Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Minnesota Board to Set State Legislative Salaries, Amendment 1 (2016)
| Minnesota Amendment 1 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 8, 2016 | |
| Topic Salaries of government officials | |
Status Approved | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin State legislature |
| 2016 measures |
|---|
 |
| November 8 |
| Amendment 1 |
| Polls |
| Voter guides |
| Campaign finance |
| Signature costs |
The Minnesota Board to Set State Legislative Salaries, Amendment 1 was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Minnesota as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment.[1] It was approved.
| A "yes" vote supported creating a bi-partisan board to set the salaries of state legislators with half the members appointed by the governor and half the members appointed by chief justice and with members split between the two political parties with the most legislators. |
| A "no" vote opposed creating an independent bi-partisan board to set the salaries of state legislators, thereby continuing to allow legislators to determine their own salaries. |
Aftermath
Council sets salaries in 2017
Amendment 1 established the Legislative Salary Council. On March 10, 2017, the council decided to increase the salaries of state legislators from $31,140 to $45,000 per year. The last increase was in 1998.[2] Rep. Kurt Daudt (R-31A), the speaker of the House, said the $14,000 increase was too high. He added, "For us to accept that pay, when others are not getting that sort of pay increase, really would be wrong."[3] On March 16, 2017, Speaker Daudt directed payroll staff not to increase salaries.[4]
Sen. Paul Gazelka (R-9), the Senate majority leader, responded, "I don’t see any way around a constitutionally directed mandate." Joseph Boyle, a member of the Legislative Salary Council, said, "There is no leeway anymore with the Legislature. That is the responsibility that the citizens of the state gave us under the constitutional amendment."[5] Speaker Daudt said he received legal opinions that the increase was binding and other legal opinions that "said you can argue that it is up to the Legislature to appropriate the money." He continued, "And we believe we have the ability to appropriate or choose whether we appropriate it or not."[3]
On March 17, 2017, the Legislative Salary Council set the salary increase to take effect in July 2017.[5]
On July 23, 2017, Speaker Daudt said he was allowing the salary increase to go into effect.[6]
Gov. Dayton defunds the legislature
On May 30, 2017, Gov. Mark Dayton (D) vetoed the state legislature's operating budget.[7] Gov. Dayton said he vetoed the legislature's budget because he wanted the Republican-controlled legislature to negotiate tax freezes with him.[8]
On June 5, 2017, the Association for Government Accountability filed a lawsuit against Gov. Dayton in the Second Judicial District. Erick Kaardal, the attorney for the group, said Amendment 1 prohibited the governor from defunding legislators' salaries.[9]
Election results
| Amendment 1 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 2,265,835 | 76.3% | ||
| No | 536,272 | 18.1% | ||
- Election results from Minnesota Secretary of State
- Note: The percentages above do not add up to 100 percent because of ballots that were cast on which Amendment 1 was left blank. The percentages displayed are the percentages of all ballots cast in the election because the "yes" votes must equal a majority of all votes cast.
Overview
Amendment design
The proposal was designed to create a commission of 16 members, eight appointed by the governor and eight appointed by the chief justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court.[10]
State Representative Jason Metsa (D-6B) and State Senator Kent Eken (D-4) were the constitutional amendment's chief authors.[11]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The official ballot title was as follows:[12][13]
| “ |
Remove Lawmakers' Power to Set Their Own Pay[14] |
” |
Ballot summary
The official ballot text was as follows:[12][13][15]
| “ |
Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to remove state lawmakers' power to set their own salaries, and instead establish an independent, citizens-only council to prescribe salaries of lawmakers? Yes ..... No .....[14] |
” |
Constitutional changes
- See also: Article IV, Minnesota Constitution
Amendment 1 amended Section 9 of Article IV of the Minnesota Constitution to read as follows:[13]
Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.
