.
Just for convenience, below are the MN tax tables, So, I’m not sure what nice break means, especially when the 6.8% goes from ~ $39.8k all the way to ~$158K. that is quite a spread. And then the hit is ~ 1.05% up to $276K so for sake of argument, the difference between a $40K and $276K is ~2.5% on $236K roughly $5.9-6K in additional taxes, pretty slight considering a 6.8 % rate at 40K. Now something a little more gradual, yeah I could see that, to your point, the ~$40K income pays the same tax rate as the $158, which is 4X the income.
5.35% 0-39,810
6.80% 39,811-158,140
7.85% 158,141-276,200
You seem to forget that the tax table applies to MN taxable income, which is what’s left after federal and state additions and subtractions, and most prominently the standard deduction. That’s $12,550 for a single and twice that for a couple.
I was talking about a person’s total income.
Not sure where you are going here, are you suggesting that folks that run a business should not be able to claim the expenses of running that business against their income? Your claim, total income!
Social Security is income, not an expense.
Minnesota is one of only 13 states who believe that the bureaucrats need that money more than your grandmother does. I’m guessing you work for state government.
The state has a lot of services for the elderly. Why shouldn’t elderly people who have higher incomes pay the bill for some of those services? Do they want services for the elderly cut to pay for tax breaks for social security recipients with the highest incomes?
Yes.
Okay. Then I propose we take the tax expenditures for rich Social Security recipients out of the long term care budget. In the meantime good luck finding a personal care attendant.
https://www.minnpost.com/greater-minnesota/2022/06/impasse-at-legislature-puts-help-for-minnesotas-long-term-care-providers-in-limbo/
That’s why we have kids. My grandmother lived with my parents until she died. My mother-in-law lived with us for the last few years before she died. It’s the way it used to be and still should be.
Well, that certainly doesn’t always work. Kids raise families, often move out of the area where their elderly parents still live, or do not own homes large enough to accommodate extra inhabitants, and living together can strain relationships. Nice when it works out, but “still should be” isn’t realistic for all situations.
Not everyone has children to take care of them. And some people have health problems too difficult to address in a home care setting.
Did you mean you will make your choices as long as you have other peoples’ money to make them? It’s one thing for society to care for the poorest of the elderly when their is no one else to care for them. It’s entirely something else to shift those costs to the taxpayer when the family can bore much of that responsibility. Unfortunately (not directed at you) way to many families (think farmers and family businesses) transfer assets so when they need care a few years later they qualify for Medicaid….just one example.
Why then will this tax break only be received by the upper 45% of retirees, and not the lower 55%? Because it’s a shell game.
Regressive taxation? The only way to really put to rest arguments over whether you have regressive taxation is to have a flat tax to cover everything. So, no property tax or income tax. Also, when the regressive tax argument is thrown out there, no one takes into consideration federal income tax dollars which come into the state. And surely the vast majority of those dollars did not come from the lower earners. I suppose you see social security “taxation” as regressive. First, to call it a tax is like saying Hilary won the popular election in 2016. She did not as there was no popular election contested. Yes, she had more votes across the entire country but that is totally irrelevant. Anyway, as far as social security goes its actually quite progressive. The mandatory insurance payments return a far higher return for the lower contributor. And this is before the federal government or a few states taxes those old age insurance benefits.
The old gun control argument: For those as Paul B. would say that suffer severe cognitive dissonance:
A sampling, Deaths per 100K firearm related :
USA 10.95
New Zealand .93
Iran .99
Australia .92
Cuba .70
Ireland .58
United Kingdom .24
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country
The point is either we are too stupid as a country to do anything about our murder rates or we like them just where they are.
I suppose you’d propose getting rid of cars and alcohol too. But at least those things aren’t protected by the constitution so that would make more sense.
Your rebuttal might make sense if you could show that US driving laws stood out relative to other countries, with corresponding differences in death rates.
The US has the most permissive gun laws in the developed world, and dramatically higher gun deaths. I.e. there is a measurable cost – in death – that we pay for our permissive gun laws.
Monitored out twice?
The point wasn’t about cars or alcohol, neither was designed to kill people, guns were/are and to do it rapidly, efficiently and with ease, can you say Colorado LGBTQ club? The 2nd point was/is our death rate from gun violence per 100K is higher than Somalia’s, evidently lots of folks are perfectly satisfied with that, in fact probably proud of it, we are 45X worse than the UK! The last point is a denial of the facts because it makes folks feel uncomfortable that they support guns for all under all circumstances, not much credibility to claim pro law and order and then argue against every effort to reign in our murder by gun plague!
And insured!
Got it, so you are comparing the United States with small countries, most of which have either authoritarian leadership or are historic monarchies? Seems like a fair comparison. Oh, also, let’s not forget that most of those gun deaths are highly concentrated within certain communities in comparison to others. If you live in a middle class neighborhood or in a less dense population area the likelihood of gun death is extremely minimal. Largely speaking most gun deaths are concentrated in low income, urban areas and not a threat to the average American.
Here in the Twin Cities, overwhelmingly, it is only a handful of areas where we see any gun violence at all. If you live in the Lynnhurst or Fulton or Kenny or Linden Hills you aren’t going to be gunned down randomly or see much violence at all. So, as with all things, why penalize everyone for the actions of a few mostly concentrated in specific areas. Why not enforce the gun laws we have on the people actually committing the crimes?
Lost in the political campaign rhetoric was the one meaningful proposal to provide equitable and ongoing tax relief for all taxpayers.
Republicans proposed lowering the tax rate for married income under $40,000 ($20,000 for single filers) from 5.35% to 2.8%. This is a tax reduction of approximately $1,000 for all married filers on their first $40,000 of income. This provides the same level of tax relief for both high and lower income taxpayers.
Minnesota’s rate of 5.35 % is one of the highest in the country for lower income levels and is higher than most states highest income tax rate.
This should be an area of agreement if our politicians are serious about providing tax relief for the taxpayers of Minnesota
Why should single people subsidize married people?
This is the current tax code. Married couples income levels are taxed differently than single filers. It’s not unique to the proposed reduction in state income tax.
Upon further review the reduction in tax for single people is up to the first $25,000 of income not $20,000. This is an annual tax savings of $625 . Married is a savings of $1,000
It’s an incentive to get married and raise a family. That’s how this nation was founded. See my post elsewhere on this page about multi-generational households. People who want “personal assistants” should pay for them out of their own pocket.
Sounds like redistribution of wealth to me.
Our tax code is progressive. People who make the most money pay the greatest share of the taxes. Technically, that is a redistribution of wealth.
The tax system redistributes income directly, not wealth. And it redistributes it upward, not downward. If you add up all the kinds of tax people pay, you see that less affluent households pay a larger share of their income than more affluent ones. Sales tax, property tax, gas tax etc. are all regressive. The income tax is the only progressive tax, and our only chance to balance the scales.
So let’s reduce the most regressive tax. The sales tax
Back to 4%