Judge rejects lawsuit over state Senate building
A Ramsey County judge has dismissed the lawsuit brought by a former Republican legislator to try to block the construction of a new Minnesota Senate office building.
The lawsuit from former GOP state Rep. Jim Knoblach of St. Cloud claimed lawmakers violated the state constitution last year when they approved the financing for the building as part of a larger tax bill.
But in her order for dismissal, Judge Lezlie Marek wrote that the legislation “does not violate the single subject requirement,” as Knoblach had claimed, because the provisions are “linked by a common thread.”
The project, which includes the $63 million building and a separate $27 million parking ramp, still has a legislative hurdle to clear. Members of the House rules committee have not yet signed off on the building design, and House Speaker Paul Thissen, DFL-Minneapolis, said this week that other less-expensive options should be considered.
Create a More Connected Minnesota
MPR News is your trusted resource for the news you need. With your support, MPR News brings accessible, courageous journalism and authentic conversation to everyone - free of paywalls and barriers. Your gift makes a difference.
UPDATE
The Minnesota Senate was not a plaintiff in the case. Still, Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, issue this statement in response to the dismissal:
“Today's news is an important step forward for the legislative building project as well as the renovation of the Capitol. I look forward to both projects proceeding without further delay.”
UPDATE 2
Jim Knoblach said he was disappointed by the dismissal and plans to meet next week with his attorney to discuss a possible appeal.
“If this decision stands, it will lead to situations where there are much more concentration of power in the Legislature, where just a few key legislators are going to have more control over writing the finance and tax bills. It’s going to be bad for transparency for the public and bad for other legislators knowing what’s going on and what they’re voting on.”
Here's the order: