Minnesota ballot measure · November 3, 2026
Minnesota Constitutional Amendment, explained
Permanent School Fund investment and distribution. A ballot measure is a yes-or-no question put directly to voters — no candidate is involved, and the wording on the ballot is the wording that becomes law. This page shows that wording first, then what it actually changes.
The official wording
Increasing funding to school districts. Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to increase the funding going to all school districts from the permanent school fund, which is a fund that supports school districts without raising individual income or property taxes, effective July 1, 2027?
This is what appears on the ballot. Everything below explains it.
What it actually means
The Permanent School Fund holds the proceeds of land Minnesota was granted for schools at statehood. The constitution says its principal is "perpetual and inviolate" and that only the interest and dividends may be paid out each year. This amendment removes that restriction and instead tells managers to make annual distributions while preserving the fund's purchasing power over time. A companion statute, which takes effect only if voters approve, would pay out 4.5% of the fund's three-year average value each year — more than the interest-and-dividends formula produces.
If you vote YES
- Article XI, Section 8 would no longer confine distributions to net interest and dividends, or state that the principal is perpetual and inviolate.
- Management of the fund would instead have to "provide annual distributions while preserving the purchasing power of the fund over time and balancing the needs of current and future beneficiaries," with the distribution policy set by law and consistent with those principles.
- The statutory changes in House File 3900 would take effect, distributing 4.5% of the three-year rolling average value of the fund to school districts each year — in practice a larger annual distribution than the current formula.
- Reasonable and necessary administrative costs of managing the fund or school trust lands could be paid from the fund as prescribed by law.
- The change would take effect July 1, 2027. The fund is administered jointly by the Department of Natural Resources, the State Board of Investment and the Department of Education.
- This would implement all three recommendations of the Minnesota Permanent School Fund Task Force, which the Legislature created in 2024 and which reported in 2026.
If you vote NO
- The constitution would continue to provide that the principal of the Permanent School Fund is perpetual and inviolate and that only the net interest and dividends are distributed to school districts each year.
- The statutory changes in House File 3900, including the 4.5% distribution policy, would not take effect.
- Annual payments to school districts would continue at the level the interest-and-dividends formula produces, which is lower than the proposed 4.5% payout.
- The task force's recommendations would remain recommendations, and any future change to the distribution formula would still require a constitutional amendment rather than a change in statute.
The numbers that matter
- Proposed annual distribution
- 4.5% of the three-year rolling average value of the fund
Statutory change in House File 3900, which takes effect only if the amendment is approved
Why supporters say YES
We found none published in the sources reviewed.
Why opponents say NO
We found none published in the sources reviewed.
What’s genuinely uncertain
- Ballotpedia has located no campaign, endorsements or arguments in opposition, so no arguments are presented rather than showing one column and not the other. The supporting campaign is Vote Yes for MN Students; backers include Education Minnesota, the Minnesota School Boards Association, the Minnesota Rural Education Association, the Minnesota Association of School Administrators, forest industry groups, and legislators of both parties. Rep. Patricia Mueller (R-23B) said it is "an opportunity to strengthen education funding in Minnesota without raising taxes and without drawing from the state General Fund."
- The trade-off is between current and future beneficiaries: a 4.5% payout is larger than the current one, and whether it preserves the fund's purchasing power depends on future investment returns. No published projection of the fund's long-term balance under the new policy was located.
- Moving the distribution policy from the constitution into statute means a future Legislature could change the payout rate without going back to voters.
- Because Minnesota counts a blank as a no, the amendment needs yes votes from a majority of everyone who casts a ballot on November 3, not just of those who mark this question.
- No state fiscal note quantifying the additional annual distribution to school districts was located.
The bottom line
Whether to let the Permanent School Fund pay schools a fixed share of its value each year instead of only its interest and dividends — more money for districts now, with the fund's long-term purchasing power resting on a standard set in statute rather than a hard constitutional limit.
One neutral sentence describing the tradeoff — not a recommendation.
Checking it against the official text
The Minnesota Secretary of State publishes the certified measures and, in most states, an official voter guide with fiscal notes. That is the authoritative version. Everything here is an explanation of it, not a substitute for it.
Confirm this with the official source
Your ballot is determined by your election authority, not by us. Verify your registration, precinct, and sample ballot at Minnesota Secretary of State.
Candidates on the same ballot
- U.S. Senate election in Minnesota
- Minnesota governor's race
- Minnesota's 1st congressional district
- Minnesota's 2nd congressional district
- Minnesota's 3rd congressional district
- Minnesota's 4th congressional district
- Minnesota's 5th congressional district
- Minnesota's 6th congressional district