I received an email from Senate staff regarding the results of the “non-scientific” State Fair Poll regarding the proposed constitutional amendment that will likely be on the ballot next year.
The Senate booth polled mostly metro citizens (nearly 80% of respondents). The question was the same as proposed for the ballot next year. 55% of respondents favored a 3/8th cent increase in the sales tax dedicated to environment and arts funding.
In contrast, the House of Representatives Booth had 50% more respondents and the question was simple to understand. Only 42% favored the Amendment in the House poll. If this result is accurate, then the Constitutional amendment will fail by a large margin.
It is my belief that the inclusion of dedicated arts funding will lose votes for the Constitutional amendment statewide. People favor dedicated funding for preserving wetlands, wild life habitat, clean water and other environmental activities. This is because there is a common understanding that the State has a fiduciary duty to preserve its natural resources. The same cannot be said for arts funding.
Here is the email from Senate Staff, describing the State Fair Polls.
Dedicated funding: Both the Senate and House booths at the State Fair asked the public what they thought about dedicated funding for the arts and environment.
*****The results are telling…
*****The House had 6,619 respondents and the Senate had 4,452, even though the booths were adjacent to each other in the same building. The Senate questions are much longer in their poll than the House questions. The Senate question is word for word on how the question would be on the ballot on November of 2007 (Conference Committee bill language on SF 6, HF 2285).
*****A total of 79.94 percent of the respondents to the Senate poll stated that they were either from Mpls/St. Paul or the metropolitan suburbs.
Senate Question posed at the state fair on dedicated funding: Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to dedicate funding to protect our drinking water sources; to protect, enhance, and restore our wetlands, prairies, forests, and fish, game, and wildlife habitat; to preserve our arts and cultural heritage; to support our parks and trails; and to protect, enhance, and restore our lakes, rivers, streams, and groundwater by increasing the sales and use tax rate beginning July 1, 2009 by three-eighths of one percent on taxable sales until the year 2034?
A. Yes. 55.08% (2452)
B. No. 36.10% (1607)
C. Undecided/No opinion. 8.83% (393)
House Question posed at the state fair on dedicated funding: Do you support a proposal to amend the state constitution to raise the state’s sales tax by three-eighths of 1 percent and dedicate the money to environment and arts funding?
Yes 41.7% (2,762)
No 48.7% (3,223)
Undecided/No Opinion 9.6% (634)
Special thanks to Dan Mueller, Senate Fiscal Analyst.
Why is there only One constitutional
amendment to cover both subjects?
What makes anyone think that the people
who go to a state fair represent all of
the people?
I don’t wish to see the people
be forced to support art. Art will
survive if it is worthy of any support
without the government.
As for support of the environment,
the govt has traditionally supported
non profit groups that educated the
public about issues and that seems
to work well, along with a partnership
of the private sector.
Senator Neuville:
The constitutional amendment is a bad idea. We elect legislators to make funding decisions. Embedding dedicated funding in the constitution — no matter what the initial reasons — invites more of the same. How about an amendment setting aside .065% for public safety? Cops and courts and jails and probation officers and public defenders are important, aren’t they? Or how about constitutionally dedicating funds to health care for all Minnesotans? It’s pretty hard to enjoy the outdoors or the arts when your sick or dying, right?
I say, leave the constitution alone. Our legislators should be capable of making these decisions and have to face the voters to justify those decisions, which feels like democracy to me, more democratic than making the constitution into a Christmas list.
Jim Haas
Tom,
Hi, I just looked at this and I think it is really interesting. Even though these two polls got different responses, I think the only one that you could count on as a fairly “accurate” prediction of future voting is the Senate poll - and that only because the wording is exactly as it would be on the ballot.
The rhetoric of these two questions is really interesting (and somewhat revealing), and personally I don’t think either even comes close to asking people if they are in favor of dedicated funding for the environment AND the arts. If you look at the House question, it almost seems dedicated to get negative responses by putting the idea of a tax (scary concept) as the first issue and then barely explaining what it would be used to fund. Many times whether people actually agree or not they probably responded no just because of the setup to the question. On the other hand, the Senate question (and it sounds like the eventual ballot wording) goes in the other direction by listing a huge string of almost universally accepted (at least by anyone with a heart) funding options (who wouldn’t want clean drinking water - the first in the list) and then buries the idea of a tax at the very end by the time people have stopped really reading or have already made up their mind based on the long list. It barely even mentions art, and then it says cultural heritage.
I just think it is pretty neat the way words, and the different use of words, can be so influential. And this looks like a pretty clear cut case.
I hope everything is good in Northfield!
Minnesota Fishing Communities Discuss Dedicated Funding and its Potential Impacts
(I-Newswire) - Minnesota Anglers are sharing mixed feelings regarding the proposed Dedicated Funding Amendment due on the ballot on November 4. The bill calls for a constitutional amendment raising the sales tax 3/8th of 1 percent and dedicate the $276 million in annual revenue to wildlife habitat, clean water, parks and the arts.
After a long 10 year battle the bill has finally found the legs to make its way to the ballot. While initially excited, some outdoor enthusiasts are critical of the spending proposal. Many remember the legislation passed for the state lottery in 1990 to be the miracle fix for the environment. Profits generated by the lottery were to fund the Game and Fish Fund, Natural Resources Fund and the Environmental Fund. Much of the lottery profit has been directed away from its intended environmental funds and Minnesotans are leary that history may repeat itself with the Dedicated Funding Bill.
The fishing community has gathered to discuss the issue in recent posts on My Fishing Pals’ message forum, a local Minnesota website dedicated to the free exchange of ideas on fishing related topics. While most support the bill, all want governmental accountability. While Minnesotans strive to be good stewards of the land, they hope the government becomes good stewards of their tax dollars.
My Fishing Pals ( www.myfishingpals.com ) originated in 2003 as a hobby-fishing site that welcomes Minnesota fishermen to share fishing reports, information, and other items related to fishing. In 2005 a controversial forum was created on the site so that Minnesota fishermen could address fishing and hunting issues. These controversial forums have become an avenue for hunters and fishermen to voice their opinions and concerns and, at times, defend traditional Minnesota values.