A court hearing is being held this week on a blatantly discriminatory program – where rights are based solely on race – in the administration of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Kamala Harris’ pick to be vice president on the Democrat party’s 2024 ticket.
Judicial Watch confirmed it is the Minnesota Supreme Court that will hear arguments in the lawsuit over a scheme that appears in a contract for Minnesota teachers.
It produces special job “rights” for some teachers, but only if they qualify under certain racial characteristics.
WND had reported earlier that the case against the Minneapolis scheme came after it provided special privileges for minorities not given to others, in violation of the Equal Protection Guarantee of the Minnesota Constitution.
The racism was instituted formally after a 2022 teachers’ strike.
A district court earlier attempted to kill the dispute raised by Judicial Watch, but that ruling was reversed by the state Court of Appeals.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a Minneapolis taxpayer “over a teachers’ contract that provides discriminatory job protections to certain racial minorities.”
It’s being challenged because, “the contract provides preferences, protections, and privileges for MPS teachers of certain races and ethnicities under a section entitled ‘ARTICLE 15. PROTECTIONS FOR EDUCATORS OF COLOR.’ There is no similar provision covering educators who are not ‘of color.'”
The report said it exempts “teachers of color” from the district’s “seniority-based layoffs and reassignments.”
It means a senior teacher who is not of the right race would be laid off while a junior teacher who is of the right race would be kept on staff during layoffs.
Judicial Watch said the case started in 2022 against Minneapolis Public Schools for violating the Equal Protection Guarantee of the Minnesota Constitution. The school district, supported by the teachers and other public employee unions, asserts that Minnesota taxpayers do not have the right to challenge the illegal spending of taxpayer money by government officials.
The legal team told the state Supreme Court, “Minneapolis Public Schools and its Amici spill a lot of ink complaining that a ‘complete stranger’ has sued to prevent MPS from carrying out an unconstitutional provision of a contract between it and its teachers. [The Taxpayer], however, is not a stranger. She is a Minneapolis taxpayer, and this Court, since at least 1877, has recognized taxpayers as proper parties to bring such actions in Minnesota courts. This Court should not accept MPS’s and its Amici’s invitation to undermine this important check on government power.”
The arguments noted that the plaintiff is a taxpayer and has paid property tax on her home since 2017.
And that schools are funded by taxes.
The fact that one of the provisions in a school contract violates the state constitution, then, is grounds for her protest.
