July 2000

Distinguishing Filament from Figment:
Minnesota’s Single Subject Rule

by Timothy J. Pawlenty

Article IV, Section 17 of Minnesota’s Constitution states "No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title." Minnesota courts have historically interpreted Article IV, Section 17 to provide the Legislature great latitude in assembling legislation. The single subject and title requirements have been interpreted broadly and the courts have indicated it is only necessary that all matters within a legislative act fall under one "general idea."1 In denying single subject challenges, the Minnesota Supreme Court has gone so far as to observe that the common thread between topics within a legislative act need only be a mere "filament."2 Significantly, however, the Minnesota Supreme Court recently declared in Associated Builders and Contractors, et al. v. Ventura, et al. (2000 WL 339975 (Minn.)) that the Legislature had gone too far. The Court thankfully declined to convert the "mere filament" test to a "mere figment" test.

In Associated Builders, the constitutionality of a provision in the 1997 tax bill was challenged as being in violation of the single subject and title clause requirements of Article IV, Section 17. The provision at issue applied prevailing wage laws to school district construction projects costing more than $100,000. Minnesota’s prevailing wage laws require that employees working on certain state-funded construction projects be paid an hourly wage based upon prevailing wages in the area.3 The disputed provision was included in a tax bill which the Court described as a "prodigious work of legislation covering 247 pages with 16 articles ... ."

As noted in Associated Builders, the potential for mischief in bundling together into one bill disparate legislative provisions was well-known even in early Minnesota history. The Minnesota Democratic Constitutional Convention in 1857 addressed a proposal to require the title of a legislative act to provide notice of its contents and that legislative acts be limited to one subject. That proposal evolved into the current language in Article IV, Section 17.4

After reviewing the history of single subject and improper title challenges, the Court in Associated Builders conceded that Article IV, Section 17 has not been strictly interpreted or applied. The Court then separately addressed the application of the single subject and title requirements to the prevailing wage provisions that were inserted into the 1997 tax bill.

As to the title requirement, Associated Builders reiterates that requirement is intended to prevent fraud or surprise upon the Legislature and the public by prohibiting the inclusion of "provisions in a bill whose title gives no intimation of the nature of the proposed legislation."5 The Court also restated that the general nature of the title of an act is not grounds for invalidation as long as the title gives notice of the general subject because "the title was never intended to be an index of the law."6

The title of the bill at issue referenced "financing and operation of state and local government" as well as "property tax relief and rate reform, tax rebates, truth in taxation, local tax levies and tax credits." The Court noted the title was devoid of any reference to labor, wages, school construction or any other words that would suggest that the bill contains a provision having a potentially significant impact on the cost of school construction.7 The Court concluded that even granting "every reasonable presumption ... in favor of the title," the failure of the title to even hint at the prevailing wage provision did not constitute sufficient notice to meet constitutional requirements.8

In addition to declaring the legislative act as an unconstitutional violation of the title requirements of Article IV, Section 17, the Court also declared the prevailing wage provision to be an unconstitutional violation of the single subject requirement. The Court rejected claims that the prevailing wage provision was germane to the subject of tax relief or the operation of state and local government. The Court noted that while the prevailing wage provision may have a tax impact by affecting construction costs, the impact on such costs was not the purpose of the provision and the prevailing wage provision did not mention tax relief or reform in any manner. The Court concluded the connection between the prevailing wage provision and the subject of taxes fell short of even the "mere filament" test. The Court stated that more than a general impact on state finances was required to establish a minimum thread of germaneness as "virtually any bill that relates to government financing and government operations affects, in some way, expenditure of state funds."9

Similarly, the Court rejected arguments that the prevailing wage provision was germane to the subject of financing and operation of government. The Court concluded that even under a "liberal interpretation," the prevailing wage provision, which lacked any express connection to the subject of financing and operation of state or local government, was not germane to those topics. The Court determined that to hold otherwise would be to convert the "mere filament" test to a "mere figment" test.10

The Court also rejected arguments that no evidence of the mischief the constitutional restrictions were intended to address was present. While the Court did not conclude the Legislature engaged in "suspicious conduct" and did not impugn the Legislature’s motives, the Court noted the application of prevailing wage laws to school construction projects was customarily a subject for action by the labor and education committees at the Legislature, not the tax committee.11 The Court observed the prevailing wage provision received "little consideration" in the House before the tax committee inserted it into a much broader and more popular bill with an entirely different legislative theme. The Court also noted there was no companion bill in the Senate and no discussion of the prevailing wage provision in the Senate.12

After deciding the prevailing wage provision violated both the title and single subject requirements of the Minnesota Constitution, the Court turned its attention to potential remedies. The Court considered whether the entire tax bill should be deemed unconstitutional or whether severing the offending provision would suffice. The Court held the entire law did not need to be declared unconstitutional. To support its decision, the Court asserted the plain words of Article IV, Section 17 do not require the entire act to be declared unconstitutional. In addition, the Court interpreted existing case law to conclude the Court has the option of bringing a law into constitutional compliance by severing an offending provision.13 Moreover, the Court indicated the present litigation called only one aspect of the law into question and the Court was not in a position to "prejudge" any other aspect of the law as being germane.14

After reviewing prior decisions regarding Article IV, Section 17 that tended to pay great deference to the Legislature, the Court in Associated Builders finally drew a line the Legislature should heed. The balance between different branches of government in our democracy is delicate, and the Court gave the Legislature a gentle nudge in Associated Builders. We may hope that the Legislature will conduct itself in a manner that is clearly more consistent with constitutional principles in the future. If not, the Court’s gentle nudge may need to become a little firmer.

NOTES:

1. Johnson v. Harrison, 50 N.W. 924, 924 (1891).

2. Blanch v. Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, 449 N.W.2d 150, 154, (Minn.1989).

3. Minn. Stat.  177.41 et seq. (1998).

4. Associated Builders at 3-5 (citing The Debates and the Proceedings of the Minnesota Constitutional Convention 124, 262-63 (Frances H. Smith, reporter 1857).

5. Associated Builders at 5 (citing Johnson, 50 N.W. at 924).

6. Id. at 5 (quoting State ex rel. Pearson v. Probate Court, 287 N.W. 297, 301 (1939)).

7. Id. at 10

8. Id. (citing State ex rel Olsen v. Board of Control of State Insts., 88 N.W. 533, 536 (1902)).

9. Id. at 8.

10. Associated Builders at 9.

11. Id.

12. Id.

13. Id. at 11 (citing Anderson v. Sullivan, 72 Minn. 126, 130-31; 75 N.W. 8, 9-10 (1898)).

14. Associated Builders at 10.

Timothy J. Pawlenty