welcome to Minnesota legislative report our Region's longest running public affairs program lawmakers from Northeastern Minnesota are joining us today for a recap of the week's activities at the state capital this is your opportunity to call or email your legislative questions and have them answered live on the air Minnesota legislative report starts [Music] now hello and welcome to Minnesota legislative report I'm your host Tony ceric just over two weeks are left for our state legislators to work through their remaining issues at the capital as the door starts closing on this session what are the biggest issues remaining tonight you can join the conversation email or call in with your questions for the lawmakers that represent you to ask a question dial the phone number on your screen or you can email your questions to ask pbsn north.org joining us in studio today is Senator Jennifer McKuen a deller from duth representing District 8 welcome Senator McKuen great to have you back thank you very much for having me all righty so uh we always start out with the big question this is the second year of a bium every two years the first year the legislature focuses primarily on a two-year budget that was last year this year traditionally is a year for a capital investment or bonding Bill where the state borrows money at a reduced interest rate to fund projects capital projects all across the state of Minnesota with State and Regional significance yes so uh with a little over two weeks left where are we at big picture on the bonding Bill and then we'll talk about specifics you that's an excellent question and I think that in regard to what the status is of the bonding Bill we have a lot of moving parts right now at the legislature in terms of whether or not we're going to see that bonding Bill uh get over the finish line and a lot of that has to do with the politics at the capital as we know we have an election year coming up um people are keeping their cards pretty close to their chest I think uh last I had heard in the Senate um the Republican caucus was not even wanting to talk about a bonding bill with our uh Senate bonding chair and I think that had to do with some of the politics that was happening but at the same time we know that uh bonding bills are very very important to the people of Minnesota to our infrastructure to our very very basic infrastructure in our state to keeping it up to maintaining it to uh moving forward with important new projects that people bring to us at the legislature and so I am hopeful that at the end of the day after these two weeks you know as we move through these last two weeks that um my Republican colleagues will be willing to sit down they will bring their list hopefully of already uh projects that they are hoping to also have funded in their districts and be ready to produce the votes to pass a solid bonding bill for this year I'm hopeful and traditionally uh this is the last bill that gets passed anyways so there's no surprise sitting here two weeks out that it's not done it's not solid yet yes Governor walls started first with his list of projects they're primarily uh Statewide upkeep on uh different entities including our public uh colleges and universities we've had Republican legislators in these seats in Prior weeks uh from all over the Northland generally supportive of a capital investment bill with some of their list of projects do you have specific projects you'd like to see included in this final package yes I do um well I would start out by saying that we have a number of projects um that delians have brought forward to us those range uh everything from um funding to improve some of our water infrastructure intake the intake water from Lake Superior and the uh filtering of water and preparing it for the public um funding for the areal duth AAL liftbridge uh funding for a new tower at the airport funding for the depot funding for the deck all of these these different basic pieces of infrastructure in our region have projects that need doing and some of them are very important projects that have been sort of waiting in the queue in line for a number of years hoping to get that funding so that they can proceed with the projects and um so we're going to do our best uh we're being you know told by leadership and by the chairs um to sort of uh keep our expectations uh tight and not get too grandiose uh we're going to see something much smaller than we have seen last year for example just the amount of resources that we have available to us to work with is much smaller this year uh but that said I I am still hopeful that we're going to get our share of of the pie and um hopefully we'll be able to move forward with a couple of those those pieces the number that I'm hearing at least is somewhere just south of1 billion potentially for a bill and there was $7 billion of requests and so that's correct many more requests than many more requests than um money available so take us inside as a legislator so part of your job is to vote on a final package that needs bipartisan support because when you borrow money the state borrows money it takes a super majority actually to pass that bill so it's going to take Democrats and Republicans working together across the aisle and then the house and the Senate working together as well so you're going to be voting on this bill and you're also advocating for projects specifically for your region so how does that work how do you Lobby for your projects how do you make sure that you get your fair share in northeastern Minnesota gets its fair share in a final product well the regionality that you are talking about right now can help us in some ways I'm hopeful that um you know part of what we do at the capital is work as a delegation somewhat from our region so for example the airport uh we have some major work that has to happen at the at the airport but of course our airport here doesn't just serve delians it serves our entire region of Northeast Minnesota and um uh Northwest Wisconsin as well but it's a very large region that it serves so all of us can uh Endo I think talk to the chairs uh talk about the importance of this project for our region ask if the chairs will will be able to uh carve out some of those resources for the things that we need regionally great and if uh Lo local folks or folks from North Eastern Minnesota want to be involved in this process to encourage their favorite projects that they might know about how best to go about advocating uh on their