Procedures and requirements for orders and rules promulgated during a peacetime emergency modified.
Summary
HF395 would change the procedures the governor must follow when issuing orders and rules during a peacetime emergency under Minnesota’s emergency management law. The bill keeps the basic rule that emergency orders and rules approved by the Executive Council and filed with the Secretary of State have the force of law, but it adds extra procedural limits once an emergency has been in effect for 10 days or more.
After that point, the governor would generally have to consult organizations representing affected entities before issuing a new order or rule, provide at least seven days’ public notice before the effective date, and obtain approval from a majority of the Legislative Coordinating Commission to shorten that notice period. The bill also says the governor may not require a private person or business to enforce an order or rule without consent, though businesses could still be required to post notice of the order or rule. In addition, any order or rule would expire after 30 days or when the peacetime emergency ends, whichever comes first, unless both legislative chambers approve continuation.
Impact
The bill would amend Minnesota Statutes section 12.32, narrowing and conditioning the governor’s authority to issue and maintain emergency orders and rules during peacetime emergencies. It would create new notice, consultation, consent, and expiration requirements, and it would increase legislative oversight by involving the Legislative Coordinating Commission and requiring approval from both houses of the legislature for extensions beyond 30 days. These changes would affect the governor, the legislature, private businesses and individuals, and any entities subject to emergency directives.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to reflect a generally skeptical or restrictive approach to executive emergency powers, emphasizing transparency, advance notice, and legislative control. No committee transcript or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available materials. The bill’s structure suggests an intent to limit unilateral emergency action rather than expand it.
Contention
The likely points of contention are the added constraints on the governor’s emergency authority, especially the seven-day notice requirement, the need for Legislative Coordinating Commission approval to act sooner, and the requirement that emergency orders expire after 30 days unless both legislative chambers approve continuation. Supporters would likely view these provisions as checks on executive power and protections for affected businesses and the public, while opponents would likely argue they could slow emergency response and reduce flexibility during fast-moving crises. The prohibition on forcing private parties to enforce orders without consent may also be controversial for businesses and agencies that rely on delegated compliance measures.
Legislative approval requirement for approval to extend a declared emergency beyond five days; legislative enactment requirement before certain executive orders and rules may have the force and effect of law
Legislative approval required to extend a declared emergency beyond five days, citizen rights protected, legislative enactment required before certain executive orders and rules may have the force and effect of law, terms defined, and criminal penalties repealed.
Administrative Procedure Act requirements addition to emphasize statutory authorization for rules and governor's statutory authority to authorize rules in an emergency rescindment provision