Preemption and Democracy: Lessons from Minnesota
Post by Jamila Michener, PhD
There has been no rest for the weary in 2026. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents ushered in the new year with a violent occupation of the Twin Cities (Minneapolis and St. Paul), instigating a devastating wave of terror and racism. Bearing witness to the murder and mayhem inflicted on the people of Minnesota has been excruciating. At the same time, watching everyday people deploy countervailing power through organized resistance has been inspiring. Like the historic uprisings in response to the murder of George Floyd, the anti-ICE movement in Minnesota did not emerge out of thin air. Instead, it was facilitated by institutional precursors—preemption among them—that strengthened democratic practice from the bottom up. Though states are too often “laboratories against democracy,” a close look at Minnesota through the lens of preemption points us to some of the ways that state and local governments can cultivate grassroots power to protect against democratic erosion in times of authoritarian governance.
To be clear, preemption is just one part of a much larger story in Minnesota. The state has a long and deep history of Native American, farmer, civil rights, and labor organizing alongside strong electoral institutions. As we saw with acute clarity in 2020, Minnesota has a formidable capacity for multiracial organizing that transforms people, narratives, and policy on a large scale. Community based organizations focused on building local power—like ISAIAH and United Renters for Justice (Inquilinxs Unidxs por Justicia)—are a vital part of the landscape of civic strength in Minnesota. At the same time, the institutions (e.g., rules of the game) that constrain and enable such organizations are also a critical element of this terrain. Preemption is one such institution. It is a notable part of the governance infrastructure that fostered the massive public resistance mounted in response to ICE. Observing patterns of preemption in Minnesota offers useful lessons about the institutional foundations of democratic practice in the U.S.
Preemption happens when a higher level of government limits the authority of a lower level of government. In the context of profound partisan polarization and the nationalization of state and local politics, state preemption of local policy has been used in abusive ways that entrench inequity, limit capacity for grassroots organizing, and reinforce authoritarian practices at the national level. But this is not the story of Minnesota. Instead, by curtailing harmful preemption and enabling positive preemption, Minnesota has laid the institutional groundwork for the grassroots power.
Avoiding Ceilings: Limiting Harmful Preemption
To be clear, Minnesota does not have a perfect track record in the domain of preemption. Gun control and rent control are important examples of state preemption that put a ceiling on the ability of Minnesota’s local governments to address community needs. Nevertheless, many preemption statutes that inhibit democracy have not gained or sustained traction in Minnesota. Consider just a few examples of local policies that are not preempted in Minnesota.
Minimum Wage and Paid Leave—Despite failed attempts to preempt local minimum wage and paid leave laws, Minnesota municipalities retain the authority to set minimum wage requirements and offer paid leave. Relative to the state floor ($11.71/hour), the minimum wage is markedly higher in cities like Minneapolis ($16.37/hour) and St. Paul (between $14.25 and $16.37/hour). The material benefit that this brings is significant during times of authoritarian incursion, when mutual aid is a bedrock of resistance. Even more is that the grassroots struggles necessary to forefend against harmful preemption strengthened the organizing capacity of Minnesota communities. As noted by the National Employment Law Project, higher wages in Minneapolis and St. Paul reflect the efforts of workers “who went on strike, spoke out, and marched in the streets, beating back a cruel preemption bill in the state legislature.” The muscle built through workers’ struggle has been exercised during the anti-ICE movement, as dozens of local unions have showed up to support collective resistance.
Regulating Police Budgets—Some states preempt localities’ authority to regulate budgets for policing, but Minnesota does not. As the epicenter of battles over defunding the police, the freedom to organize for budgetary power has been an important frontier of racial justice in Minneapolis. Grassroots efforts to shift resources from police budgets created avenues for exercising power against police violence. As Minnesota organizer Kandace Montgomery asserted, “People loved being part of the budget hearings and having these politicized moments of being face-to-face with power.” Budgets are such crucial levers for change. Minnesota’s freedom from state preemption of local budget authority has enabled organizing that underscores imperative lessons about power and budgets. Though distinct, parallel budgetary contestations are now underway among tenant organizers who are fighting for local governments to provide rental assistance to people whose ability to pay rent has been disrupted by the repressive activity of ICE.
Setting Floors: Promoting Affirmative Preemption
In addition to circumventing preemptive laws that put ceilings on progressive possibilities, Minnesota has also led the way in adopting laws that set floors to ensure statewide protections for all residents. Election and tenant laws are crucial examples in this vein, and both have direct implications for democratic practice.
Election Policies—Minnesota state law prevents localities from changing polling places without good reason, requiring voters to go to more than one polling place, or giving voters insufficient notice about polling place changes. This is an example of “floor preemption” because it guarantees a statewide minimum standard for fair electoral practices.
Tenant Policies—All Minnesota tenants have a right to organize (e.g., by canvassing and leafletting or holding meetings in public spaces in their budlings) without interference or retaliation from landlords. Landlords that act against tenants (e.g., raise the rent, issue an eviction) within 90 days of organizing activity must affirmatively prove that such action was not retaliatory. These statewide protections buttress tenant strength, which was pivotal underpinning for efforts to advance an eviction moratorium—another example of affirmative preemption—in the midst of the economic havoc wreaked by ICE.
Preempting Authoritarianism
In this moment—and in a larger milieu of rising authoritarianism— there is much to learn about the metamorphic possibilities of democratic practice. The analyses, strategies, and action we uplift in the days, weeks, and months to come will determine whether we continue the dismal march towards democratic disintegration or reorient towards the transformative reconstruction necessary to build a multiracial democracy. Some of the critical insights we can draw from Minnesota concern the institutional underpinnings of powerful, agentic communities. Preemption is part of such a foundation. Resisting democracy-eroding preemption and fighting for democracy-enhancing preemption are twin efforts in ongoing and longstanding struggles against racial authoritarianism in Minnesota and across the country.
Jamila Michener, PhD, is a professor of Government and Public Policy at Cornell University, and director of the Center for Racial Justice and Equitable Futures. She also serves as a part of the 2025 Research Cohort for the Local Solutions Support Center.