Hennepin County District Judge Susan Robiner's decision to circumvent the constitutional separation-of-powers tradition is evident in her decision to require a vote on the $15 minimum wage charter amendment proposal in Minneapolis (front page, Aug. 23). For better or worse, the decision to allow voters to decide their minimum wage is akin to allowing the fox to guard the henhouse. It is also something more tragic in that it continues down a path whereby judges, unhappy with their idea of progress, usurp authority.
The City Council made a ruling. If enough people don't like it, elect a new City Council. Do it legally and properly. Robiner's decision has the stink of politics all over it, and Minneapolis will be the worse for wear as a result of this erosion by fiat.
There was a time when people did what was right for their communities and their country. Her ruling reaffirms that time has long since passed.
Mike Rowland, Eagan
• • •
Minneapolis is properly appealing Robiner's ruling allowing the minimum wage question to be placed on the November ballot. This question is not an appropriate direct-referendum issue under the city charter, a conclusion supported by the thorough and much-researched opinion of City Attorney Susan Segal.
It is remarkable that the interpretation of the charter was not challenged in the 2005 Haumant vs. Griffin case — a precedent Segal cited. The Haumant case, in which a measure to legalize medical marijuana in the city was determined not to be a proper charter amendment, is similar to the minimum wage issue in that it was a policy question. The fact that the minimum wage issue itself has much grass-roots momentum is not a factor in whether or not it is allowable as a direct-referendum question. This appears to be a glaring overstep by Judge Robiner, and one can only conclude that the subject itself is the reason for the ruling rather than the legal merit of the question. If this distinction is blurred or lost, as appears has happened with Robiner's ruling, then a worrisome precedent will have been set — that the will of a vocal portion of the public prevails despite its being at odds with the law. I hope we can count on objective minds prevailing in the appeal.
Andy Cohen, Minneapolis
• • •
There are times in elections when process is more important than policy. Recognizing that fact leads folks who want more tax money for ecology and the arts to vote against amending the state Constitution to achieve that goal. It leads opponents of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walter to vote against a referendum to remove him on grounds of popularity. And it leads folks like me who favor higher minimum wages to vote against enshrining this policy decision in the city charter, where it clearly does not belong.