Minnesota voters will decide on a constitutional amendment that would change the policies surrounding the investment and distribution of the Minnesota Permanent School Fund.

On May 16, 2026, the Minnesota state legislature approved House File 3900 (HF 3900), which placed the constitutional amendment on the November 2026 ballot for voters to decide. 

On March 2, the amendment was introduced in the Minnesota Legislature as HF 3900. A joint conference committee issued the final version of the bill on May 16. That day, the state House approved HF 3900 in a vote of 134-0. The state Senate then approved HF 3900 in a vote of 43-24. Forty-three Democrats voted ‘yes,’ and 24 Republicans voted ‘no.’

The amendment would change the constitutional requirements for the investment and distribution of the Minnesota Permanent School Fund. As of 2026, the state constitution states that the principal of the fund must remain perpetual and inviolate. The amendment would change the wording of the constitution to state that the management of the fund would need to preserve the purchasing power of the fund over time. 

HF 3900 includes both the proposed constitutional amendment and changes to state statutes that would take effect if the amendment is approved by voters. The statutory change would allow for 4.5% of the fund’s three-year rolling average value to be distributed to school districts. As of 2026, the requirements in the state constitution and state statutes only allow for the distribution of the sum of the fund’s interest on debt securities, dividends on equity securities, and interest earned on certified monthly earnings. 

In effect, the amendment would allow more of the permanent school fund to be distributed to school districts each year. 

According to state Sen. Mary Kunesh (D-39), who introduced HF 3900, the amendment would allow Minnesota to “provide even more funding for our schools, at no cost to property tax payers.” She stated, “Our students deserve all the support we can give them, and I’m proud to see overwhelming bipartisan support of the ballot measure. It’s up to Minnesotans now.”

In Minnesota, ratifying an amendment requires a ‘yes’ vote from a simple majority of all voters casting a ballot in the election, rather than a simple majority of those voting on the question. As such, a blank vote on the ballot measure is similar to a ‘no’ vote. 

Compared to other states, statewide ballot measures are rare in Minnesota. A total of 16 ballot measures appeared on statewide ballots between 1985 and 2025. During that same period, only Connecticut and Vermont have had fewer statewide ballot measures.