on their behalf I that's a excellent question and I and I would very much encourage people to reach out to their representative to to their state representatives and to their state senators um as well as um the uh walls Administration but but certainly your your representatives and your Senators at the state level um they're going to be making this decision to move forward with this bonding bill or not and in particular if you are represented by a representative or a senator who is in the minority so is is a republican member they especially need to hear from you if there are projects that are very important that you want to see receive some funding uh because they're the ones who really hold the keys to whether or not we're going to be able to pass a bonding bill this year and them knowing that they have constituents who are saying yes I want you to do this I want you to work in bipartisanship with uh your colleagues across the aisle to get us this funding for this bonding bill um that encouragement could really really go a long way so last question on this for now uh I've asked everybody sitting at this table uh their thought on the likelihood of getting something past a capital investment bill at the end of the day where are you sitting on this How likely do you think that's going to happen I think that it is I think that we have a pretty good chance of getting it across the Finish Line I it's it's hard to say honestly having each I've been in the Senate now for three years this is now my fourth um term or my fourth um spring in the legislature and each one has been so different and there are a number of factors that come into play sometimes things that I'm um over time have just learned about would be fresh things happening each time depending on the balance of the legislature the different political issues that that are at play so I am hopeful that my colleagues across the aisle also want to see this bonding Bill realize there are a number of needs throughout the state and in all areas of the state areas that are represented by dflers and areas that are represented by Republicans and at the end of the day I am hopeful and I think I think I I want to lean into that sense of hope that we will be able to at the very least come together to with that super majority to pass a bonding Bill great when just when I said that was the last question on the topic a viewer wrote in already so thank you VI viewer from rall who wants to know if it matters or not if a bonding bill is even passed and so can you talk about that from two perspectives legally are you required to pass a bonding Bill and does it matter or not if the bill gets passed thank you for that question and we're there it could be that there would be no bonding bill that that has happened in the past that has happened in the past um and actually there have been stretches of time in the not too distant past where we didn't have bonding bills or we didn't have sufficient uh investment through the bonding bills and that's a that so that can happen that absolutely could be that there would be no bonding bill and the problem with that of course is that these basic infrastructure pieces in our state everything from our uh Water Resources drinking water our sewer systems our buildings our public buildings and the buildings owned for example in duth here we have the the historic Depot we have the deck um that are hugely important to our region as public resources think of all of the events that happen at the deck so that deck needs upkeep it needs upkeep in terms of uh roof repair it needs upkeep in terms of the systems that they use for the ice rinks um and um the list goes on and on there are a number of things that if we don't fund those we might be able to get by for a year a twoyear you know like how long do we go before those basic upkeep issues cause real problems in terms of our public facilities actually being able to do the job that we need them to do which is for example in the deck uh here in duth hosting all of these events that bring all of this economic activity into our region and um a lot of community activity that happens and is fostered out of that space so um if we have something that we were to shut down a section of the deck that would be a really big problem for our region and it's really important for us to pass these bonding bills so that we don't end up in a really bad position with some type of emergency that we have to address all right so thank you for that question viewer please keep writing in or calling in with questions about the bonding bill or any other issue you have uh so the bonding bill was a known issue coming into the session just in the past uh week and a half though an unknown issue cropped up in the state senate and we had a few Republican lawmakers react to this last week want to give equal time to a Democrat today uh state senator from the metro area was charged with a felony first-degree burglary attempt and there's been uh some talk there was an Ethics uh investigation that is going to get started here next week on her there's some calls for resignation both informally and formally uh by the body and how this interplays as well is there's a slim one vote majority in the legislature now uh there are also six other legislators both Democrats and Republicans in the house and the Senate that have been arrested and convicted of other charges misdemeanor charges um everything from a DWI to uh an assault charge and so and there's nothing in state law that says that something needs to happen if if a legislator is charged Andor arrested and so that's where we sit in the process what are your thoughts and feelings about moving forward what needs to happen it it's a really tough situation I mean I I think that it's um really sad what has happened on a number of fronts um both for this legisl legislator who is has been charged for their family for um just all of the things that they're going through and will be going through as a result of this and and we'll see as the the process continues through the courts we'll probably learn more information information that we don't know right now and is typical not to know when an initial criminal charge is brought there's a lot of unanswered questions about the details of what is being alleged and those details tend to come out through hearings or if uh a case actually goes to a trial they might come out in the trial um so it remains there's there's a lot of answered questions right now but I do think that it is