Forty-two years ago, Neal Peirce and Jerry Hagstrom wrote “The Book of America – Inside Fifty States Today.” Minnesota’s chapter began, “Search America from sea to sea and you will not find a state that has offered as close a model to the ideal of the successful society as Minnesota…. The Minnesota political structure remains open, issue-oriented, responsive….”
While Minnesota continues to lead the nation on many quality-of-life indicators, few contemporary journalists would ascribe to the praise Peirce and Hagstrom had for Minnesota four decades ago. Our state has changed significantly, not least by the destructive polarization of our legislative process.
Moderate voters lose representation
Throughout my 40-year career in Minnesota government and politics, I observed a gradual decline in the quality of the legislative branch of government. Before 2000, Minnesota’s 201 legislators included a broad cross-section of liberal, moderate and conservative political philosophies. Moderate DFLers represented many rural districts, while moderate Republicans were elected from rapidly growing suburban communities.
Moderate legislators worked cooperatively with liberal DFLers representing Minneapolis and St. Paul and conservative Republicans representing predominantly rural districts. The Legislature’s composition accurately reflected the state’s diverse political philosophies. Legislative debates were issue-oriented. Minnesota voters embraced the compromises achieved. Minnesota’s Legislature was a national model for how a truly representative government should work.
During the past few decades, that model changed.
Today, DFL priorities are established by more liberal urban area legislators. These priorities often ignore the more moderate interests of voters outside the Twin Cities, Duluth, and Rochester areas. Only four DFLers (from cities with large college campuses) currently represent House districts outside the three major metro areas. Forty years ago, DFLers represented 31 House districts outside these metro areas.
A new breed of Republican leaders adopted more conservative national Republican priorities, ignoring the interests of moderate suburban voters. Former Republican Rep. Dean Urdahl addressed the problem best in his 2024 retirement speech. Calling himself “one of the last Eisenhower Republicans,” Urdahl expressed his frustration, saying, “There are those in and around the fringes of my party who are not Republicans. They are attempting to take over my party and mold it into something else, something that never was, and they are the true RINOS” (Republicans in Name Only).
With the loss of moderate voices, the Legislature transitioned to a highly polarized branch of government, angering many voters. Legislative sessions are embroiled in highly partisan debates, leading to chaotic shouting matches and finger-pointing as legislators race to adjournment. Special sessions are no longer “special,” but are often necessary to force legislators to reach a compromise.
Why did the model change?
Political party endorsements are largely responsible for the chaotic polarization of the Legislature.
These endorsements excessively influence which candidates will appear on the general election ballot. The endorsement process is complex and time-consuming, discouraging participation by all but the most politically active and devoted voters. They undermine the role of more participatory legislative primaries in nominating candidates.
Less than 1 percent of eligible voters attend party conventions focused on endorsing a single candidate for House and Senate offices. Voters who do participate rarely reflect the broad political perspectives of the average voter. Due to the inordinate influence of party endorsements, non-endorsed candidates are discouraged from challenging their endorsed rivals in primaries. Primary voters usually rubber-stamp the nomination of endorsed candidates.
For 134 biennial House races, there is the potential for 268 DFL and Republican primaries.
In 2024, there were only 22 competitive primaries.
Party-endorsed candidates ran unopposed in 239 races; endorsed candidates defeated one or more opponents in 14 primaries; no candidates were endorsed in five primaries; and only three primary election challengers defeated endorsed candidates. (No Republicans filed for six seats; no DFLer filed for one seat.)
Reform the endorsement processes
The political parties should reform their endorsement processes, endorsing more moderate candidates and restoring public confidence in the Legislature. Under current party rules, a candidate must receive 60 percent of the convention delegate votes to be endorsed. Multiple ballots are often required when two or more candidates compete for an endorsement. Conventions can last an entire day. Candidates who can persuade their delegates to remain at the convention often receive their party’s endorsement.
A better model would be for the parties to endorse multiple candidates who reflect party values and principles. Multiple endorsements would increase the importance of legislative primaries, giving primary election voters more choices. They would encourage primary voters to carefully consider the qualifications of the candidates on the ballot, as opposed to simply voting for a single endorsed candidate.
A multiple-candidate endorsement convention would feature speeches by all candidates. Delegates would cast a single ballot, voting for all candidates they believe deserve endorsement. Candidates receiving over 50 percent of delegate votes would receive the party’s endorsement and all benefits accompanying that endorsement (e.g. party financial support, access to party lists and volunteers, and listing on all sample ballots distributed by the party).
State incentives for reform
First Amendment considerations prevent Minnesota from forcing political parties to reform their endorsement processes. However, two existing state programs could be modified, creating incentives for party endorsement reforms and encouraging more candidates to file for primary elections.
Minnesota provides taxpayer-funded subsidies to major political parties and qualified general election candidates (candidates who agree to campaign spending limits). During the 2021-22 election cycle, these subsidies cost taxpayers over $2.5 million. In addition, individuals who contributed $50 per year to political parties and qualified candidates can receive a full refund from the state. (The maximum refund has since been raised to $75.) In 2021-22, these refunds totaled $5.2 million.
The Minnesota Legislature should modify these public campaign finance programs. State funds should not be paid to political parties, nor should state refunds be given to individuals contributing to the parties, unless the parties reform their endorsement processes.
To encourage more candidates to file for primary elections, the Legislature should also consider direct subsidies to competitive primary election candidates (any candidate who receives 90 percent or more of the votes received by the winning candidate).
Legislative approval of changes to our public campaign finance laws will be difficult to achieve. Nearly all legislators benefit from existing party-endorsement processes and campaign financing subsidies. In 2024, only three legislators seeking re-election were not endorsed at their party’s convention. Legislators must ask themselves if the state should continue subsidizing a self-serving, broken system.
Restoring public confidence
Enacting the recommended changes to our public campaign financing system will convince political parties to reform their endorsement processes. Party endorsements of multiple candidates will improve voter turnout for primary elections, giving voters a greater voice in nominating candidates for the general election. General election voters will welcome the opportunity to elect candidates who better reflect their opinions.
Electing moderate legislators from both parties may not re-establish Minnesota as “the ideal of the successful society.” However, the recommended party endorsement reforms will improve opportunities to elect legislators representing a broad base of political philosophies. Legislative polarization will be minimized. Chaos, finger-pointing and forced special sessions will no longer be the norm for adopting biennial state budgets. Public confidence in the Legislature will be restored. Minnesota’s legislative branch of government will once again respectfully address the challenges facing our state and nation. The Legislature will re-establish civil public policy debates as the norm, culminating in compromises embraced by our residents.
Jim Gelbmann is retired after a 40-year career in state and federal government, including state director for U.S. Sen. Mark Dayton, deputy Secretary of State, and committee administrator for the Minnesota House Elections and Government Operations Committees.
Leave a Reply