Otto Response

Earlier this morning, I wrote this post to highlight the fact that Rebecca Otto, Minnesota’s State Auditor, isn’t a constitutional scholar but that she is a sore loser. I quoted the ruling as saying “The Legislature has the power to modify the State Auditor’s duties under State ex rel. Mattson v. Kiedrowski. Modifying who does the initial audit does not transfer her core functioning of auditing counties.”

Briana Bierschbach’s tweet contains similar language from the ruling, saying that “giving counties the right to choose whether a CPA firm performs their audits does not transfer a core function away from the OSA, but merely modifies one of the OSA’s existing duties.”

This isn’t a partisan fight. It’s a fight between the executive branch and the legislative branch. The executive branch prefers setting its own duties and expanding its responsibilities. The legislative branch, however, prefers telling these constitutional offices what their responsibilities are. That’s important to the constitutional principle of checks and balances.

Briana also has Ms. Otto’s response to the ruling:

Ms. Otto has the right to appeal this ruling but it’s essentially over. If she appeals this ruling, she’ll just be foolishly spending the taxpayers’ money going into an election year. That isn’t a wise campaign strategy.

Technorati: Rebecca Otto, Office of State Auditor, Lawsuit, Constitutional Offices, Executive Branch, Legislative Branch, DFL

Authored By Let Freedom Ring Blog