important for us to uh move forward with our work at the legislature this legislator in particular uh a senator represents uh just as many people as I do in I represent the duth area here um in the Senate and this uh colleague represents thousands of people as well and uh they elected this person to serve and to cast uh their votes uh for them on their behalf at the at the Senate so I do believe that particularly in the instance of there has been an allegation made there have been charges filed but there is a process a democratic process that we have enshrined in our Federal Constitution and our state constitution for vetting out what should what the final call is on those allegations whether or not those allegations are true uh so whether someone is found not guilty or guilty and then if they were to be found guilty what the consequences should be in any particular uh circumstance so that that process has just begun just barely begun the charges were filed I think a couple of weeks ago um and now um there's going to be I think the first Hearing in the case isn't until June and our our session will have be done by then fingers crossed we're going to be done by then and that will continue on that case will continue on and the courts will grapple with it and deal with it with the processes that we have set out in our laws and so I do think it is really important to draw the distinction between that initial phase where someone is Presumed Innocent uh unless until they would be found guilty by a jury of their peers or decide to plead guilty to a charge there's a difference between that phase that that is what we're in right now and a phase where someone has actually either pled guilty or been found guilty in a court of law so I at this very early stage in this particular matter I think it's important that we continue our work uh we need to go forward we need to finish the work that we were sent there to do and in particular with this close as you mentioned this close 3433 in the Senate it does uh present an opportunity unfortunately for the minority party to really try and Hammer this issue very aggressively which we saw over this past week um to really go at that colleague and um try to make this a really big issue and U Force delays and force uh ultimately a resignation if that was what they wanted to seek um because that could mean the a tipping a change of the balance of power if they were successful and it could mean a stop to the work that we're doing so if you are somebody who who doesn't want to see a lot of the bills that we're working on right now in the legislature everything from our human health and human services to our Judiciary Bill to our labor Bill to our transportation Bill housing Bill all of this work that we've been doing all session if you're somebody who isn't in support of the measures that are moving forward um there is an incentive perhaps there to try to make this issue with the colleague in the courts into a big issue but there's a lot of hypocrisy I I would say over this last week that we've observed that has been um really disheartening to see do you think that's the only reason people are calling for a resignation though for political purposes or do you think there are some people who are principled saying you know we've heard and and we've had a few Republican legislators sitting here saying we heard the tape of the 911 phone call and those issues and so um are are you saying it's purely politics and delay alone or some folks just saying you know a felony charge is a felony charge I think there's a couple different things at play I do think think that there are some colleagues who do have a genuine belief I I I do not hold this belief but they do have a genuine belief that if someone is charged with a felony they've decided it's a felony and people should know there are a whole spectrum of felonies out there you can there's felony murder and then there's felony uh this this particular felony where there's a charge where there's a lot of extenuating circumstances family members involved um a lot lot of a lot of context uh to take for the courts to take a look at so some of them I do believe are coming from a very genuine place um but there certainly are a number of uh people who are coming at this from a very political orientation and trying to make this into something um but we haven't seen we haven't seen this approach toward um the as as you mentioned these other charges you know we've had a number of colleagues in the legislature who have been accused of crime some of the have pled guilty to crimes drunk driving in particular is a very dangerous offense where people could have been killed that's an extremely dangerous thing to do to drive drunk um but those colleagues were never um come at in the way that this colleague now today is being attacked and um and uh vilified um upon this her being charged so it does seem that there is certain certainly a double standard and a lot of hypocrisy that's happening right now at the legislature I don't think it's all political but I do think that it is there is a lot of politics involved it is most certainly not all just genuine concern about somebody who's been charged with the felony voting on behalf of their constituents and as you said um her court case will be happening in June the session will be over in two weeks there is a process in place already in Ethics Committee that the Senate has that has equal number of Democrats and Republicans that serve and a hearing will be their first hearing on this issue will be happening on Tuesday I believe that's correct so that process is also beginning and and it's always a question when you have a charge brought um with and then you also have the ethics process that's being carried forward within the legislative body in this case the Senate um when you have that pending case going through the criminal courts until that case is resolved there's also a question of whether and what action should be taken within the Senate body so we'll see what that bipartisan Ethics Committee decides to do with the case while it's pending in the past um we have seen legislators remain um and some facing very serious charges uh in the courts and remain continuing to do their legislative work um through the course of their process taking place in the court so we'll we'll see we'll see I I'll be interested and I'll be following that as well to see the things that they take into account in the Ethics Committee more to come on that issue I'm sure