The Minnesota House of Representatives has weighed in on a lawsuit that challenges Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s decision to cut billions of dollars in legislatively-approved spending through his unallotment authority.

In a friend of the court brief filed Friday, House officials charge that Pawlenty’s action was unconstitutional and illegal, a claim that many legislators have been making for months. “This really was a power grab in my opinion,” said House Majority Leader Tony Sertich, DFL-Chisholm. “This is not about personalities or the politics of today. It’s about checks and balances in the constitution.”

The House brief was filed on behalf of a coalition of low-income Minnesotans, who filed suit against the governor last month, challenging the constitutionality of his unallotments at the end of the 2009 legislative session. The group is requesting a temporary restraining order to prevent the governor from implementing cuts that would negatively impact low-income residents.

The focus of the House brief is on the constitutional powers of the governor, according to Sertich. “Article three divides the power of the government among the three branches, the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary,” said Sertich. Many legislators believe Gov. Pawlenty usurped the powers of the Legislature earlier this year, when he first signed every spending bill approved by lawmakers, then vetoed the tax bill, which provided the means to pay for it all. Pawlenty then used the resulting revenue shortfall to essentially rewrite many portions of the state budget on his own.

“I think the Legislature has been spayed and neutered— and I don’t like the feeling,” said Rep. Tom Rukavina, DFL-Pike. “I think it’s still the responsibility of the Legislature to challenge this,” he said.

Legislators are not just pointing to the constitution in their objection to Pawlenty’s action. The House brief notes that the 1939 statute “grants authority to the executive branch to reduce allotments of appropriations to respond to an unanticipated reduction in state revenues and a resulting state budget deficit.”

Legislators believe Pawlenty overstepped the bounds of the statute this year, because all parties in the budget process were well aware of the projected budget deficit. “This was not unanticipated,” said Sertich. “The governor signed all the spending bills, then vetoed the bill that provided the revenue.”

Regardless of the outcome of the case, the governor’s unallotment authority could be on borrowed time. “We are going to look at changing the unallotment statute,” said Sertich. Since any changes limiting the governor’s authority would likely face a veto, actually passing the legislation could require an override— which would require at least one or two Republican votes in the House.

“We hope we could get bipartisan support on this,” said Sertich. “We should all be concerned about giving that much power to one person, regardless of party.”

In the meantime, Rukavina says he is bracing for more unallotments from the governor, including for higher education and local government aid for cities and counties. “Before we get to the next session, that forecast will show more revenue loss,” said Rukavina. “He'll keep doing what he's been doing, and it was never legal in the first place.”