ST. PAUL -- The state's Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the proposed constitutional amendment regarding transportation funding will remain on the Nov. 7 election ballot.
The seven-member court denied a petition brought by mostly rural Minnesota officials who wanted the measure removed from the election. They said the question's wording is confusing and doesn't adequately explain what will result if the amendment is approved.
In issuing the order, Chief Justice Russell Anderson said a written opinion of the court would be forthcoming. That was not released Thursday.
Voters will be asked whether all of the state tax revenue from the sale of new and used vehicles should be constitutionally dedicated to transportation projects. Nearly half that money now is directed to other uses, such as education.
If the amendment is approved, at least 40 percent of the sales tax revenue would be earmarked for transit projects.
ADVERTISEMENT
The question voters will see on the ballot offers no guarantee of road funding, which concerns some legislators who think Twin Cities-area transit projects could get more money than highways around the state.
An attorney for the petitioners told the court during a Wednesday hearing that the wording isn't adequate.
""It's unclear and it's going to result in an uninformed electorate," attorney Doug Peine said.
The proposed amendment was passed by the Minnesota Legislature in 2005.
The ballot initiative was part of a larger transportation funding package that Gov. Tim Pawlenty vetoed, in part because the bill also included a gasoline tax increase.
However, the ballot measure survived Pawlenty's veto because under Minnesota law governors don't have authority to approve or reject proposed constitutional amendments.
During the 2006 legislative session, both the House and Senate voted to change the amendment's wording so that highways would be guaranteed exactly 60 percent of the funding, but there was no final resolution.
Amendment supporters, which include many business and construction groups, have promoted the measure as a way to secure more transportation funding without raising taxes. Its passage would mean an additional $300 million per year for transportation projects.
ADVERTISEMENT
The petitioners were disappointed but not entirely surprised by the ruling.
"I wasn't at all sure that the Supreme Court was going to go along with the petition," said Sen. Keith Langseth, a Glyndon DFL'er. "I think we achieved quite a bit by just bringing it out in the public."
Langseth, who was one of four legislators who signed the petition, said since the case was filed he has received more calls from constituents asking about the amendment.
If voters reject the proposal and Langseth is re-elected, he said he will author a bill next legislative session to direct more of the vehicle sales tax revenue to transportation. Currently, 53 percent goes to highways and transit; Langseth said he might propose that be increased to 60 percent.