and more questions coming in as we speak uh we have a question here about uh the state removing uh state tax on Social Security payments uh we get this question almost weekly as well um I know some work was done last year on this issue but can you talk where we're at on uh the tax on social security uh for retirees in Minnesota yes uh this is a great question and a question that my office gets a lot to uh from constituents and people throughout the state um we did uh this last year as you said do some work on that we placed a a cap of income that up to I can't remember what it was 120,000 I can't there's a there's a certain level of income that you can receive from Social Security if you're below that that won't be taxed in Minnesota the number I saw was 82% in minnes so do will do not pay a tax now after the change last year that that sounds about right to me yeah so so now I the the remaining the people who are still paying tax state tax on their social security income are those upper income earners uh they're people who are making more money and I think that that is appropriate I I really do I'm not somebody who who supports completely taking away state tax for all all social security income I think that it is important for us to have upper income earners pay a fair share of the taxes that we need to pay for our public goods and so those who are bringing in more money also need to give back a little bit more and um so I think the work that we did last year was a good compromise I supported that and I'll continue to support that to try to make sure that our tax burden is appropriately placed on the wealthy a counterargument to that that I've heard is that uh we are in competition especially with retirees moving to warmer climates and many of those Arizona Florida and others do not tax it at any level and so what do you think about that um argument around competition of making sure we keeps motans in Minnesota that's a that's an interesting question I I think that the cost or the the the cost to the state and the benefit also that like reverse benefit that a retiree would receive if they for example went to Florida went to Arizona I I think that if we have a retiree and we know many retirees out of Minnesota will end up going to warmer uh environs upon their retirement at least seasonally but um I I do think that there's just a lot more there are many more important things for people to to consider in where they're going to live in their retirement than a relatively small amount of state tax on their social security um earnings especially if they're making those higher incomes um people are going to stay here or or leave depending on the kind of weather that they want to live in where their kids are where their grandkids are what's going on in their lives I I don't think that that amount of Social Security State tax income is really going to make that difference for that many people keep those questions coming in please uh one of the other major issues uh this legislative session is around Emergency Medical Services especially in rural communities uh we've seen um issues around reimbursement rates from the federal government and a real pinch in both Workforce and the ability to provide these Services all across the state and so Governor walls came out with a dollar amount uh that was well below what the legislature actually in a task force came up with but it was a starting point for the conversation um first more philosophically you know primarily emergency emergency medical services is a locally funded issue uh along with fire and police and some of those protections but there are folks in a bipartisan way supporting a stop Gap measure to help out so do you see this being a state responsibility or more of a local responsibility when it comes to EMS or Emergency Medical Services I think it's absolutely a shared responsibility um Emergency Medical Services are something that we have rightfully come to depend on and expect that in today's society that when you need help and you need this emergency service that people will come they will they will come to help you it's a wonderful thing about our society and it's um one of those basic rights I would argue that we need to ensure not just locally but also at the state level where we have a lot more resources we have a lot more tools at the state level to be able to make sure that resources get to a local community to make sure that those needs are met so um yeah and I have heard a number of colleagues talking about this issue at the legislature I am hopeful that we're going to be able to move forward with something here this year so coming from more of a regional center uh is this impacting um duth and its residents and are you supportive of where the governor's at would you like to see more funding than he's proposed that's a great question um I have not received a lot of constituent um contact about this issue in particular I am aware of it being more of a Northeast Minnesota Regional issue um but my constituent area is the city of duth and in the city of duth proper I have not heard people um bring this as an issue that they would like to see me working on so this is something that some of my colleagues I know have put a lot of work into and I remain supportive of that work and and look forward to letting them letting me know how I can best support them all right so uh another big issue that's been on the plate and been debated in the Senate and soon to be in the house by uh some of the colleagues and the other body is uh gun control legislation yeah and so uh really three pieces of legislation that have been debated and are moving forward in some way shape or form and we would like you to talk briefly as you can on on all three of these issues and so let's start with straw purchases and this is uh you you can talk about what what that issue is and if you support it and the likelihood of success of that legislation passing sure um and well I will I will say with all of these pieces of legislation that we're seeing move through this year with we'll see how how it goes um these are all pieces of gun safety legislation that focus on individual behaviors so with a straw purchase example we're trying to close a loophole where people may be able to purchase certain Firearms without going through an official process to make sure that they are fit to be able to own that type of weapon so they and somebody buys it on their behalf yeah yeah so there's a sort of runaround where somebody would and