Expressing some regret over a $300-million-a-year constitutional amendment that passed last year, a group of legislators wants to make it harder to fiddle with Minnesota's Constitution.
It's too easy to change state Constitution, legislators say
It's not that they don't trust the voters, they assure. They just want to make their own jobs harder.
Sen. Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, chairman of the Senate tax committee, said he regrets not being more forceful about keeping the amendment bill tied up in committee last year. Legislators later put the Clean Water, Land, and Legacy Amendment on the general election ballot, and in November it passed with more than 56 percent of the vote, directing money from an increase in the sales tax to the outdoors, clean water and the arts.
"I should have never let it out of the Tax Committee," Bakk said Monday.
The bill he has proposed would require 60 percent approval from both houses of the Legislature, rather than a simple majority, before a constitutional amendment could be put on the ballot. It would still be adopted with approval by 50 percent of the voters.
Bakk, who opposed the legacy amendment, said it has become too easy for legislators to shirk their financial responsibilities by agreeing to let voters decide whether to change the Constitution. In tough budget times, money directed for a specific purpose ties the hands of legislators, he said.
Bakk said it is a misconception that it is hard to amend the state's Constitution. Since 1980, 17 of 18 amendment proposals have passed. In the state's 151-year history, 179 constitutional amendments have been proposed and 120 have passed. Bakk said backers of amendments often outspend and outmarket opponents, which can leave voters without a balanced debate.
"My intent was not to make it harder for voters. Let's make it harder on ourselves," Bakk told the Senate State and Local Government Operations Committee. His proposal was approved by a voice vote but is likely to find itself in a circuitous path. Most constitutional amendment bills are heard and acted on in sessions in even-numbered years, when they would be voted on in the general election. A House version has yet to have a hearing.
The proposal has supporters on both sides of the aisle.
"Budgeting by constitutional amendment is horrendous. We need to get away from that. My only regret is that this isn't retroactive," said Sen. Chris Gerlach, R-Apple Valley.
But not everyone approves.
"Who says we're any better keeping people's money than they are?" asked Sen. Dick Day, R-Owatonna.
Mark Brunswick • 651-222-1636
Our mission this election cycle is to provide the facts and context you need. Here’s how we’ll do that.