Minnesota Report
Last night during the debate on HF100 Omnibus cannabis bill Rep Jim Nash (R-48A, Waconia) brought forward an amendment on Local Control, with the crux being local communities could if passed be able to state where or not they would allow the sale of these controlled substances in their community. The perspective on this question often means one thing to a Republican officeholder and something dramatically different to a DFL officeholder.
In large part, Republicans see “Local Control” as an ability to prescribe a specific responsive action if it’s a state mandate and thereby want to apply local control to deny enforcement and prevent implementation as a protection for their community. Now, this is only when they agree with the specific outcome. When it comes to mandates regarding environmental protections minimum wage, workplace rules or even personal autonomy regarding women’s health care statewide abortion restrictions are just fine. While Democrats can be just as disingenuous when they have their concerns for local control they shout out “Premption” a state dictate is just fine DFLers want to enable and allow for something to occur where they “empower” the locality as in the case of Ranked Choice Voting, or again regarding environmental protections, minimum wage, or workplace rules, because especially during divided government the state has failed to act in a manner, the local elected officeholders see fit.
This often is seen in more “progressive” communities, like Minneapolis and St Paul.