we actually saw a case recently at the state level where in I think in the Metro where there was a tragedy and and that had come out of a straw purchase where um someone had had somebody else had purchased that weapon and then the person who ended up using it and hurting people with it um had just gotten it secondhand from that person so I I guess we we will see I am hopeful and I am generally supportive of these measures to try to create sort of uh more guard rails around ownership um but I do think and I've told my colleagues this in caucus just the other day actually is is that at some point the efficacy of going after individual people for violations of law around a straw purchase for example or how they store their weapon whether not that was done according to the law responsibil responsibly there's a limit to the efficacy of that if we are truly serious about safety around weapons and how they they are used in our society we really have to look at the manufacturers of these weapons and how they are proliferating how they are sold um by large um retailers how they are available for purchase which ones are available for purchase for the general public um those are things that we have to to really go after and look at I know that I have some colleagues with legislation and I also have some legislation that would look at treating especially some of these uh weapons that have been involved in the mass shootings that we've seen for years now across the country ever since colum Bay when I was in college um that would treat those types of weap weens more like we treat uh cars and lure for for vehicles and use of vehicles so it would be licensed you would be required to get insurance um there would be a sort of structure around who could own those very very dangerous weapons that really are designed to inflict as much damage as possible in as short amount of time as possible um so we need to look at that we need to look at whether or not we're going to allow certain types of weapons to be out in the public we need to look at um uh a buyback pro programs so that we're not just trying to solve this large societal issue by punishing individuals here and there it's a big systems problem that we are dealing with in the United States and In Minnesota where we have an outrageous number of weapons that are out in the public that have been pushed and so so by the industry um and that a a segment of our population owns a disor disproportionate number of those weapons and what we need to do is shift things so that we can take some of those very dangerous weapons out of the public and I'm I'm not describing some sort of forced confiscation of weapons but what I am describing is incentivizing people to start exchanging them to say I mean if if if somebody owns many many of these very dangerous weapons they may decide do I really need these at some point they're going to want to not have them anymore and if we can have a buyback program if we can have we can have different incentives to try to get those very dangerous weapons out of the hands of the public and then we can also for the ones that still remain in the public have a system of lure and a system of um insurance so that people will be able to own those weapons more responsibly so I that's a long way of saying that I do support and I am hopeful that these these measures including the straw purchases and the safety and um the reporting the reporting are are included those are important steps but the efficacy of those I believe is going to be limited at the end of the day we really do have to look at the industry we have to look at the system as a whole and find out better ways to create safety and as you said that'll be a longer term conversation conversation we'll get a lot more feedback both ways there but I want to focus on these three just if I could because we're talking about this session so we talked about straw purchases there's also a gun storage uh bill that's in place can you explain uh briefly explain what that legislation would do so I I have to see what the latest is I know that there have been negotiations happening uh with the Bill's lead author in the Senate Senator guson is carrying that bill um with um some of the uh constituency and stakeholders who were opposed to it last year it didn't make it across the finish last year because there was some concerns about the way that the bill was written and they wanted to see some changes being made so I think that there are some changes that are being worked in and I really can't speak to those because I haven't been working on that bill specifically um but I know that my colleague and a number of people are working on that to try to hammer out agreement between stakeholders and um are very hopeful that we'll be able to move move uh a sort of compromise through and it's very natural it is what it sounds like it's a safe storage requirement that the way that people are storing their weapons that needs to have a certain requirement around what that looks like and and how they would be stored all right and then the last one we're talking about is a mandatory reporting if a gun is stolen from you or taken from you and you're you're you would have 48 hours to report this right um you know the biggest issue I heard in this debate is you know folks are whing the scenario so what if you were assaulted and your your firearm was stolen from you and maybe you're in a hospital and so it it is is it arbitrary to say 48 hours is that a good public policy um can you talk a bit about that requirement yeah I mean as a a a former public defender myself and somebody who is um really concerned with civil liberties issues um I certainly would we will be taking a close look at the language to make sure that there are um sort of extenuating circumstances uh uh built in so that there wouldn't end up being these a bizarre situation where somebody was assaulted and in a hospital or those types of things excuse me but I do think again it goes to um you can make a requirement whether that's 48 Hours 72 hours a week whatever that would be to report a stolen weapon but I I do have concerns with turning our law enforcement against individual people for an infraction in the way that they handle their weapon even in the way that they store a weapon in the way that whether they report a stolen weapon or not like the there's a limit there's going to be a placing that those requirements on somebody in those situations just making sure that the law is not um so rigid that