MINNEAPOLIMEDIA EDITORIAL | Every Minnesota Legislative Seat Is on the Ballot. Neither Party Deserves Power Without a Governing Plan

Minnesotans will elect all 201 members of the state Legislature on November 3. Candidates asking for control of the House and Senate must explain how they will govern, what they will fund, what they will change and what taxpayers will be expected to pay.

By the MinneapoliMedia Editorial Board

MINNEAPOLIS, MN (October 14, 2026).

Twenty days remain before Minnesotans decide who will control the state Legislature, and the importance of that decision extends well beyond the names printed on individual district ballots.

Every seat in the Minnesota House and Senate is up for election on November 3. Voters will choose 134 state representatives and 67 state senators. Those 201 contests will determine which party writes the state budget, controls legislative committees, decides which bills receive hearings and establishes the direction of state policy for the next two years.

The margins could hardly be closer.

The last legislative session ended with the House divided 67–67 between Democrats and Republicans. The DFL holds a 34–33 advantage in the Senate. A House majority requires 68 seats. A Senate majority requires 34. A small number of competitive districts could therefore determine whether one party gains complete control, whether the chambers remain divided or whether another form of negotiated power sharing becomes necessary.

These are not procedural details relevant only to Capitol insiders. Legislative control will affect public schools, special education, health care, child care, housing, transportation, public safety, fraud prevention, property taxes, environmental regulation and the services Minnesota provides to older residents and people with disabilities.

The election will also determine who confronts a state budget that appears comfortable in the near term but becomes increasingly difficult beyond the current biennium. Minnesota Management and Budget projects a $3.7 billion balance for fiscal years 2026 and 2027. For the following biennium, however, the projected balance falls to $377 million, while spending growth is expected to continue outpacing revenue growth.

That is not an immediate fiscal collapse, but neither is it permission for candidates to promise everything without explaining the cost. The next Legislature will inherit limited financial room, substantial obligations and growing demands from communities across the state.

Neither party should be given control on the strength of slogans, national political grievances or accusations against the other side. Candidates seeking legislative power must provide a credible governing plan. They must identify their priorities, disclose their tradeoffs and explain how their proposals will be financed.

Minnesotans deserve to know what will happen after the campaign signs come down.

A Close Election Is Not a Governing Plan

The narrow division at the Capitol has encouraged both parties to frame the election as an emergency.

Democrats warn that Republican control could threaten education funding, reproductive rights, labor protections, environmental standards and public services. Republicans argue that continued DFL power would produce higher spending, weak oversight, additional taxes and inadequate accountability for fraud.

Voters should examine those warnings carefully, but fear of the opposing party is not a substitute for a governing program.

A candidate who spends an entire campaign describing the dangers of the other side has still not explained what he or she will do in office. Opposition can mobilize voters, but it cannot balance a budget, administer a state agency or resolve a special education funding gap.

The DFL must defend its record in measurable terms. Democratic candidates should explain which programs enacted during the party’s period of unified control remain financially sustainable, which commitments require adjustment and how state agencies will be held accountable when oversight fails. They cannot treat every existing appropriation as untouchable while claiming that every new demand can also be funded.

Republicans have an equally serious obligation. They cannot rely solely on anger about fraud, taxes and DFL management. Candidates promising to reduce spending must identify the programs they would cut, the administrative structures they would eliminate and the local costs that might follow. A reduction in state spending does not automatically become a savings for taxpayers if counties, cities and school districts must raise property taxes to provide the same required services.

Both parties should state which responsibilities belong to state government, how those responsibilities will be financed and how the public will measure whether the work was completed.

A governing plan does not require candidates to predict every economic change or emergency. It does require them to establish priorities and acknowledge limits.

Minnesota’s Budget Requires Honest Accounting

The Legislature’s most consequential responsibility is the state budget.

Minnesota adopts a two-year budget covering education, health and human services, transportation, courts, corrections, public safety, environmental protection and the operation of state government. Most major programs rely heavily on the General Fund, which receives revenue from individual income taxes, corporate taxes, sales taxes and other sources.

Minnesota’s current balance provides a measure of stability, but the longer-term forecast should restrain campaign promises. The projected balance of $377 million for fiscal years 2028 and 2029 is small in relation to a state budget measured in tens of billions of dollars. It could be erased by an economic downturn, higher health care costs, federal funding reductions, emergency spending or a forecasting error.

