Minnesota Senate Bill SF945

Minnesota 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/30/23
• Refer: 1/30/23

Caption

Constitutional amendment proposition to allow owners of agricultural land, real property that is both nonhomesteaded and noncommercial, or small business property to vote on levy or bond referendums where the property is located

Impact

The passage of SF945 could modify the current voting landscape in Minnesota by expanding voting eligibility to certain landowners who may have previously been excluded due to non-residency. Supporters of the bill argue that property ownership should grant individuals a voice in local financial matters, as taxes and bonds directly affect the values and operations of their properties. This change could lead to greater participation from agricultural landowners and small business operators in local decisions, reflecting a shift towards inclusivity in the electoral process.

Summary

SF945 proposes an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution that allows owners of nonhomesteaded agricultural land, nonhomesteaded real property, and small business property to vote on local levy or bond referendums where their property is located, even if they do not reside in that precinct. This amendment is significant as it recognizes the interests of property owners in local financial matters, potentially increasing their influence in local governance and funding decisions. The proposal is expected to be submitted to voters during the general election in 2024.

Contention

However, there may be contention surrounding SF945. Critics could argue that this amendment undermines the principle of residency in voting, which is traditionally aimed at ensuring that those voting on local issues are directly impacted by local governance. Concerns may arise that this could lead to an imbalance in local elections where non-resident landowners have a proportionately larger say relative to local residents. Additionally, implications regarding how these changes would affect local financial policies and the dynamics between residents and absentee property owners may be points of debate leading up to the vote.