it's not going to allow for very normal sort of um reactions that people might have if their weapon was stolen in the way that they store their weapons is that information going to get to them so I do think it is really important the way that we approach these um these laws that are focused on individual Behavior versus systems Behavior okay sounds like work to be done on this issue we'll keep an eye on it we'll take a you know and I think I'm not the only Senator who's really going to be taking a close look at the language this has been a big issue for a lot of people all right well please keep those questions and comments uh coming to us uh we've got another viewer uh and we're going to change gears a bit here uh actually the state is celebrating its anniversary and part of that is a brand new flag for the state of Minnesota and so this viewer uh is asking uh why can't all motans vote on the new flag design and I saw that you're wearing I believe the flag well that's the duth flag right there this is the duth flag I get a lot of questions about this that that is this like a flag that was submitted but not chosen but no this is the Del flag yeah so OTA has a has a new flag a committee got put together got inputs and um brought that forward I know there was some conversation about the legislature weighing in on this and a viewer here in the region wants to know why can't all motans vote vote on this new flag design yeah that's a good question did the way that the law was set up last year and passed was that was the commission that came together which was made up of various stakeholders um would come up with and consult with flag experts and design experts and then come up with the plan and then decide on a flag and that if that um unless the legislature took action that year that would become the flag and I um I haven't received a lot of uh people saying we really really want to vote on this thing on whether or not we change our flag I think that um the consensus of a lot of people that I have heard is that people really are ready to change the flag um this the last session when we passed the the law to create this commission that created the flag I did hear from a number of constituents about wanting to see the flag changed U both for aesthetic reasons and for uh cultural historical reasons that we have moved on in that flag the flag that we have had really no longer represents who we are as a people how we want to see ourselves going for forward into the future and we wanted to see a flag that would be a better representation of who we are and who we want to be going forward so um I feel pretty comfortable with it with the process I don't necessarily think we need to have a big old have it out and have a big fight over whether we change the flag or not I think that that decision really was made when we passed the law last year that we were ready for the new flag and it sounds like the new flag will be official here on the state's birthday which is later this week yeah we're really excited about it I I think that as the roll out happened we saw some various reactions to it but I think that it um it's growing on a lot of people as we start to get used to it more and more and start to recognize it and see it out there and um it's it's really nice I'm I'm excited about the change we get a a a a question every week about the Equal Rights Amendment yes and so um we're going to talk about that for a bit and this would be a question that would be put on the ballot uh for folks to decide if we're going to enshrine in our constitution equal rights yes and the Senate has already put together a list of what that would look like and um I I'll I'll run through them for you if you don't mind uh race color creed national origin ancestry disability um sexual orientation sexual identity um and the now the house has uh a different provision and so the big difference between the two is the Senate has Creed uh in what they would want to put on the ballot and the house has matters relating to one's own pregnancy or decision whether to become or remain pregnant and so uh constitutional amendment to enshrine equal rights for all of the all of these issues and or identities of motans where do you stand overall on a constitutional amendment and then we can get in the Weeds on what you think the finalist should be if you support it um I am a big supporter of the Equal Rights Amendment and I think it is one of these issues that um I wish would have passed and been taken care of before my time it would have been nice to have the Equal Rights Amendment in place um when I was growing up in duth in the 80s and 90s and and so it is sort of strange to find myself as a state senator considering this right now in 2024 but um so I think it's long overdue I think we need to pass it I ready to vote Yes on it as soon as it comes to the floor uh as soon as we're ready to pass that final version um so I do think that there's some question and we can talk about the details of when it would be on the ballot there's some discussion about whether it would you know some people are asking whether it could be on the ballot for this session I think that um some other people want to see it next year um or in you know the next years to come but um but yeah I'm a huge supporter of it and and would love to see it passed into law and I I'm actually this is a question that I have for my caucus and my leadership that I there's just so many things happening right now I don't think that I've heard back yet on the the latest status of the Equal Rights Amendment and what our plans are for passing it but this is a huge priority for delians I get a ton of uh correspondents from constituents about the Equal Rights Amendment and wanting us to to see it passed and I do too and and as you said growing up and I think we're around the same vintage it was primarily equal rights among men and women at that time and now as I read this list it's a very long list and the the difference now is as I said Creed uh was included in a senate version that's already in discussion and um issues relating to abortion are on the other list and so from the 1970s forward here we've added a lot of potential possibilities where are you at on what should be included here are you supportive of all of these categories as I said abortion um is is in the house side you all have Creed or I'm I'm I'm guessing religion was probably something that was considered there where are you at in in how inclusive this list should be uh I