The next Legislature must decide whether existing commitments can be sustained within projected revenue. If not, lawmakers will face three basic choices: raise revenue, reduce spending or redesign programs.

Candidates should be candid about which option they prefer.

Promises to cut taxes should be accompanied by a list of the services or expenditures that would be reduced. Proposals for new programs should include reliable cost estimates and permanent funding sources. Commitments to local governments should explain whether the state will provide continuing support or leave communities responsible for future operating costs.

One-time money should not be used to disguise recurring obligations. Temporary surpluses can finance construction, infrastructure, debt reduction and other limited commitments. They should not create permanent expenses that become unaffordable when revenue growth slows.

Minnesota has experienced the political ease of approving programs during periods of large surpluses. The more difficult work begins when lawmakers must decide which commitments deserve protection and which must change.

That work will fall to the legislators elected on November 3.

Fraud Oversight Requires More Than Campaign Anger

Fraud and state program oversight have become central issues in the election. That is appropriate.

Minnesotans have watched criminal investigations, prosecutions and audits expose serious weaknesses in programs involving public money. Those failures have harmed taxpayers and damaged confidence in services intended for children, families, patients and vulnerable residents.

Every dollar stolen through fraud is a dollar unavailable for legitimate public needs. State agencies have a duty to verify eligibility, monitor providers, investigate warning signs and stop payments when credible evidence of abuse emerges.

Political accountability is warranted when agencies fail to act. So are legislative hearings, independent audits, stronger controls and criminal prosecution where the evidence supports it.

The subject, however, has also attracted inflated estimates, partisan accusations and campaign claims that do not distinguish between alleged fraud, documented losses, improper payments and total program spending. Candidates should not use the scale of a program as though it were proof that the entire amount was stolen.

A serious anti-fraud plan should specify how agencies will verify providers before issuing payments, how information will be shared across departments, how suspicious billing patterns will be detected and which officials will be responsible for responding to warnings.

The Legislature should ensure that inspectors general and internal auditors possess sufficient authority, independence and staffing. Agencies should be required to document their responses to audit findings. Lawmakers should also establish clear procedures for suspending payments when credible evidence indicates that public funds are being diverted.

Oversight cannot become an excuse to prevent eligible residents from obtaining essential services. A program can protect public money without treating every recipient as a suspect. The objective is competent administration, not indiscriminate denial.

Republicans are correct to insist that fraud failures receive sustained attention. Their responsibility is to move beyond outrage and present operational reforms. Democrats are correct to warn against using fraud as a pretext for dismantling the social safety net. Their responsibility is to acknowledge the failures plainly and establish stronger enforcement.

Neither party should be permitted to avoid its side of that obligation.

Public Schools Need More Than Campaign Sympathy

Education will remain one of the largest responsibilities facing the next Legislature.

School districts are managing higher labor costs, transportation expenses, aging buildings, declining enrollment in some communities, growing student mental health needs and continuing special education obligations. Federal and state reimbursements do not always cover the full cost of mandated services, leaving districts to move money from general classroom budgets.

Candidates routinely describe public education as a priority. That phrase has little meaning unless accompanied by a funding plan.

Legislative candidates should explain whether they support adjusting the basic education formula for inflation, how they would address special education costs and what expectations they would place on districts receiving additional money. They should also state how they would handle declining enrollment, building maintenance, student transportation and differences between the needs of urban, suburban and rural districts.

The November ballot includes a proposed amendment to the Minnesota Constitution concerning the Permanent School Fund. The fund is supported by assets associated with school trust lands and is managed as a permanent financial resource for public schools.

The proposed amendment would change the constitutional framework governing the fund’s management and annual distributions. Its stated purpose is to increase funding distributed to school districts while preserving the fund’s purchasing power and balancing the interests of current and future students.

The amendment deserves careful examination on its own terms. It should not be marketed as a complete answer to Minnesota’s school funding challenges.

Permanent School Fund distributions make up only one part of education finance. The constitutional proposal will not eliminate district budget pressures, settle special education obligations or replace the Legislature’s duty to fund schools through the regular budget process.

Voters must also understand the amendment’s unusual voting rule. Under Minnesota law, a constitutional amendment must receive the approval of a majority of all voters participating in the election. Leaving the amendment blank has the same practical effect as voting no.

