How were qualifying medical conditions chosen?

• The list of underlying medical conditions for the next eligibility groups was adapted from conditions listed on CDC’s People with Certain Medical Conditions.
• Minnesota’s list includes recommendations from Minnesota’s health care providers. The list is based on current information and research for conditions that are known to put people at increased risk for severe disease.

How were qualifying essential workers chosen?

• Essential workers were selected by CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). ACIP used the Guidance on the Essential Critical Infrastructure Workforce that the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) publishes to help define the groups of workers. ACIP defined frontline essential workers (those included in 1b) as the subset of essential workers likely at highest risk for work-related exposure to COVID-19.
• Sub-prioritization was guided by the risk criteria presented in the Framework for Ethical Allocation of COVID-19 Vaccine, published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, including:
  • Risk of infection: People have higher prioritization because they work or live in settings with a higher risk of transmission occurring because SARS-CoV-2 is circulating.
  • Risk of severe morbidity and mortality: People who are older and that have comorbid conditions are at higher risk of severe outcomes and death.
  • Risk of transmitting to others (at work and at home): People have higher priority because they live or work in settings where transmission is more likely to occur.
  • Risk of negative societal impact: People have higher priority due to the extent that society and other people’s lives depend on them being healthy.

I think I’m an essential worker but I’m not sure given the guidance. How can I find out? Will my employer tell me?

• If you are unsure whether your job qualifies you for a vaccine, you can check with your employer.

If additional conditions are added after the guidance document is finalized, there will inevitably be a barrage of questions about how they can modify their submission on the Vaccine Connector to show they have X new qualifying condition. Will there be a phone number where people can call to update their submission?

• Minnesotans can contact 833-431-2053 to make updates to their Vaccine Connector submissions.

I was already eligible for a shot but I have not gotten one. Why are we expanding eligibility when we haven’t completed earlier phases?

• Minnesota is building out a strong network of providers to vaccinate all Minnesotans. As the supply of vaccine increases, we are expanding eligibility to give more flexibility to providers and get more life-saving vaccine to more people, including those with underlying health conditions and workplace exposure risk.
• Minnesotans who were previously eligible to receive a vaccine are still eligible. Providers will continue to administer doses to healthcare workers, K-12 educators and child care providers, long-term care residents and Minnesotans age 65 years and over.
• We have made great strides vaccinating those populations: In addition to 70% of seniors getting vaccinated this week, nearly 60% of educators and child care workers have been vaccinated, and 71% of healthcare workers have gotten at least one dose of the vaccine.

Are health care providers going to be getting more vaccine allocated to vaccinate these groups, or is vaccination only going to be at special sites?

• We anticipate vaccine deliveries from the federal government will increase in the weeks ahead. As supplies increase, the state is building a strong and stable network of various providers to get vaccine to as many people as possible.
• Minnesotans can find vaccine availability near them using the Vaccine Locator Map.

Can employers require an employee be vaccinated?

The state cannot provide legal advice to either employers or employees. In Dec 2020, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released guidance that generally speaks to this topic. Please visit the EEOC website at www.eeoc.gov for additional information and details.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Testimony submitted to the House Public Safety and Criminal Justice Finance and Reform Committee in support of HF 614 

Thursday, March 4, 2021 

Dear Chair Mariani, Vice Chair Frazier, Republican Lead Johnson, and Members of the House Public Safety and Finance Committee, 

The Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota (ILCM) is a statewide non-profit organization providing free legal services to low-income immigrants. We have offices in Austin, Moorhead, St. Paul, and Worthington. We also contract with the Minnesota State Board of Public Defense to advise public defenders on the immigration consequences of criminal charges and convictions. 

Currently, Minnesota law authorizes a sentence of up to 365 days for gross misdemeanor convictions. HF 614 would amend Minnesota law to reduce this maximum sentence by only one day to 364 days for all Minnesotans. This one day will make a profound difference by reasserting the state’s authority over the effect of a state gross misdemeanor sentence;  promoting clarity and consistency in gross misdemeanor sentencing; and freeing up criminal justice system resources. ILCM therefore supports HF 614. 

First, HF 614 reasserts the state’s authority over the effect of a gross misdemeanor sentence. The Minnesota legislature has long distinguished misdemeanors, gross misdemeanors, and felonies and established progressively higher sentences for each category of crime. Federal immigration law does not honor Minnesota’s classifications, and instead treats a number of gross misdemeanor convictions as “aggravated felonies” simply because a sentence of 365 days—as opposed to 364 days—is imposed. This renders long-term Minnesota residents—many of whom are green card holders, refugees, and spouses and parents of U.S. citizen Minnesotans—deportable for offenses that the state of Minnesota does not deem felonies. The Minnesota legislature cannot change federal immigration law, but by reducing the maximum sentence for gross misdemeanors by one day, the legislature can prevent the federal government from treating certain gross misdemeanor convictions as “aggravated felonies” and deporting long-time Minnesotans.     

Next, HF 614 promotes clarity in sentencing for gross misdemeanor offenses. It can be confusing to defendants, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges alike when a gross misdemeanor conviction under Minnesota law can be treated as an “aggravated felony” under federal immigration law. Individual prosecutor’s offices, prosecutors, and judges have pursued sentences of 364 days, rather than the 365 days currently authorized by the statute, to ensure that gross misdemeanor convictions under Minnesota law are not considered “aggravated felonies” under federal law.  But this is not done consistently, resulting in the possibility of two Minnesotans with the same immigration status who have committed the same crime facing vastly different outcomes because of a one–day difference in sentencing—one returning to their family after serving their sentence and the other being detained, deported, and separated from their family.  Reducing the maximum sentence for a gross misdemeanor conviction will increase clarity, promote consistent treatment across the state, and ensure that Minnesotans with gross misdemeanor convictions do not face more dire consequences than residents of other states—such as Nevada, Oregon, and Washington1—that impose a sentence of 364 days or less for gross misdemeanors or the equivalent.  

Finally, HF 614 frees up criminal justice system resources. There are numerous situations in which long-time Minnesotans have successfully reopened their criminal cases or obtained post-conviction relief to address a gross misdemeanor conviction for which they were sentenced to 365 days. Defense attorneys, prosecutors, and judges conscientiously work through these cases to ensure that justice is served. For example, we are working with a refugee who had been convicted of a gross misdemeanor and sentenced to 365 days. He had rebuilt his life and sought to become a permanent resident and ultimately a citizen, but because his sentence was one day too long, he faced the possibility of deportation to a country where he could be persecuted. The Minnesota State Appellate Public Defender worked with prosecutors and the court to have the sentenced modified. Had the maximum sentence for a gross misdemeanor been 364 days, these efforts would not have been unnecessary because the conviction would not have been treated as an “aggravated felony” in the first place, obviating the need to implement a fix after a case has concluded and thereby freeing up resources in an already taxed system.     

ILCM urges this Committee to support HF614 and bring consistency, clarity, and fairness to gross misdemeanor sentencing.  

Respectfully submitted, 

Veena Iyer, Executive Director 

Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota