Gazelka places welfare bill on hold
Sen. Paul Gazelka, R-Brainerd, Tuesday placed his bill to double the waiting period to qualify for welfare benefits in Minnesota on hold. The bill also would have required that debit-style benefit cards include a recipient’s photograph.
The lawmaker said he hopes to clarify conflicting reports as to whether a Wisconsin law calls for a 60-day waiting period, as he had heard was the case. He said courts have previously ruled that longer waiting periods such as six months or a year are problematic.
“I want it to be further out, (than the current 30 days),” he said.
Gazelka said officials testified Monday that 5 to 13 percent of welfare applicants are people moving here from another state.
The fiscal note accompanying the stipulation for a photo ID estimated the amount that requirement would cost the state about $500,000, which was more than Gazelka anticipated.
Gazelka said the bill could either be brought up again or combined with other bills.
Gazelka’s bill would have set a 60-day residency requirement before someone could access welfare assistance, up from 30 days now.
It also would have required that debit-style benefit cards include a recipient’s photograph. He argued the measures would save money by cutting down on fraud and discouraging people from moving to the state primarily to access welfare benefits.
Advocates of welfare recipients said concerns over migration were unfounded. They also pointed to court cases that found some waiting limits to be unconstitutional because of hardships caused.
The bill is one of several in play this year to stiffen welfare requirements or hold recipients to tougher accountability standards. Republicans are pushing the changes, they say, as cost-saving and fraud-prevention measures but Democratic lawmakers are resisting them as degrading to society’s poorest.
Gazelka agreed to placing the waiting-period legislation on hold after a spirited back-and-forth with opponents about its practicality. The bill was under consideration by the Senate Health and Human Services Committee.
“I do want to prevent those coming to Minnesota getting that benefit automatically that we have reserved for Minnesotans,” he said.
Two decades ago, Minnesota tried to impose a six-month waiting period but that was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court as unconstitutional. In that case and others, the court frowned on durational residency requirements so long that they inhibited travel or ran afoul of equal protection standards. A 60-day period once adopted by Wisconsin lawmakers withstood a state court challenge there.
Sen. Jeffrey Hayden, a Minneapolis Democrat, said lawmakers need more than anecdotal evidence about people moving to the state simply for welfare before making requirements more rigid. Other Democrats said the waiting period could be particularly troubling to those living in temporary housing or shelters who need extra time to establish residency.
Mark Toogood, an official with the Minnesota Department of Human Services, told committee members that Minnesota’s monthly benefits were on par or slightly worse than neighboring states.
Debra Howze of the Welfare Rights Committee said the various bills restricting state assistance stigmatized poor people and come off as mean-spirited toward the most vulnerable.
“It’s not like applying for a fishing license,” said Howze, a past welfare recipient herself. “We apply for these programs for survival.”
Another welfare proposal that has yet to get a hearing would require drug screening for program applicants and allow counties to do random testing. Those who test positive would be temporarily denied benefits.
Meanwhile, the House Public Safety and Finance Committee advanced a bill Thursday requiring law enforcement officers to report when a person arrested for a crime possesses more than one electronic benefit card.
Bill sponsor Rep. Sarah Anderson, R-Plymouth, said the legislation was a crackdown on potential welfare fraud. Department of Human Services officials said they have encountered cases where a person was caught with more than one card.
“This is just an attempt to make sure that we are not operating in silos but instead communicating with one another so that we make sure that fraud is not being committed and that those precious resources that we have can be dedicated to those that need the help,” Anderson said.
Democrats on the committee said they worried such a law would target people carrying cards for family members or dependents who cannot do their own shopping.
“It clearly, clearly, targets people who are struggling to get by as it is,” said Rep. Kerry Gauthier of Duluth.