Public officials and campaigns should communicate that rule clearly before Election Day.

Property Taxes Reveal the Cost of State Decisions

Property taxes remain a source of concern across Minnesota, but candidates often discuss them without explaining the relationship between state policy and local tax bills.

Counties, cities and school districts rely on property taxes to finance local services. Their budgets are affected by inflation, employee compensation, public safety costs, road maintenance, emergency services, housing pressures and state mandates.

When the Legislature reduces aid, fails to keep pace with mandated costs or shifts responsibilities to local governments, local officials must either reduce services or raise additional revenue. That often appears on a homeowner’s property tax statement rather than in the state budget.

State lawmakers cannot claim credit for holding down state taxes while quietly transferring expenses to cities, counties and school districts.

Candidates promising property tax relief should identify the mechanism. They should explain whether relief will come through local government aid, county program aid, school funding, targeted credits, levy limits or changes to property classification.

They should also disclose who benefits. A broad reduction may provide substantial savings to owners of expensive property while offering less meaningful relief to households with modest homes. Targeted relief can reach households experiencing the greatest pressure but may require additional administrative work and income verification.

There is room for legitimate disagreement about the best approach. There is no justification for pretending that local property taxes operate independently of decisions made at the Capitol.

Housing Policy Must Reach Beyond the Twin Cities

Minnesota’s housing shortage affects large cities, suburban communities and rural regions, although the problem takes different forms in each place.

In Minneapolis and Saint Paul, high rents and insufficient affordable housing place pressure on working families and residents with low incomes. Growing suburbs need housing at a range of prices so teachers, health care workers, retail employees and public safety personnel can live near their jobs.

Rural communities may have available land but face high construction costs, limited infrastructure, aging housing and difficulty attracting developers. Employers in Greater Minnesota cannot expand if workers cannot find suitable places to live.

The Legislature influences housing through tax policy, infrastructure funding, bonding, rental assistance, homelessness programs and the rules governing development. Local governments retain authority over zoning and land use, but state decisions can either support or complicate local efforts.

Candidates should explain how they would increase housing production without ignoring affordability, neighborhood infrastructure and local planning. They should state whether they support incentives for local zoning reform, additional assistance for first-time buyers, preservation of existing affordable housing or expanded support for people experiencing homelessness.

They should also identify costs. Public subsidies can help make difficult projects financially possible, but they must be transparent, limited and tied to enforceable public benefits.

Housing cannot be solved through a single appropriation or campaign slogan. It requires coordination among state government, local communities, builders, nonprofit organizations, lenders and employers. The Legislature should establish a practical framework that respects local differences while acknowledging that the shortage has statewide consequences.

Health Care and Human Services Demand Competent Administration

A large share of Minnesota’s budget supports health care and human services. Those programs serve children, older Minnesotans, people with disabilities, low-income families and residents requiring mental health or substance use treatment.

They are also administratively complex and vulnerable to rising costs, workforce shortages, billing abuse and federal policy changes.

The next Legislature must address access to mental health care, the stability of rural hospitals and clinics, long-term care staffing, disability services and the affordability of insurance and prescription drugs. It must do so while strengthening the systems that determine provider eligibility, process claims and monitor public spending.

Cuts made without understanding the delivery system can remove legitimate services and shift costs elsewhere. Spending increases approved without sufficient controls can create opportunities for waste and fraud.

Candidates should reject that false choice. Minnesota can provide necessary care and enforce rigorous financial oversight at the same time.

The state should be able to identify whether a provider exists, whether a service was delivered, whether the billing is consistent with the patient’s needs and whether patterns suggest coordinated abuse. It should also pay legitimate providers promptly enough to keep essential services available.

That requires capable agency leadership, modern information systems, trained investigators and consistent legislative supervision. It requires lawmakers who will examine implementation rather than treating passage of a bill as the completion of their responsibility.

Public Safety Cannot Be Reduced to a Slogan

Public safety will remain prominent in legislative campaigns. Voters should expect more than generalized promises to be tough on crime or broad assertions that reform alone will produce safer communities.

The Legislature finances courts, corrections, public defenders, prosecutors, crime laboratories and parts of Minnesota’s emergency response system. It sets criminal penalties, establishes law enforcement standards and provides assistance to local governments.

