Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Budget Tax Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances proposed constitutional amendment to create Minnesota tax‑relief account; debate centers on schools, services
Summary
The House Rules Committee voted 7‑6 to re‑refer House File 4 — a proposed constitutional amendment to direct surplus revenue above 105% of forecast into a tax‑relief account — to the Ways and Means Committee after hours of testimony and debate about impacts on schools, counties and state services.
The Committee on Rules and Legislative Administration voted 7–6 on March 3 to re‑refer House File 4 to the House Ways and Means Committee. House File 4 would place a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot to create a “Minnesota tax relief account” that would receive general‑fund revenue in excess of 105 percent of the budget forecast; the amendment would require the legislature to use that account to provide income‑tax or property‑tax relief.
Supporters said the measure would return surplus money to taxpayers instead of allowing state government to expand spending. Representative Wayne Johnson (R‑41A), who introduced the bill, said the measure is intended to limit future automatic growth in spending and give ‘‘money back to hardworking Minnesotans.’’ He told the committee, “If we have a surplus ... once we send the money up there you’re not gonna continue to find new ways to spend it.”
Opponents at the hearing argued the amendment would restrict legislative flexibility to respond to changing needs and could exacerbate funding shortfalls for public services. Jim Grathwall of St. Paul Public Schools testified in opposition, saying the proposal “imperils the state's ability to adequately fund a uniform system of public schools” and noting large unfunded special‑education and English‑learner cross‑subsidies borne by districts. Sydney Sprecht, political affairs coordinator at MAPE, testified that the change “would greatly weaken Minnesota's flexibility to craft budgets that meet the state's long‑term public investment needs,” adding the bill does not clarify which forecast or which baseline would apply.
Child‑support officer Heather Burr, speaking for herself and identifying as an AFSCME member, said reduced flexibility could lengthen the time needed to establish support and create gaps in county services. Nan Madden, director of the Minnesota Budget Project at the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits, told the committee the group opposes embedding tax and budget rules in the state constitution because that “circumvents meaningful public debate” and can tie policymakers’ hands in crises.
Labor and advocacy coalition We Make Minnesota, represented by Eric Bernstein, said the bill would “weaken the state's ability to fund essential social and physical infrastructure” and put decision‑making power on autopilot. Several legislators who opposed the bill during floor‑style questioning echoed concerns about the bill’s potential to limit responses to sudden economic changes, including large federal funding shifts or unexpected recessions.
Lawmakers who supported the bill said voters should have the choice whether to require automatic returns of surplus revenue. Representative Johnson emphasized the proposal would first go to voters and that the amendment would not itself take effect without voter approval.
The committee recorded the motion to re‑refer House File 4 to the Ways and Means Committee and then held a roll‑call vote. The clerk recorded seven ayes and six nays; the motion to re‑refer prevailed. No final action on the substance of the proposed amendment was taken; the bill will be considered next in Ways and Means.
