910 N.W.2d 446
Minn.2018Background
- In 2015 the Minnesota Legislature replaced Minn. Stat. § 6.48 with § 6.481, making annual county financial audits mandatory and allowing each county to choose whether the audit is performed by the State Auditor or by a private CPA firm.
- The State Auditor (Rebecca Otto) historically selected which counties her office audited and retained oversight authority when counties used private auditors; she sued three counties after they refused multiyear contracts for Auditor-conducted audits.
- The State Auditor argued § 6.481 violated the Separation of Powers Clause by usurping a core executive function and the Single Subject Clause by being an unrelated provision in an omnibus bill.
- The district court held auditing counties is an essential core function but that § 6.481 lawfully modified that function; it also upheld the statute under the Single Subject Clause. The court of appeals affirmed.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the court of appeals: it concluded the statute did not unlawfully strip the Auditor of core functions and that the Single Subject Clause challenge failed under the germaneness test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Separation of Powers: Did § 6.481 impermissibly strip the State Auditor of core executive functions? | Otto: Legislature usurped the Auditor's core auditing role, leaving the office a shell. | Counties: Even if auditing is core, the statute permissibly modifies duties; Auditor retains substantial powers and oversight. | Held: Assuming auditing is core, § 6.481 is a permissible modification; it does not strip the office of its independent core functions. |
| Separation of Powers — comparison to precedent | Otto: Mattson and Holmberg show transfers that violated separation of powers; § 6.481 is similar. | Counties: Facts differ materially from Mattson and Holmberg; Auditor retains oversight, duties, and funding. | Held: Distinguished Mattson and Holmberg; statute leaves Auditor with significant duties, authority to examine records, require info, and conduct additional audits. |
| Single Subject Clause: Does chapter 77 violate the single-subject requirement? | Otto: Omnibus bill is a "garbage bill" with unrelated provisions; § 6.481 should be severed. | Counties: Chapter title "operation of state government" is sufficiently broad; provisions are germane. | Held: Title and provisions satisfy the germaneness test; § 6.481 is germane to state government operations and survives challenge. |
| Remedy/severability | Otto: Sever offending provisions (§§ 3 and 88(b) of article 2). | Counties: Cannot sever germane provisions simply because other provisions might be ungermane. | Held: Court applies severability only to non-germane parts; § 6.481 upheld; no severance ordered here. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Mattson v. Kiedrowski, 391 N.W.2d 777 (Minn. 1986) (legislative transfer that eliminated a constitutional officer’s core functions is unconstitutional)
- Holmberg v. Holmberg, 588 N.W.2d 720 (Minn. 1999) (legislature may not create administrative processes that improperly displace judicial authority)
- Associated Builders & Contractors v. Ventura, 610 N.W.2d 293 (Minn. 2000) (single-subject challenges judged by germaneness; weak connections insufficient)
- Johnson v. Harrison, 50 N.W. 923 (Minn. 1891) (defines broad construction of "single subject" and the germaneness standard)
- Blanch v. Suburban Hennepin Reg'l Park Dist., 449 N.W.2d 150 (Minn. 1989) (discusses limits of germaneness and the "mere filament" concept)