WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SF 436

Constitutional amendment proposal to require a supermajority vote of the legislature to convey certain state land for less than market value

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Steve Green

Proposes constitutional amendment requiring supermajority legislature vote to sell state land below market value, creating higher barrier for below-cost property transfers.

Referred to Environment, Climate, and Legacy
#constitutionalamendments #government-state #lands-state
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SF 436

Legislative bill overview

SF 436 proposes a constitutional amendment requiring a supermajority vote (likely 3/5 or 2/3 of both chambers) before the Minnesota legislature can convey state-owned land for less than fair market value. This would create a higher procedural bar for what is currently a simple majority decision, essentially restricting the state's ability to donate or discount land transfers.

Why is this important

State land conveyances below market value are sometimes used for public purposes—such as affordable housing, conservation easements, or community facilities—but also represent a potential financial loss to the state. This amendment would make such transfers significantly harder to execute by requiring broader legislative consensus, potentially affecting both future development projects and conservation initiatives that depend on below-market land deals.

Potential points of contention

  • Conservation vs. fiscal responsibility: Environmental advocates may argue supermajority requirements could block important habitat preservation or climate initiatives, while fiscal conservatives may view this as essential protection of state resources
  • Flexibility in governance: Requiring supermajorities reduces legislative agility and could prevent timely responses to community needs or opportunities that benefit public interest
  • Definition ambiguity: The bill's scope regarding what constitutes "conveyance" and "fair market value" determination could create disputes and litigation over implementation
  • Constitutional amendment burden: This locks policy into the state constitution rather than statutory law, making future adjustments difficult even if circumstances change

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.