Support
Officials
The following officials sponsored Amendment 1:[11]
- Rep. Jason Metsa (D-6B)
- Sen. Kent Eken (D-4)
Arguments
Sen. Kent Eken (D-4), who sponsored Amendment 1 in the Minnesota Senate, said:[10]
- The amendment would solve the “conflict of interest problem” inherent in compensation issues. He said, “We shouldn’t be spending our time here debating what our pay should be.”
- “I have always felt that money shouldn’t be the reason people run for office. But it shouldn’t be the reason that people leave public office, either. The pay should be adequate so that regular people have the opportunity to serve.”
Shannon Watson, founder of Definitely Someday, wrote the following in support of Amendment 1:[16]
| “ | This proposal is the most effective way to deal with an enormous conflict of interest that currently exists in our legislature. Taking the responsibility and the privilege of setting legislative salaries off of the House and Senate floor is appropriate. Giving this power to a citizen board will ensure that pay for our elected officials is reasonable, realistic, and representative of the will of the people.[14] | ” |
Opposition
Opponents
House
The following legislators voted "nay" on HF 3169 during its final reading in the Minnesota House of Representatives:[17]
|
Senate
The following legislators voted "nay" on HF 3169 during its final reading in the Minnesota State Senate:[18]
|
Organizations
- Libertarian Party of Minnesota[19]
- Voter's Point of View[20]
Arguments
- The Libertarian Party of Minnesota said the following in a statement:[19]
| “ |
We believe that allowing the executive branch to determine legislative pay would give the position of governor too much power. [...] We believe that this Amendment moves Minnesota in an anti-liberty direction. Voters must not be fooled by the terms “independent” and “citizens-only” in the proposal’s wording. This proposal takes power from the hands of individual voters–who can now hold their legislators accountable on election day–and shifts it to the governor through his or her unelected appointees. Therefore, we recommend that Minnesotans vote “No” to this Constitutional Amendment on November 8.[14] |
” |
- Sen. Torrey Westrom (R-12), said the following in opposition to Amendment 1:[21]
| “ |
I think the concern is that voters will see it as a way to say 'no' to pay raises or what they might perceive as pay raises for legislators. [...] But if they vote for the amendment, they will actually be voting to put this in a third-party's hands, making it probably easier for pay raises to go through.[14] |
” |
- John Rouleau, executive director of the Minnesota Jobs Coalition, also discussed the amendment legislation's potential to give legislators a pay raise, saying the following:[22]
| “ |
It was an egregious attempt to use a backdoor on their own pay.[14] |
” |
- Voter's Point of View posted the following on its website:[20]
| “ |
The deceptive title of the amendment sounds very enticing to voters who would love to “Remove Lawmakers’ Power to Set Their Own Pay.” But if this amendment passes, those same lawmakers are practically guaranteed a raise by an appointed, unaccountable and very partisan council. Vote NO on this amendment.[14] |
” |
- Richard Hansen, a Faribault resident, wrote the following in a letter to the editor:[23]
| “ |
Does any reasonable person believe in such a sleazy process? As the Minneapolis Star Tribune reports, California went to such a pay raise commission and now the pay of legislators has skyrocketed to $90,000 a year – plus $141 for each day the legislature is in session. Minnesota legislators are currently at $31,500 a year. Do Minnesotans really want to see the pay of legislators triple? [...] I urge Minnesotans to vote no on the legislative pay raise constitutional amendment. Legislators should have the courage to make the pay raise decision themselves and face the consequences.[14] |
” |
Campaign finance
| Total campaign contributions: | |
| Support: | $0.00 |
| Opposition: | $0.00 |
As of February 17, 2017, there were no committees registered to support or oppose Amendment 1.[24]
Media editorials
Support
- ECM Publishers wrote the following in support of Amendment 1:[25]
| “ |
