Minnesota Poll: Most say more funds for roads

09/21/2006

Ballot wording might sound confusing, but a yes vote would mean more for roads and transit.

Laurie Blake,
Star Tribune
Last update: September 20, 2006 – 10:29 PM

Voters like the idea of changing the state constitution to channel more money to roads and transit, but support is hampered by the confusing language that will appear on the ballot, the Minnesota Poll finds.

The November ballot will put a 55-word question before voters, asking them to direct all proceeds from the existing vehicle sales tax to transportation. That would send an estimated $300 million more per year for new bridges, highways and transit.

In a sample of about 400 likely voters taken last week, 47 percent said they would vote for the measure, as it will appear on the ballot, and 29 percent opposed it. Support jumped to 59 percent and opposition dropped to 17 percent when approximately the same number of voters were read a simplified version of the proposed constitutional amendment.

So how much support is really out there? By combining the two questions, 53 percent support it. But researchers say that it’s difficult to tell with such a complicated ballot question.

Confusion over the ballot question is particularly worrisome to amendment backers, because changing the Constitution requires approval of a majority of all those voting in the election—not just those voting on the Constitutional question. Any voter who doesn’t respond to the amendment question will in effect be voting against it.

A spokeswoman for the Vote Yes For Better Roads and Transit campaign, a $4 million effort to get the amendment passed, acknowledges that the language is an issue.

“When you explain this to people, it’s common sense that transportation user fees should be used for transportation,” said Margaret Donahoe, a leader of the campaign. “Obviously our roads and transit systems need more money and the majority of people agree with that.”

Using all existing vehicle sales tax revenue for roads and transit appeals to many voters.

Rebecca Grundhoefer of Foley said it’s clear to her that roads are hurting. “I live out in the country and very frequently we see roads that are broken up and eroded,” she said. “There have been very large sink holes that have closed the road that we live on. I would think that devoting more money would help.”

Orin Paulson of Minnetonka also favors the amendment. “I think we need to put more money into roads, and I am 100 percent in favor of more transit. We should be putting it into light rail but we are so far behind, we at least got to keep the roads up.”

Kurt Templin of Plymouth is not convinced. Templin said he will vote against the amendment even though he knows that roads and transit need more money because taking it out of the general fund will open another can of worms. “I hate being against it, but it’s a shell game. How are we going to account for what’s missing from the general fund? “

Currently, 53 percent of the taxes collected on car and truck sales are spent on transportation. Legislators put the rest into the general fund for education, health care and other needs.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty and legislators asked voters to amend the constitution because they can’t agree on any other way to raise more money for transportation. Legislators tried to raise the gas tax last year; Pawlenty vetoed it.

The proposed constitutional amendment was all that remained after the face-off. As the product of 11th-hour lawmaking, it was hastily and poorly worded. But it would force legislators to put all of the vehicle sales tax revenue into roads and transit.

Amendment promoters say the gradual transfer of the funds over five years would allow time for growth in other tax revenues to cover the hole in the general fund.

The latest Minnesota Poll found that men and women have similar attitudes about the amendment. So do Republicans and DFLers. Attitudes also are about the same across age and income levels. But middle-income voters are more likely to vote in favor of the amendment than those at the top and bottom of the earnings scale.

Much of the organized opposition to the amendment comes from outstate Minnesota groups, including the Minnesota Farm Bureau, Minnesota Farmers Union and the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities (a nonprofit advocacy group of 59 cities outside the metro area). They say that the wording of the amendment sending “at least 40 percent” of the new money to transit and “not more than 60 percent for roads” is so vague it really doesn’t guarantee money for roads.

Holly Biron, transportation lobbyist for Greater Minnesota Cities, questions whether those who back the amendment realize that. She also said they may not understand that channeling more money to transportation would mean less for education, health care and property tax relief.

The poll results find support for the amendment about the same in outstate Minnesota as in the metro area.

Wayne Anderson of Little Falls said he’s all for the amendment “providing it doesn’t all end up in the metro area.” Although some voters question why it’s necessary to change the constitution to change state spending habits, Anderson said he would like to see a constitutional provision that makes transportation spending a clear priority.

“That prevents the Legislature from doing things with it that people don’t want done,” he said.