Opposing Constitutional Amendments that Put Minnesota's Future at Risk

The Minnesota Budget Project supports preserving the ability of a simple majority of lawmakers to determine the overall size of the state budget and to manage available resources. Therefore, we oppose any amendment to Minnesota’s Constitution that would require a supermajority vote to raise taxes or use reserve funds, or would restrict lawmakers from using available resources. Amendments such as these would damage Minnesota’s economic future by sharply limiting policymakers’ flexibility to respond to changing demographics and emerging needs. Lawmakers would find it harder to reach agreement, leading to an increase in legislative gridlock and the use of more budget gimmicks.

Issue Overview

Experience from other states demonstrates that constitutional amendments limiting budget decisions don't deliver on their promises, and they come with dangerous consequences. These measures:

• Would harm the state's economic growth by artificially limiting public investments in our communities.
• Encourage the use of budget gimmicks. Just as water forges a new path when it encounters an obstacle, so elected officials will try to find ways to meet the needs of their constituents. With constitutional limits in place, policymakers will use less transparent methods to enact budget decisions they believe are critical for Minnesota's future.
• Increase legislative gridlock. A small number of legislators can hold back their votes on critical legislation until they win concessions on other unrelated issues.
• Restrict the state's ability to respond to emergencies. Although an amendment may allow policymakers to override restrictions in extraordinary circumstances, the ability to respond appropriately to a natural disaster or public health emergency often requires a long-term financial investment in preventive measures.
• Remove flexibility to respond to evolving public needs. Public discourse on how to address new demands on the state's social and physical infrastructure would be hampered by the reality that policymakers would have limited ability to respond.

Status

Three constitutional amendments introduced in the Minnesota Legislature would limit the state's ability to raise taxes or use available revenues.

• House File 1598/Senate File 1384 would require a three-fifths (60 percent) supermajority vote in each body of the Legislature in order to pass a tax increase.
• House File 1661/Senate File 1378 would limit general fund spending in the biennium to 98 percent of forecasted revenues, with the remainder going into a reserve account. Any spending above the 98 percent - or any use of the reserves - could only be done in response to an emergency and would require a three-fifths (60 percent) supermajority vote in both bodies of the Legislature. Once the reserve account reaches five percent of state revenues, a reduction in the sales tax would be triggered.
• House File 1612/Senate File 1364 would limit all spending in the biennium to the amount of all revenues collected in the previous biennium. Excess revenues could only be used for two purposes: to pay back one-time shifts and to provide for the public peace, safety or health as a result of a declared national security or peacetime emergency.

All three of these proposals were introduced in both the House and Senate during the 2011 Legislative Session. Although none made it to the floor, House File 1598 passed out of the House Tax Committee. Any bill introduced during the 2011 Legislative Session can continue to move through the process during the 2012 Legislative Session without needing to be reintroduced. 

In late August 2011, a group of Republican state representatives announced that a major element of their 2012 legislative agenda is likely to be a constitutional amendment that would require a supermajority vote in both houses of the Legislature to raise taxes. With such a supermajority requirement in place, just a minority of legislators could block critical legislation, even if the legislation had broad public support.

If any of these amendments are approved by a majority in both houses of the Minnesota Legislature in the 2012 Legislative Session, it would be placed on the ballot in the 2012 general election. A majority of those voting in the election would need to approve the amendment in order for it to take effect.

Get Involved

The outcome of the debate ahead on these issues is critical for the state of Minnesota. Here are two steps you can take today:

• Sign on as an organization or an individual to a statement opposing these constitutional amendments.
• Sign up to get email updates on these constitutional amendments.

More Information

• '98 Percent' Constitutional Amendment Creates Barriers to Common-Sense Budgeting
• Supermajority Amendment is Wrong for Minnesota
• Budgeting Through the Constitution: Popular Appeal; Practical Problems, Minnesota Taxpayers Association newsletter, November-December 2011
• Supermajority Requirement Would Limit Financial Flexibility, Risking Minnesota's Credit Rating
• Six Reasons Why Supermajority Requirements to Raise Taxes Are a Bad Idea, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
• Supermajority Amendment would Create Pressure to Increase Property Taxes
• Status of Proposed Constitutional Budget Amendments in Minnesota
• Constitutional Budget Limits Would Put Minnesota's Future At Risk
• News Coverage of Constitutional Budget Amendments
• Tax and Spending Limits, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
• Additional information is available in the Research & Analysis section of our website.

Staff contact: Christina Wessel, Minnesota Budget Project Deputy Director, 651-757-3065