Status of Proposed Constitutional Budget Amendments in Minnesota
Updated March 2012
Three constitutional amendments limiting budget decisions have been introduced in the Minnesota Legislature and are likely to be given serious consideration during the 2012 Legislative Session. Although they take different approaches, the effect of any of these amendments would be to artificially limit state revenue or expenditure growth or create barriers for increasing taxes.
- 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 just 98 percent of forecasted revenues.
- House File 1612/Senate File 1364 would limit all spending in the biennium to the amount of all revenues collected in the previous biennium.
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.
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.
What follows is a brief look at the current status of the three constitutional amendments that were introduced during the last legislative session. These bills will continue to move through the legislative process from where they left off at the end of the 2011 Legislative Session.
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. The supermajority requirement would apply to increases in the state income tax, sales tax, or a new statewide tax, as well as increases in local governments' authority to raise taxes.
- House authors (in the order they signed on to the bill): Representatives Drazkowski; Zellers; Dean; Mazorol; Kiffmeyer; Wardlow; Fabian; Woodard; Bills; Gruenhagen; Banaian; Anderson, B; Lohmer; Benson, M; Murdock; Nornes; Quam; Daudt; Erickson; Myhra; Kelly; Scott; Beard; Holberg; Runbeck; Leidiger; Shimanski; Dettmer and Crawford.
- Senate authors (in the order they signed on to the bill): Senators Kruse and Thompson.
- Status in the House: The bill was introduced on April 28, 2011. It passed the Tax Committee on May 2, 2011, on a voice vote and re-referred to the Ways & Means Committee. No hearing has been held in Ways & Means. In late August 2011, a group of Republican state representatives announced that this amendment is likely to be a major element of their 2012 legislative agenda.
- Status in the Senate: The bill was introduced on May 5, 2011, and referred to the Tax Committee. No hearing has been held.
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 authors (in the order they signed on to the bill): Representatives Hoppe, Zellers, Holberg, Davids, Dean, Franson, Kiffmeyer and Dettmer.
- Senate authors (in the order they signed on to the bill): Senators Ortman, Chamberlain, Hall, Senjem, Nelson, Hoffman, Lillie, Hann, Newman, Ingebrigtsen, Kruse, Gimse, Brown, Dahms, Carlson, Howe, Limmer, Gerlach, Koch, Parry, Jungbauer, Wolf, Gazelka, Daley, Vandeveer, Pederson, DeKruif, Benson, Nienow, Robling, Michel, Olson, Rosen and Fischbach.
- Status in the House: The bill was introduced on May 4, 2011, and referred to the Ways & Means Committee. No hearing has been held.
- Status in the Senate: The bill was introduced on May 4, 2011, and referred to the Tax Committee. No hearing has been held. Note that identical bills were also introduced as Senate Files 1379, 1380, 1381, 1382, 1383 and 1401 to accommodate the number of senators who wished to sign on to the bill (the Senate only allows five authors per bill).
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.
- House authors (in the order they signed on to the bill): Representatives Downey, Zellers, Dean, Holberg, Banaian, Barrett, Daudt, Lohmer, Franson, Dettmer, Bills and Quam.
- Senate authors (in the order they signed on to the bill): Senator Ortman.
- Status in the House: The bill was introduced on April 28, 2011, and referred to the Ways and Means Committee. No hearing has been held.
- Status in the Senate: The bill was introduced on May 3, 2011, and referred to the Tax Committee. No hearing has been held.
