But the problem was Dayton's veto wasn't a veto. At least, it wasn't a veto because of Chapter 46, HF 1010, Article 4, Statutory Changes, Section 47 - Wild Rice Rulemaking and Research, a policy that would suspend the current wild rice/sulfate standard. Rather, Dayton vetoed all nine GOP finance bills as a result of the budget stalemate between the Governor and the House.
By protocol, Dayton submitted a letter to Kurt Zellers, Speaker of the House, that outlined his reasons for vetoing HF 1010. Aside from his comments on the budgetary problems of the bill, Dayton focused on "two controversial policy provisions that were added to the bill during the conference committee process." (See letter below.)
No where in his statement did Dayton mention the fifty-two policy provisions (Statutory Changes) that were attached to HF 1010. This seems at odds with Dayton's previous statement, made before the legislative session began, that he would veto budget bills with policy attachments. It seems that Dayton could have simply stated that in his letter to Zellers, i.e., he was vetoing HF 1010 because it was a budget bill with policy attachments.
That brings up the question - had there not been a budget standoff and there had been a compromise on the two policies that Dayton objected to, would Dayton have signed this bill? Indications are that he most likely would have. And that brings up another question. If the budget stalemate is resolved and HF 1010 reintroduced with compromises on the two policies, will Dayton sign it?
Alarmingly, Section 47 - Wild Rice Rulemaking and Research appears to be an insignificant factor in any decision made on HF 1010. It is certainly a controversial policy change that will affect the livelihood and culture of the Anishinaabe people. However, Dayton made no mention of this in his veto.
Therefore, those who take comfort in Dayton's veto have very little to celebrate. Section 47 continues to be a clear and present danger to our manoomin.
Mii sa go
Dayton's letter to Zellers on his veto of HF 1010: