Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Minnesotans will see a constitutional amendment question on their ballot this election. Sadly, the question does not inform; it blows smoke. While asking whether we should continue to protect our natural environment, the question is language-engineered and blatantly omits what it really proposes to change. In the bill behind the question, money for things such as clean water projects is instead redirected to “research.” New language sets aside a lot of money for “grants,” and get this: It will be directed to those “historically overburdened by pollution.” Those giving out the grant money are unelected committee members. It gets better: Existing state legislative oversight and approval of committee decisions would be removed. And, instead of a typical 10-year “life,” this change would stand for 25 years. By voting “no” or by not voting on this question, you will help defeat it. Defeating this question doesn’t end funding for environmental projects. The current trust fund has a large balance, and there is more than enough time to write a much better ballot amendment if needed. If you don’t like being served word salad lacking truth, let that disapproval show as you vote the rest of your ballot. The “Democrat trifecta” in this state isn’t doing us any favors, to put it mildly.

Keith Eyler
Albert Lea