think that the list should be as inclusive as possible um I think that our society has changed for the better since the 70s when initially we were talking about an equal rights amendment without was imagining men being or women being equal to men in standing in society now we have much more expansive View views that are broadly accepted widely accepted around um sexual orientation around identity around um wanting to see that sense of equality and guarantees for equal rights under the law um Extended to everybody really truly everybody and and I think that uh we shouldn't now in 2024 be trying to pass an equal rights amendment for 1974 whenever that uh initial effort began we should be trying to pass an equal rights amendment that is Meaningful to our lives today our ethical and moral um Foundation that we have today versus 1970s so I I'm very supportive of having it be very expansive it absolutely has to include um equal rights for our um lgbtq and trans siblings and um and not exclude them and and I and I especially with our politics the way that that things are right now there's actually a a concerted effort amongst some um on in the right of our politics to use um transgender people in our society in our communities to use them as political ponds and to um erase who they are and to try to not talk about who they are their existence or or the issues that they face and uh I just think it's very very important for us to uh reaffirm the humanity of everybody in our society including transgender um community members and to make sure that they're protected specifically in our day and age when they are being specifically targeted in a very cruel awful way and we don't know if this will actually become get on the ballot and there's even a question if it'll be this year or two years from now more to come on this issue correct uh well we're going to we've got just as you have more bonding requests than funding we have more questions and probably time left we're going to stay in the election area and a viewer is calling in asking uh how can we ensure Fair elections when 86,000 immigrants are being granted drivers licenses who are not citizens and so um do you do you have know that issue or have an answer to that question uh because I know that I I I believe I remember uh gave the authority for uh immigrants or have driver's licenses um and and they're asking about if there's a connection between that and the ability to vote voting yes so it's so people should realize to make sure that people know it is not legal for somebody to come and vote if they are not a United States citizen that is illegal that is a crime that carries punishments I think of jail time and all sorts of trouble for somebody if they were to try to do that um and people have been brought up on charges in other places in the country I know for um trying to do um similar things but um I this is an issue that I think is is actually something that has been drummed up unnecessarily I've we've never heard any evidence of that type of voter fraud in Minnesota where you have um an immigrant who is not um a citizen yet and they present themselves at a polling location or try to cast a ballot in an election as if they were a US citizen um I'm not aware of any instances like that happening at all and the other issue for people to know is that you when you go up to your your polling place and you actually cast your ballot we don't in Minesota require you to show your driver's license or your ID um you do have to present some information when you initially register but after that when you're a registered voter you just go and you just vote um you sign you sign you sign off on your signature um that it's you so I we have an excellent system in Minnesota making sure that people who do not have documentation are also able to um have a driver's license I do not think that is going to change anything in the realm of voting at at all um whether they have a a driver's license or not like they're not able to present that driver's license as evidence of being a United States citizen so I I I just it that it remains illegal for somebody to vote who is not a United States citizen and I think that this fear that um has been drummed up again by the right and by Trump uh really um former president Trump who is now seeking another term as president this sort of anti-immigrant sentiment um that somehow there's this like invasion of people coming from other places who are coming to try to take over our society or U vote in our elections even though they're not citizens that's nonsense there's no evidence of that whatsoever and in fact the people who come to our our society to try to find uh work and to try to support their families and try to live their lives um they're just the grand grand grand majority of them are just working hard trying to do the best that they can um and and I think that it's just it it's very disheartening for me sometimes to hear some of the rhetoric of the anti-immigrant rhetoric that has coming really from the mainstream of the Republican party today is just FS a lot of hate it FS a lot of distrust and it's really unwarranted there's absolutely no evidence that any of these sort of fears that the rightwing is bringing to the public are have any bearing in reality it's just not happening uh in particular you know I I would note too that I find it particularly disturbing that here in northern Minnesota right up close to Canada we have in some quarters this sort of fixation on people coming from the southern border it's just it's so nonsensical and so not grounded in any sense of reality I I just I I really want to appeal to people to look to to try to be their better selves around this and to try to put themselves in other people's shoes and imagine what they would do if they were living in a country where they could not find the resources to support their family or themselves and they needed they literally needed to leave to live and ask themselves how they would want to be treated by other people so I I'm really would love to see more Humanity in these discussions and better treatment toward our fellow people there's a lot of people living in Minnesota working paying taxes participating fully in society had their kids here raising their kids here who when they came didn't have the paperwork that they needed to legitimately come here they are still members of our community they should still be treated with Humanity they should still still not be treated um as other and suspect that