Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

Minnesota House Bill HF2830 Compare Versions

Only one version of the bill is available at this time.

Old	New	Differences
1	1	1.1 A bill for an act
2	2	1.2 relating to state government; proposing an amendment to the Minnesota
3	3	1.3 Constitution, article IV, section 17, by amending the single subject and title clauses;
4	4	1.4 prohibiting bills from being amended in a way that changes the original purpose
5	5	1.5 of the bill.
6	6	1.6BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
7	7	1.7 Section 1. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSED.
8	8	1.8 An amendment to the Minnesota Constitution is proposed to the people. If the amendment
9	9	1.9is adopted, article IV, section 17, will read:
10	10	1.10 Sec. 17. No law shall A law must not embrace more than one subject, which shall must
11	11	1.11be expressed in its title. Each provision in a law must be directly and logically related to
12	12	1.12the single subject stated in the title. When determining whether a law embraces more than
13	13	1.13one subject, the court must narrowly construe what constitutes a direct and logical relation
14	14	1.14to the single subject.
15	15	1.15 On a bill's passage through either house of the legislature, a bill must not be amended
16	16	1.16in a manner that changes the original purpose of the bill. When determining whether an
17	17	1.17enacted bill serves the original purpose of the bill, the original purpose of the bill must be
18	18	1.18narrowly construed.
19	19	1.19 A Minnesota resident may bring an action alleging a violation of this section in district
20	20	1.20court without needing to demonstrate direct injury. If a provision in a law is deemed
21	21	1.21unconstitutional pursuant to this section, the act is void and unenforceable and the offending
22	22	1.22provision is not severable.
23	23	1Section 1.
24	24	REVISOR RSI/AC 25-0126101/22/25
25	25	State of Minnesota
26	26	This Document can be made available
27	27	in alternative formats upon request
28	28	HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
29	29	H. F. No. 2830
30	30	NINETY-FOURTH SESSION
31	31	Authored by Altendorf03/26/2025
32	32	The bill was read for the first time and referred to the Committee on State Government Finance and Policy 2.1 Sec. 2. SUBMISSION TO VOTERS.
33	33	2.2 (a) The proposed amendment must be submitted to the people at the 2026 general election.
34	34	2.3If ratified, the amendment is effective the day following ratification. The question submitted
35	35	2.4must be:
36	36	2.5 "Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to require each provision in a law be
37	37	2.6directly and logically related to a single subject; to prohibit a bill from being amended in a
38	38	2.7way that changes the original purpose of the bill; to require the new section to be narrowly
39	39	2.8construed; to allow a Minnesota resident to allege a violation; and to provide that if a law
40	40	2.9is unconstitutional under the new section, the entire law is void and unenforceable?
41	41	2.10 Yes ...................
42	42	"2.11 No ....................
43	43	2.12 (b) The title required under Minnesota Statutes, section 204D.15, subdivision 1, for the
44	44	2.13question submitted to the people under paragraph (a) must be: "Single Subject and Title
45	45	2.14Clause; Original Purpose."
46	46	2.15 Sec. 3. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND INTENT.
47	47	2.16 The legislature finds that the constitutional amendment proposed by this act furthers the
48	48	2.17important public interest of promoting public transparency by strengthening the single
49	49	2.18subject and title clause and by adding an original purpose clause. Moreover, the legislature
50	50	2.19finds that it is necessary to provide guidance on interpretation to the courts and to provide
51	51	2.20enforcement mechanisms.
52	52	2.21 The legislature finds that the practice of using omnibus bills with hundreds or thousands
53	53	2.22of provisions on multiple topics under the umbrellas of overly general titles is the antithesis
54	54	2.23of public transparency and has pushed the use of the single subject clause to the breaking
55	55	2.24point. The courts have infrequently found laws to be in violation of the single subject and
56	56	2.25title clauses, and have given deference to the legislature and its authority to act as an
57	57	2.26independent branch of government. The court has looked for and used "mere filaments" to
58	58	2.27string together pieces of a law into a single subject. The legislature finds that this deference
59	59	2.28and liberal construction provided by the court is no longer appropriate or desirable. The
60	60	2.29legislature intends to hold itself to a higher standard and to pass bills that are tightly related
61	61	2.30to a single subject and to define what constitutes a single subject narrowly. A single subject
62	62	2.31is one that has a direct and logical connection to a clearly articulated subject that is stated
63	63	2.32in the title of the bill.
64	64	2Sec. 3.
65	65	REVISOR RSI/AC 25-0126101/22/25 3.1 Further, the legislature finds that it undermines the goal of public transparency when
66	66	3.2the legislature amends a bill so that the bill deviates from its original purpose. To remedy
67	67	3.3this, the legislature determines that each bill must not deviate from its original purpose as
68	68	3.4the bill moves through the legislative process in the senate and house of representatives.
69	69	3.5By requiring a bill to remain true to its original purpose, it will allow the public to know
70	70	3.6the unchanging purpose of the bill throughout the entire legislative process. Further, this
71	71	3.7requirement will curtail practices that are not in the interest of public transparency, including
72	72	3.8but not limited to the practice of using a bill as a vehicle for amendments where the bill and
73	73	3.9amendments do not share the same original purpose; amending multiple omnibus bills onto
74	74	3.10a single bill where the bills do not all share the same original purpose; and combining bills
75	75	3.11and amendments with different original purposes in order to garner support for the bill. The
76	76	3.12legislature further finds that when determining what constitutes the original purpose of a
77	77	3.13bill, the legislature intends that the court will narrowly construe the original purpose of the
78	78	3.14bill. At the same time, the legislature does not intend to unreasonably hinder the legislative
79	79	3.15process by preventing amendments or substantive changes to a bill, so long as those
80	80	3.16amendments and changes remain true to the original purpose.
81	81	3.17 The legislature will diligently strive to meet the constitutional requirements of this act
82	82	3.18and to promote the public transparency interests associated with the requirements. The
83	83	3.19legislature intends to pass bills that include only provisions that are directly and logically
84	84	3.20related to the single subject in the title. Further, as a bill moves through the legislative
85	85	3.21process in both bodies of the legislature, the legislature intends that it will not amend the
86	86	3.22bill in such a way that the original purpose of that bill is changed. If the legislature fails at
87	87	3.23these goals, the legislature intends that the court will narrowly construe the single subject
88	88	3.24and title clause and the original purpose clause in favor of public transparency.
89	89	3Sec. 3.
90	90	REVISOR RSI/AC 25-0126101/22/25