EDITORIAL: Super disparities

Yahoo

08-02-2025

The best budget decisions, it would seem, are those that receive broad support.
So on the face of it, a proposal in the Minnesota Legislature that calls for a constitutional amendment to require a three-fifths majority vote in the House and Senate on income, sales and property tax decisions holds a certain appeal.
But upon deeper examination, we see problems – really big problems. Most alarming of all, this amendment has the potential to paralyze rural Minnesotans' voice in the state's fiscal matters. In its wake, basic services such as police protection, K-12 education, higher education and even nursing home care in rural areas would see severe impacts.
Budget decisions should require a thoughtful, studied legislative process. But if this supermajority amendment passes, a minority of legislators could hold the budget process hostage. Special interests – especially those of the metro area, where the population base is concentrated – would receive an unfair advantage.
Growing inequities between wealthy metro interests and poor rural interests are the last thing Minnesota needs. Legislative gridlock already is a constant fear, fueled by last summer's impasse when only a simple majority was needed to make tax decisions. Think of the mess a supermajority consensus would create.
Sixteen other states, including California, already have similar constitutional amendments. Anyone who follows California's nightmarish financial situation should realize this isn't a good idea. But that isn't stopping a zealous group of lawmakers in St. Paul.
In the Senate, the amendment bill is sponsored by Sen. Benjamin Kruse of Brooklyn Park. The House version is sponsored by Rep. Steve Draskowksi of Mazeppa, and is supported by a number of GOP representatives, including Rep. Ron Shimanski of Silver Lake.
Frankly, we don't know how Mr. Shimanksi could possibly support legislation that could be so detrimental to the people of McLeod and Meeker counties and the rest of rural Minnesota. This amendment definitely favors urbanites.
If this amendment passes:
< Programs such as Local Government Aid – which help pay for basic services in cities such as Hutchinson and Litchfield but are hardly needed in property-rich suburban communities – would be shoved aside to pay for other state spending priorities.
< Education funding could be reduced, forcing rural Minnesota school districts – which tend to be property poor compared to their metro cousins – to doubly lose because they'd have to ask voters for additional funding to keep schools operating at functional levels.
< Funding for nursing homes could become tighter than ever, forcing some to close, causing rural Minnesota communities to lose their largest employer.
< Funding for higher education could shrink, causing tuition to rise and possibly result in fewer class offerings or even the closing of some institutions, which would more likely affect rural areas.
Worst of all, the amendment could lead to more constitutional amendments, which in the end would result in legislating through the Constitution, a horrible notion that circumvents any form of a representative democracy.
Rural Minnesota needs to stand its ground – and it has many defenders. Groups opposing the supermajority amendment include the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, the Minnesota Taxpayers Association, the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits and others.
Partly because of its supermajority amendment, California can't pay its bills or its state workers. Minnesota isn't in that situation now, and never has been. In fact, it generally has prospered during its 154 years of majority rule. Why fix something that isn't broke?
(Editorials are written by Publisher Matt McMillan and Editor Doug Hanneman. They can be reached at [e-mail], or [e-mail].)