Voters at the polls on Election Day will be asked a question. The proposed clean water, land and legacy constitutional amendment if approved would hike the state's sales tax by three-eighths of one percent for 25 years, divvying up the estimated $300 million a year between clean water, wildlife habitat, arts and culture, parks and trails.

Supporters, which include former governors, hail the amendment as a way to meet critical needs after years of chronic under funding. Critics paint the amendment as bloated, a slush fund for special interest and an unjustified burden on taxpayers.

Former U.S. Senator Rod Grams, chairman of the No Constitutional Tax Increase Campaign, appeared at a Capitol press conference on Thursday (Sept. 25) to denounce the proposed constitutional amendment appearing on the ballot in November. The amendment, if approved by voters, would increase the state sales tax by three-eighths of one percent and divvy-up the $300 million a year in revenue between several environmental areas and arts and culture. Grams denounced the proposal as creating a "slush fund" for special interests. (Photo by T.W. Budig, ECM Capitol Reporter)

by T.W. Budig
ECM Capitol reporter

Voters at the polls on Election Day will be asked a question.

The proposed clean water, land and legacy constitutional amendment if approved would hike the state's sales tax by three-eighths of one percent for 25 years, divvying up the estimated $300 million a year between clean water, wildlife habitat, arts and culture, parks and trails.

Supporters, which include former governors, hail the amendment as a way to meet critical needs after years of chronic under funding.

Critics paint the amendment as bloated, a slush fund for special interest and an unjustified burden on taxpayers.

The idea of placing an amendment on the ballot has been debated at the Minnesota Legislature for a decade.

Rep. Tom Hackbarth, R-Cedar, long championed a less costly amendment, one using existing sales tax dollars with a narrower funding focus.

Rep. Tom Hackbarth, R-Cedar, who has labored for years at the legislature to pass an outdoors constitutional amendment, views the current one as doomed to fail and misguided.

"No, I'm not very happy,” said Hackbarth, a former House environment committee chairman, of the existing proposal.

Hackbarth expects amendment to fail

Indeed, Hackbarth expects the amendment to fail "big time” in November, saying he detects no enthusiasm at all for it in his district among hunters and anglers.

"They know this thing is a scam,” he said, referring to the arts and culture component of the proposal that would capture about 20 percent of the total funding.

But Rep. Dennis Ozment, R-Rosemount, argues the contour of the proposed amendment was shaped by the political forces at the Capitol.

"I have difficulty answering with a real solid ‘Yes,'” he said of the appropriateness of having arts and culture funding in the state constitution next to education and transportation.

But in order for the proposed amendment to pass the Legislature a means had to be found to knit together Big City and Greater Minnesota interests, Ozment opined.

And that was done.

Ozment, a former House environment committee chairman who has been warning for years that the federal Clean Water Act could freeze development in the state unless water pollution issues are addressed, rejects the idea that lawmakers themselves are responsible for perceived under-funding.

Rep. Dennis Ozment, R-Rosemount, views the chance of passage as good and sees the amendment as a chance to break through a political morass and address environmental problems before they reach crisis.

"It's the fault of the system,” said Ozment, opining that the politically seductive nature of no new tax politics has forced lawmakers to shortchange things they know are vital.

"Who wants that stuff slamming at you,” he said of being attacked on the campaign trail for raising taxes.

This offers a way to navigate around the political logjam and let voters themselves decided, he explained of the amendment.

Taking the message to the public

Both amendment supporters and foes are taking their message to the public.

Ken Martin, campaign manager of Vote Yes Minnesota, a coalition of more than 300 organizations, said the group could spend up to $5 million trying to cut through the "clutter” of the crowded election season.

"We've got a real bipartisan led effort and coalition here,” he said. "I think we're in a really good position to pass this amendment in November,” Martin opined.

Martin speaks of a communication campaign as "layered,” one using television, radio, the Internet, volunteers.

"Our biggest challenge is really the drop-off,” said Martin of the mechanics of constitutional amendments.

Ken Martin, campaign manager for Vote Yes Minnesota, a group supporting the amendment, hails the amendment as an opportunity for Minnesotans to safeguard water, land and legacy. Martin, posed outside of the group's St. Paul office, holds aloft a fishing bobber with a message.

Voters who fail to mark the ballot on the amendment question are automatically counted as "No” votes.

"As the (voter) turnout increases, the drop-off increases. Which means our threshold for passage also increases,” Martin explained. "It's something we don't have a lot of control over, frankly,” he said. "If this amendment loses it's going to be because there was a high percentage of people who didn't vote on this amendment,” said Martin.

Squeezed out by other funding

In describing environmental funding  Martin shapes inverted pyramids in the air with his hands, arguing that over recent decades funding has been squeezed out by other funding areas.

Like Ozment, he doesn't discount the idea that if the amendment passes lawmakers would even be less likely to fund the environment in the future — that long term little or nothing might be gained.

"I would say it's a valid concern,” said Martin. "However, there's nothing that indicates that in the next 30 years they'd change what they're doing anyway,” he said. "We'll take our chances I guess,” Martin said.

Ozment opined that even if the scenario would play out environmental funding would still be better off.

The cost of the amendment to the average Minnesota family is estimated at about $1 a week.

Opposition to the proposed amendment among the business community is muted.

Although the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce does not support passage, it is not actively campaigning against the amendment.

The Minnesota Business Partnership has adopted the same stance.

Taxpayers League is opposed

One group that is actively opposing the initiative is the Taxpayers League of Minnesota.

On Thursday (Sept. 25) they announced a radio ad campaign and also welcomed the conservative Minnesota Farm Bureau into the ranks of opponents.

The Farm Bureau has about 30,000 members.

"We feel this is a tremendous abuse of the constitution, for it creates basically a slush fund for a lot of special interest groups to have their money to spend on pet projects,” said former U.S. Sen. Rod Grams, chairman of the No Constitutional Tax Increase Campaign.

Taxpayers League President Phil Krinkie indicated that the league will be outspent by amendment advocates.

"We're looking at a campaign that will be in the tens of thousands of dollars, not in the millions of dollars,” he said.

If passed, the constitutional amendment would slate 33 percent of the new sales tax revenue to clean water, another third to game, fish and wildlife habitat, about 20 percent to arts and culture and about 14 percent to parks and trails.

(Photos by T.W. Budig, ECM Capitol Reporter)