In the interest of making legislative service more economically viable and sustainable for a broad range of Minnesotans, we support a “yes” vote on the amendment. (Remember, leaving the ballot unmarked amounts to a “no” vote on constitutional amendments.) Arguably, legislators should be brave and responsible enough to use their constitutional power to set a reasonable, professional salary without dragging politics into it. Equally arguable is that citizens are empowered to fix their constitution when circumstances show it needs fixing. That time has come.[14] |
” |
Opposition
- The Pioneer Press editorial board wrote the following in opposition to Amendment 1:[26]
| “ |
With no organized campaigns either supporting or opposing the matter, it could take many voters by surprise. That’s unfortunate. Minnesotans should answer this ballot question — the only one on the general election ballot — with a “No.” [...] Accountability is a focal point of argument against the amendment. Critics say it cedes power to the council and would give lawmakers a pay bump without making the officials take responsibility for the decision, the Pioneer Press’ Rachel Stassen-Berger wrote this week. [...] If that pay increase is due, lawmakers should answer for it directly. Accountability should remain with them.[14] |
” |
Neutral
- The Post Bulletin editorial board said that lawmakers' pay was an important issue and that voters should take their time when deciding Amendment 1, writing the following:[27]
| “ |
We're not saying lawmakers need a drastic boost in pay, but we do note that there should be some way to ensure the rate is in keeping with expectations and sets a level that helps ensure more would-be candidates can participate. Setting the pay of elected officials can be a tricky prospect, and considering the option is a weighty task. Because of that, we encourage all voters to take time to look up the actual amendment being proposed and make their own decisions. We'll link the full amendment in this editorial online. As we have encouraged with all races, take time to consider the options and then vote.[14] |
” |
Path to the ballot
- See also: Amending the Minnesota Constitution
In order to refer proposed amendments to the ballot they must be agreed on by a majority of the members of each chamber of the Minnesota State Legislature. The Minnesota House of Representatives passed Amendment 1 with a 69-62 vote on May 17, 2014.[28] The Minnesota State Senate sent Amendment 1 on to the ballot with a 43-23 vote on May 20, 2014.[1][29]
House vote
May 8, 2014 House vote
| Minnesota HF 1823 House Vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 69 | 52.27% | ||
| No | 63 | 47.72% | ||
Senate vote
May 13, 2014 Senate vote
| Minnesota HF 1823 Senate Vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 40 | 61.54% | ||
| No | 25 | 38.46% | ||
State profile
| Demographic data for Minnesota | ||
|---|---|---|
| Minnesota | U.S. | |
| Total population: | 5,482,435 | 316,515,021 |
| Land area (sq mi): | 79,627 | 3,531,905 |
| Race and ethnicity** | ||
| White: | 84.8% | 73.6% |
| Black/African American: | 5.5% | 12.6% |
| Asian: | 4.4% | 5.1% |
| Native American: | 1% | 0.8% |
| Pacific Islander: | 0% | 0.2% |
| Two or more: | 2.7% | 3% |
| Hispanic/Latino: | 5% | 17.1% |
| Education | ||
| High school graduation rate: | 92.4% | 86.7% |
| College graduation rate: | 33.7% | 29.8% |
| Income | ||
| Median household income: | $61,492 | $53,889 |
| Persons below poverty level: | 12.2% | 11.3% |
| Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Minnesota. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here. | ||
Presidential voting pattern
- See also: Presidential voting trends in Minnesota
Minnesota voted for the Democratic candidate in all seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.
Pivot Counties (2016)
Ballotpedia identified 206 counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these Pivot Counties by more than 580,000 votes. Of these 206 counties, 19 are located in Minnesota, accounting for 9.22 percent of the total pivot counties.[30]
Pivot Counties (2020)
In 2020, Ballotpedia re-examined the 206 Pivot Counties to view their voting patterns following that year's presidential election. Ballotpedia defined those won by Trump won as Retained Pivot Counties and those won by Joe Biden (D) as Boomerang Pivot Counties. Nationwide, there were 181 Retained Pivot Counties and 25 Boomerang Pivot Counties. Minnesota had 15 Retained Pivot Counties and four Boomerang Pivot Counties, accounting for 8.29 and 16.00 percent of all Retained and Boomerang Pivot Counties, respectively.
