'06 Session: What happened, what didn't

The 2006 legislative session was about repairing the institution's image after a bruising few years of breakdowns and late finishes. The session opened March 1 with a limited agenda, and very few must-do items. While votes stretched into the night Saturday, here's a glimpse at a few notable issues:

MADE THE CUT:

EMINENT DOMAIN

WHAT WAS IT?: Tougher restrictions on government's ability to seize private property.

WHO WANTED IT?: Property rights supporters and a wide coalition of interest groups.

WHY DID IT WORK?: The bill saw little opposition from lawmakers who were happy for the chance to rein in government power.

SO WHAT?: Supporters say it will restore balance between government and private landowners. There are new limits when government tries to transfer property from one private owner to another.

———, GOPHERS STADIUM

WHAT IS IT?: An on-campus football stadium for the University of Minnesota.

WHO WANTED IT?: The university, its sizable alumni network and many state leaders.

WHY DID IT WORK?: Lawmakers had little problem with stadium support for the school because it's a public institution. The university promised to raise money for 45 percent of the $248 million cost on its own.

SO WHAT?: Beginning in 2009, Big Ten football on fall Saturdays will return to the outdoors.

———, IDENTITY THEFT

WHAT IS IT?: Measures to safeguard financial information and curb fraudulent use of consumer data.

WHO WANTED IT?: Consumer groups, especially Minnesota senior citizen organizations.

WHY DID IT WORK?: Identity theft crimes are on the rise. The pressure by senior groups helped because it's a key electoral bloc that neither party wants to alienate.

SO WHAT?: The biggest piece allows people to put a freeze on access to their credit histories. Credit-card solicitors will have to live under new rules, too.

———, MERCURY REDUCTION

WHAT WAS IT?: A mandate that the state's largest coal-fired power plants reduce their mercury emissions 90 percent by 2015.

WHO WANTED IT?: Environmental groups in particular, but much of the business community got on board as well.

WHY DID IT WORK?: Gov. Tim Pawlenty weighed in early with his support, setting the stage for bipartisan cooperation.

SO WHAT?: Mercury in fish has been shown to be harmful to people, particularly pregnant women, infants and young children.

———, TWINS BALLPARK

WHAT IS IT?: A $522 million Twins ballpark with natural grass and open skies. It would go up in downtown Minneapolis.

WHO WANTED IT?: The team, Hennepin County, the full cadre of legislative leaders and Pawlenty worked to get it through.

WHY DID IT WORK?: Opinions vary, but the leading theories are that lawmakers got worn down over 10 years of the stadium debate and the narrowly focused sales tax made it easy for non-Hennepin County legislators to say "yes."

SO WHAT?: Twins fans should be watching their team play outdoors beginning in 2010. People who make purchases in Hennepin County will begin paying the 0.15 percent tax sooner.

———

RAN INTO ROADBLOCKS:

ABORTION

WHAT WAS IT?: Abortion foes sought to ban public funding of abortion for women on public health programs — challenging a key 1995 state Supreme Court decision — and collect more data on judges who let underage girls get abortions without telling their parents.

WHO WANTED IT?: Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, a powerhouse lobbying group.

WHY DID IT STUMBLE?: Abortion rights supporters, who outnumber anti-abortion senators in the majority DFL caucus, prevented the measures from coming up for a vote in the full Senate.

SO WHAT?: Nothing changes on the abortion front in Minnesota for now.

———, GAY MARRIAGE

WHAT WAS IT?: A proposed amendment to the state constitution that would have asked voters to define marriage in Minnesota as between one man and one woman. Legal recognition of arrangements similar to marriage would be banned.

WHO WANTED IT?: Socially conservative policy groups and some religious leaders and their congregations.

WHY DID IT STUMBLE?: The Democrat-controlled state Senate voted down the measure in committee.

SO WHAT?: Critics said the measure was unnecessary since state law already prohibits gay marriage. The earliest the amendment can appear on the ballot now is 2008.

———, IMMIGRATION

WHAT WAS IT?: Get-tough proposals sought to make police and human services workers turn over illegal immigrants to federal authorities, stiffen penalties for fake IDs and deputize state agents to enforce federal immigration laws. An opposing plan would have given illegal immigrants in-state tuition rates at state universities and colleges.

WHO WANTED IT?: Pawlenty wanted to crack down on illegal immigrants, while some Democrats wanted to help their foreign-born children go to college.

WHY DID IT STUMBLE?: The two sides were too far apart. Besides, immigration is mainly a federal responsibility.

SO WHAT?: Expect to hear more about illegal immigration as Congress grapples with a major immigration overhaul.

———, PROPERTY TAX RELIEF

WHAT WAS IT?: Various proposals to help homeowners cope with fast-rising property tax rates.

WHO WANTED IT?: Publicly, members of both parties cried out for a solution.

WHY DID IT STUMBLE?: Lawmakers couldn't agree on a delivery mechanism. House members called for a one-time rebate check while senators approved more aid to schools and local governments, which they described as a strategy to relieve pressure on local taxing bodies.

SO WHAT?: It'll be a front-and-center campaign issue. Democrats will argue that Republican budget policies are leading to higher tax bills; Republicans will say they were stonewalled when they tried to help out.

———, UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

WHAT WAS IT?: A constitutional amendment would have defined health care as a right and ordered the Legislature and governor to make it available to all.

WHO WANTED IT?: Senate Democrats, led by health care mavens Linda Berglin and Becky Lourey.

WHY DID IT STUMBLE?: The bill had virtually no chance in the Republican-controlled House — it never even got a committee hearing. They argued it was a feel-good approach that would have been difficult to execute.

SO WHAT? You're still on your own when it comes to health insurance.

———, VIKINGS STADIUM

WHAT WAS IT?: A $675 million retractable roof stadium in Blaine, part of a megadevelopment there.

WHO WANTED IT?: The Vikings, Anoka County and a smattering of lawmakers.

WHY DID IT STUMBLE?: It lacked backing in high places, including the governor's office. One problem is that it relied on state tax money, a no-no in the state's stadium debate.

SO WHAT?: The Vikings will be back in 2007, probably with a higher-priced plan and another year closer to the 2011 expiration of the Metrodome lease.

———

Compiled by Associated Press writers Brian Bakst, Patrick Condon and Martiga Lohn.