they're somehow going to try to vote when they're not allowed to vote I mean let's treat people better and and with Humanity I'm going to change gears a bit here um we uh saw some progress made on what is called Junk fees and so that is for uh viewers back home this probably impacts most of the folks watching the show tonight when you go somewhere and you pay your bill and there's a whole bunch of search charges that pop up after your per purchase they call that junk fees what uh if anything is happening on that issue it sounds like there's some progress being made on it there is some progress being made we just passed a bill off the senate floor this past week um in regard to junk fees and um this is a great consumer protection measure where you know as you said you go out to eat or you you purchase make a purchase and um all of a sudden the final bill is uh creeping up in um amount and was not actually you were not told what that final amount was going to be before you're actually just presented with the bill so really the the bill as I understand it requires um disclosure of those fees so that people just know what they're getting into and particular we're talking about like door Dash or some of the um delivery um services that exist out there today making sure that people know upfront what they're talking about if they're going to actually pay for this service uh what it is that they're what is the amount that they're going to be paying what's that final piece so it's just disclosure just giving people the information that they need to make their purchasing decisions uh education uh is another important topic always at the capital uh it's not a budget year but an education funding bill bill is making its way through the process with an additional $31 million making it available to pay teachers outside of the classroom uh so that they can um learn better ways to teach children how to read and so uh when some of your Republican colleagues were here in weeks past they talked about a large funding increase for ucation last year but so much of it in their words saying tied to mandates saying you can get this funding for specific things and we're seeing uh a number of proposed layoffs at many of the school districts in northeastern Minnesota Grand Rapids in particular seeing a significant layoff layoff of teachers so can you talk specifically maybe about uh this funding area and this charge that uh much of the funding last year this historic amount of funding was tied to mandates or specific ways to spend that money well I I will say that the we passed a record amount of spending for our public education um last year and we're really proud of that I think that a lot of the allegations of there being these mandates that were not funded adequately are either flat out wrong or they're being way overblown um the districts do have a lot of flexibility in the way that they can use the funds that are sent to them and um you know there's a lot of things that come into play if we're talking about What's happen happening in Grand Rapids or some of the other school districts in the state where they're making decisions about spending um and or decisions about whether or not they're going to have to do some layoffs there's a lot of different factors that come into play not just the money that was sent in record amount from the state last year and and what sort of requirements might be tied to the funding that those districts have received we've also seen just um I think a lot of and I'm the chair of the Senate labor committee so that labor is really my my space my wheelhouse and um we've had a lot of work um looking at workers throughout the state not just in education with teachers or hourly uh paid School workers um but workers throughout various sectors in Minnesota and I think that in the space of our school districts we have seen a a lot of shifts and changes as we have come out of the pandemic and everything that that entailed in the school districts dealing with um the changes that had had to occur during the pandemic and then post pandemic and now workers also really wanting to be treated with dignity and to receive uh wages that they can support their families on where they can thrive in our society and so we're seeing a lot of Shifting right now and um in terms of of those um claims I think they're not warranted but we'll see we I'd love to have as much resources as we can uh for our public uh schools and we'll keep we'll keep working on that all right we have just a minute left and I apologize to all the viewers we got so many questions but wanted to end on somewhat of a high bipartisan note uh this last uh week uh legislation was passed honoring uh former state representative and state senator Dave Thomason from our region Hometown Chisum and dedicating a portion of Highway 169 in his honor and he uh was showered with praise like I said bipartisan do I know you served with him briefly but do you have any uh Recollections of serving with Senator Thomas Sony um I do I I didn't really get to know Senator Thomason very well um my time when I came into the Senate uh Senator Thomason along with Senator Bach had switched uh caucuses so they'd be in caucusing with the Republican caucus and I I didn't have a lot of uh time to really talk with him very much or get to know him very much I do recall the first time I met him was um up at the Virginia Courthouse when I was working as an attorney someone had introduced me to him and I uh for the first time and I that is the first time um that I met him but I know that a lot of our colleagues at the Senate have um a lot of memories uh around him and his work and so um yes as you said that was a an occasion of bipartisanship where um we dedicated a stretch of um the highway in his name and somebody fellow from Chisum they that that parcel of 169 I hope you includeed in that legislation that there will be no potholes on that highway to the best extent possible but we'll see yeah we'll see all righty well we are out of time and I'd like to thank senator mckuin for joining us here this evening answering questions and sharing her thoughts we will be back again next Sunday at 5: to speak with more members of the Minnesota state legislature and answer more of your questions thank you for watching and to the viewers at home for calling and writing in with your questions you're playing a vital part in our representative government for the team here at PBS North I'm Tony ceric have a great evening [Music] e e e e e