More Minnesota coverage on Ballotpedia
- Elections in Minnesota
- United States congressional delegations from Minnesota
- Public policy in Minnesota
- Endorsers in Minnesota
- Minnesota fact checks
- More...
Related measures
2016
No measures concerning Salaries of government officials are certified for the ballot in 2016. They will be listed below if and when any are certified for the ballot.
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Minnesota Board to Set State Legislative Salaries amendment 2016. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 CBS Minnesota, "Measure on Minn. lawmaker pay now on 2016 ballot," May 20, 2013
- ↑ Minneapolis Star Tribune, "Minn. lawmakers get a $14,000 pay raise, their first in 18 years," March 10, 2017
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Minneapolis Star Tribune, "House Speaker Kurt Daudt moves to block legislative pay increases," March 16, 2017
- ↑ U.S. News, "Minnesota House Speaker Moves to Block Lawmaker Pay Raises," March 16, 2017
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Minnesota Public Radio, "Lawmaker pay panel sticks with $45K; court fight ahead?" March 17, 2017
- ↑ KARE 11, "Speaker Kurt Daudt relents on pay raises," July 22, 2017
- ↑ Minneapolis Star Tribune, "Constitutional fight escalates between Gov. Mark Dayton, Legislature," June 1, 2017
- ↑ Twin Cities Pioneer Press, "Mark Dayton vetoed the Legislature’s funding. Was it constitutional?" June 1, 2017
- ↑ Minneapolis Star Tribune, "Conservative group sues Dayton over defunding of Legislature," June 5, 2017
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 Minn Post, "Minnesota’s legislators: Are they underpaid?" March 24, 2013
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 Minnesota State Legislature, "HF 3169 Status in the House for the 88th Legislature (2013 - 2014)," accessed May 20, 2014
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 The Office of the Revisor of Statutes, "2014 Minnesota Session Laws," accessed September 6, 2016
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 Minnesota Secretary of State, "Constitutional Amendments," accessed September 6, 2016
- ↑ 14.00 14.01 14.02 14.03 14.04 14.05 14.06 14.07 14.08 14.09 14.10 14.11 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ The Office of the Revisor of Statutes, "Minnesota Session Laws," accessed March 3, 2014
- ↑ MinnPost, "You don’t get to vote on your own pay. Why should legislators?" September 20, 2016
- ↑ Minnesota House of Representatives, "H.F. No. 3169," May 8, 2014
- ↑ Minnesota State Senate, "Journal of the Senate," accessed September 6, 2016
- ↑ 19.0 19.1 Libertarian Party of Minnesota, "LPMN opposes Amendment on legislative pay," September 21, 2016
- ↑ 20.0 20.1 Voter's Point of View, "Vote No on the Constitutional Amendment Regarding Lawmakers' Pay," October 12, 2016
- ↑ MPRNews, "Here's the Minnesota referendum you haven't heard about," June 30, 2016
- ↑ Daily Globe, "Minnesota voters will decide legislative pay issue this year," October 2, 2016
- ↑ Faribault Daily News, "Vote 'no' on legislator pay raise amendment," November 1, 2016
- ↑ Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board, "Political Committee and Political Fund Lists," accessed November 4, 2016
- ↑ Sun Current, "Our viewpoint: Vote ‘yes’ on legislative salary amendment," October 7, 2016
- ↑ Pioneer Press, "Editorial: Legislators should set their own pay," October 6, 2016
- ↑ Post Bulletin, "Our View: Put opinions into action at ballot box," November 1, 2016
- ↑ Twin Cities Pioneer Press, "Minnesota House OKs seeking constitutional amendment on lawmaker pay council," May 17, 2014
- ↑ Open States, "HF 3169," accessed September 6, 2016
- ↑ The raw data for this study was provided by Dave Leip of Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections.
 |
State of Minnesota St. Paul (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
