"Perpetual" survives as a goal, not a rule. The struck text ordered losses repaid to the fund. The new text sets a management aim and leaves the rest to statute.
The payout rate isn't in the amendment. The new 4.5% distribution sits in ordinary statute (Minn. Stat. §11A.16, subd. 5, as amended). A future legislature can change it by simple majority.
On November 3, Minnesotans vote on a constitutional amendment that deletes 76 words, including the sentence "The principal of the permanent school fund shall be perpetual and inviolate forever." HF 3900 rewrites the Permanent School Fund clause of the constitution. Out goes that sentence, along with the requirement that investment losses be repaid from future earnings. In comes a total-return payout whose rate, definitions, and policy live in ordinary statute. That last word matters: changing the constitution requires asking the voters; changing a statute takes any later legislature.
The ballot question never mentions a deletion. It describes a benefit, increased school funding "without raising individual income or property taxes," and says nothing about what is being removed. The legislature wrote the title and question into the bill itself; under Limmer v. Ritchie (Minn. 2012) no one else may revise the title it chose, and under League of Women Voters v. Ritchie (Minn. 2012) courts defer to the question almost completely. In dissent, Justice Alan Page — joined by Justice Paul H. Anderson — wrote that the question "constitutes a bait and switch," its words "phrased to actively deceive and mislead." The court let it through anyway.
The legislature owes voters less disclosure than a homeowner selling a house. The investment world has a name for what this ballot question does: material omission. A prospectus made entirely of true sentences is still fraud if it leaves out what a reasonable buyer would need to know. Ballot questions face no such standard, and shareholders voting to amend a company charter get more legal protection than Minnesotans voting to amend their constitution.
We don't tell anyone how to vote. The endowment model is mainstream — HF 3900 passed the House without a single no vote from either party and the Senate 43-24 on final passage — and this site accuses no one of bad faith. Vote yes if it persuades you, or no if it doesn't. Know this first: in Minnesota, skipping an amendment question counts the same as voting no. No-recommendation is a principle, not a tactic: the moment we pick a side, our evidence becomes campaign material.
The comparison on this page is only useful before the vote. Our fix can't be introduced until January 2027 or take effect until 2028; it can't help or hurt HF 3900. What's time-sensitive is you seeing the trade before you vote. (We're not suing over this question either — here's why.)
Either the deleted words appear in the question or they don't. One sentence, self-executing, no new office, no discretion anywhere. It's drafted as a bill ready for the 2027 session. And none of it blocks the money: keep the 4.5%, put the rate in the constitution itself, quote what you delete — the funding and the honesty fit on the same ballot.
The side-by-side above as a single shareable image, sources and address printed on it.
Download the exhibit image (PNG)Running for the legislature? A one-page brief and an answer that works whatever your position on the amendment.
Download the one-pager (PDF)One Minnesotan who read the bill. I'm Clint Priest — a businessman, not a lawyer or politician. I read HF 3900, compared it to the ballot question, and built this so you can make the comparison yourself in thirty seconds. Legislator or candidate of either party interested in authoring the Quote What You Delete bill, or a citizen who wants to help: hello@quotewhatyoudelete.org.
Independence (Aug. 26, 2026): researched, written, and funded entirely by me with AI assistance; about $175 spent to date; no contributions; no campaign contact; no direct financial interest in the fund or trust lands. Full statement on the contact page.