A serious public safety policy must consider police staffing, officer recruitment, emergency response times, violent crime investigations, domestic violence, youth intervention, treatment, probation, prison capacity and the successful return of people leaving incarceration.

Candidates should explain how their proposals affect the entire system. Increasing penalties without funding courts, public defenders and correctional capacity can produce backlogs. Expanding diversion and treatment without adequate supervision can leave programs unable to protect participants or the public.

Police accountability and effective law enforcement are not opposing objectives. Minnesotans should expect officers to receive proper training, operate under clear rules and respond quickly when residents need help. They should also expect misconduct to be investigated and constitutional rights to be respected.

The next Legislature should approach public safety as an operational responsibility rather than a source of campaign imagery.

A Small Number of Districts May Decide Control

Although every legislative district matters, control may be determined by a relatively small group of closely contested races.

Competitive districts extend from northeastern and central Minnesota to the Twin Cities suburbs and the Rochester area. They include communities that have changed politically, districts decided by narrow margins and open seats where incumbency offers no advantage.

In the northwestern part of the metropolitan area, Senate District 35 includes Anoka, Andover and part of Coon Rapids. Republican Senator Jim Abeler won the district by only 186 votes in 2022 and is facing DFL challenger Angela Nelson. The two House districts nested within that Senate district also feature competitive contests.

Nearby Senate District 32 includes Blaine, Columbus, Ham Lake and Lexington. Republican Senator Michael Kreun is running against DFL challenger Chris Ford. The district’s House races are also drawing attention, including the contest between DFL Representative Matt Norris and Republican Leslie Larson.

Senate District 41, covering parts of Washington and Dakota counties, is another rematch. DFL Senator Judy Seeberger defeated Republican Tom Dippel by 321 votes in 2022. Both House districts within the Senate district are considered competitive.

In Shakopee, DFL Representative Brad Tabke is again facing Republican Aaron Paul in House District 54A. The 2024 result was decided by 14 votes, a margin small enough to demonstrate that individual participation is not a civic abstraction.

Other consequential contests include open seats in the St. Cloud area, an open Senate seat around Rochester and closely watched races in northeastern Minnesota, Maple Grove, the western suburbs and communities near the Wisconsin border.

These contests should not be treated merely as pieces on a statewide partisan scoreboard. Each district has its own economic conditions, school needs, infrastructure concerns and public safety questions.

Candidates must answer to the people they seek to represent, not only to party leaders and campaign organizations in Saint Paul.

Outside spending will attempt to define many of these races through television advertising, mailers, text messages and digital campaigns. Voters should distinguish between claims made by candidates and attacks funded by organizations that may not disclose their interests clearly in the advertisement itself.

The closer the race, the greater the temptation to simplify an opponent’s record into a misleading accusation. Local journalism, public forums, candidate questionnaires and legislative records remain essential tools for evaluating those claims.

Power Sharing Has Shown Both Possibility and Limitation

The tied House required Democrats and Republicans to operate under a power-sharing arrangement. That experience demonstrated that a closely divided Legislature can still conduct business, but it also exposed the instability that follows when neither party possesses a clear majority.

Shared control can force negotiation. It can prevent one party from advancing major legislation without support from the other. It can also create overlapping authority, procedural disputes and uncertainty about who is accountable when work stalls.

Divided government is not inherently dysfunctional. Minnesota has enacted significant legislation under split control in the past. Productive divided government, however, depends on leaders who accept that compromise is part of governing rather than evidence of surrender.

If voters return another closely divided Legislature, both parties must be prepared to establish transparent operating rules, respect committee procedures and negotiate budgets before deadlines become crises.

If one party wins control of both chambers, that party should not interpret a narrow electoral victory as permission to disregard the millions of Minnesotans who voted differently. A one-seat majority carries legal authority, but it does not eliminate the need for public hearings, minority participation and careful scrutiny.

The structure of power may change on November 3. The obligation to govern responsibly will not.

Candidates Must Explain Their First Budget

Every legislative candidate should be prepared to describe the first budget he or she would support.

That explanation should identify the programs that receive priority if revenue falls below expectations. It should state whether the candidate would consider tax increases, spending reductions, reserve withdrawals or changes to existing commitments.

Candidates should explain how they will protect school districts from unfunded mandates and whether they support additional state responsibility for special education. They should address fraud prevention through specific administrative reforms rather than unsupported totals and generalized blame.

