National study calls supermajority amendments a 'bad idea'

A supermajority requirement in Minnesota would not produce promised results, if the experiences of states that already have supermajority rules are any indication.

A national study released this week analyzed supermajority requirements in other states and found no evidence that those states had lower taxes or better tax policy than states without them.

Six Reasons Why Supermajority Requirements to Raise Taxes Are a Bad Idea by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concludes that, “On average, states with strict supermajority requirements levy taxes at a nearly identical level as other states. That’s because most states avoid tax increases most of the time, without supermajority requirements.”

The report discusses six reasons supermajority requirements to raise taxes are a bad idea:

1. Supermajority rules reduce accountability by protecting special interest tax breaks.
2. Supermajority rules shift costs from some state residents to others.
3. Supermajority rules may raise state spending or dissuade states from making capital investments by increasing interest rates.
4. Supermajority rules make it harder to finance transportation investments.
5. Supermajority rules limit budget options available to legislators and increase the chances that recessions will be deeper and longer.
6. Supermajority rules increase the power of extremists and special interests.

The report provides evidence that amending Minnesota’s constitution to require supermajority votes to raise taxes won’t deliver on its promises. They found that supermajority restrictions don’t necessarily improve a state’s economic performance, and those states did not generally outperform other states during the recent recession.

Minnesota can avoid the problems experienced by states that do have supermajority requirements, and instead should retain the flexibility to make budget decisions based on thoughtful discussions about what is best for the state.