Article IV, Section 17 of the Minnesota Constitution states: “Laws to embrace only one subject. No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.”

This is what is known as the “single-subject clause,” and there’s a good chance that we’ll all be hearing a great deal about it if and when the current battle between Gov. Mark Dayton and legislative leaders reaches the state Supreme Court.

The purpose of this clause is both clear and significant — namely, to prevent the corruption, graft and dark-of-night political shenanigans that can and often do occur when unrelated pieces of legislation are bundled together. Party A wants a certain bill to be passed but needs a few votes from Party B to get the bill across the finish line. Party A sweetens the bill with an unrelated “earmark” that appeals to specifically targeted voters in Party B — and the bill is passed.

Obviously, the spirit of the single-subject clause is now being routinely ignored by the Minnesota Legislature. For the sake of efficiency, the vast majority of legislation that reaches the governor’s desk is packaged together in “omnibus” bills that require very broad titles to encompass the multitude of their components.

This year’s omnibus environment and natural resources finance bill, for example, opens with appropriations for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Dozens of pages later, there’s a section about golf carts being OK on the golf course portion of Fort Ridgely State Park when the course is operated by a non-state entity. Dozens of pages later, there’s a clause stating that hunters may now wear “blaze pink” as an alternative to blaze orange while hunting deer and small game.

We could go on and on. There might very well be a few legislators who read that bill in its entirety before voting on it, but we suspect it was very few indeed — and we’re certain that the same can be said for all of the omnibus bills that go to the governor.

It’s not a great system, but for the most part, it has worked as long as everyone played by the unwritten rules against hiding political grenades inside omnibus bills.

As you may have heard, those unwritten rules were tossed aside during the recent special session.

Hamline University professor David Schultz has written extensively on this topic, and he points out that the current conflict, with the GOP inserting a “poison pill” into the tax bill and Dayton retaliating by defunding the Legislature unless they come back to address lingering issues, is not our state’s first constitutional crisis related to the single-subject clause. Two years ago, legislators used a similar strategy to give counties the authority to have their books audited by someone other than the State Auditor. That legal battle is ongoing, with State Auditor Rebecca Otto vowing to continue the fight last week after the Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the legislation.

How can such battles be avoided in the future? Should we do away with omnibus bills and instead have hundreds, perhaps thousands of pieces of stand-alone legislation working their way through the Legislature every year?

Probably not. But if the state Supreme Court gets a chance to weigh in, we’d like it to issue a clear directive that legislators be mindful of the single-subject clause. At the very least, leaders on both sides of the aisle owe it to their constituents to communicate with each other regarding any last-minute additions or deletions from major bills.

Failing that, our governor is left to wield his line-item veto, which is precisely what he did this time. He couldn’t nix the poison pill that would have defunded the Minnesota Department of Revenue, so he fought back in a way that probably won’t hold up if it is argued in front of the Supreme Court.

But if that veto increases awareness of and adherence to the single-subject clause of the Minnesota Constitution, then Dayton may have done our state a great service.

— Rochester Post Bulletin, June 9