They should describe how the state can expand housing, preserve health care access and prevent local property taxes from becoming the hidden financing mechanism for state obligations.

They should also identify what they would not support. Governing requires refusal as well as approval. A candidate unwilling to state any limit is asking voters to accept promises that cannot all be honored.

Legislators should publish their priorities before the session, not disclose them only after leadership has assembled a closed-door agreement. Committee hearings should provide enough time for the public, local officials and affected organizations to understand proposed changes.

Major bills should receive clear fiscal estimates. Policy provisions should not be buried in hundreds of pages of unrelated legislation. Final agreements should be available for public review before lawmakers vote.

Those standards should apply regardless of which party holds the majority.

The Permanent School Fund Question Deserves a Direct Vote

The constitutional amendment on the November ballot requires separate attention from the legislative races.

Its ballot title is “Increasing funding to school districts.” The question asks whether the Minnesota Constitution should be amended to increase distributions to school districts from the Permanent School Fund without raising individual income or property taxes, effective July 1, 2027.

The proposal would move the fund toward an annual distribution method based on a percentage of its average value while requiring preservation of its purchasing power over time.

Supporters argue that the change would make more money available to schools and modernize the way the fund is managed. Voters should also consider the responsibility to preserve the fund for future generations and the authority the amendment gives lawmakers to establish the distribution policy.

The wording deserves more examination than its appealing title might initially suggest. Voters should review the official amendment text, the proposed distribution formula and the long-term projections before deciding.

Whatever conclusion a voter reaches, the question should not be left blank by accident. A blank vote counts against adoption.

Election officials, campaigns, schools and news organizations should make that consequence clear.

Neither Party Is Entitled to Legislative Control

Minnesota Democrats can point to programs they believe have improved family finances, education, worker protections and access to public services. They must also answer for the cost of those commitments, the performance of state agencies and failures of oversight.

Minnesota Republicans can point to concerns about fraud, affordability, taxes and the growth of government. They must also explain which public services they would preserve, how their reductions would work and whether their proposals would transfer costs to local taxpayers.

Neither party is entitled to power because the other has made mistakes. Neither deserves control simply because national political conditions favor its candidates. Legislative authority must be earned through credible plans and responsible candidates.

Voters should resist campaigns that ask them to choose solely on the basis of party identity. They should examine attendance, committee work, public statements, financial interests, campaign support and the ability of candidates to answer specific questions.

Incumbents should be judged on their records. Challengers should be judged on the quality and practicality of their alternatives. Candidates from minor parties and independent candidates should be held to the same standard.

The Legislature is not a stage for permanent campaigning. It is the institution responsible for converting public priorities into law and for deciding how public money is collected and spent.

Minnesota Needs a Legislature Prepared to Govern

The November 3 election will determine more than which party receives better offices or controls the legislative calendar.

It will determine who writes Minnesota’s next budget and how lawmakers respond when projected spending begins to exceed projected revenue. It will decide the direction of state oversight, school funding, housing, health care, property tax policy and public safety.

All 201 legislative seats are on the ballot. The House is within one seat of either party’s control. The Senate is divided by one seat. In several districts, recent elections have been decided by hundreds of votes, dozens of votes or fewer.

Minnesotans should use the remaining days of the campaign to demand direct answers.

Candidates should state what they will fund, what they will change, what they will reject and how they will pay for their commitments. They should explain how their decisions will affect state taxpayers, local governments, school districts and the residents who rely on public services.

The DFL should not receive legislative control merely by warning voters about Republicans. Republicans should not receive it merely by condemning Democrats. Both parties must demonstrate that they understand the state’s finances, accept the responsibility of oversight and possess a workable plan for governing.

The ballot will determine which candidates enter the Capitol. It cannot guarantee that they will govern well.

That part depends on whether Minnesotans insist, before voting, that those seeking power explain what they intend to do with it.

❤️ SUPPORT MINNEAPOLIMEDIA

---

STAY CONNECTED TO MINNEAPOLIMEDIA

Local stories matter. Subscribe free to MinneapoliMedia and receive independent news, community reporting and important updates from Minneapolis, the North Metro and communities across Minnesota.

SUBSCRIBE FREE: https://minneapolimedia.town.news/subscribe

MinneapoliMedia | Community. Culture. Civic Life