Term limits established for the office of governor.
Summary
HF358 proposes a constitutional amendment to limit the Minnesota governor to two elected terms. The measure would revise Article V, Section 2 of the Minnesota Constitution to state that a person elected twice to the office of governor is no longer eligible to be a candidate for that office. The amendment would be submitted to voters at the 2026 general election, with the ballot question specifically asking whether the Minnesota Constitution should be amended to place term limits on the governor.
The bill also sets out how the proposed amendment would be presented to voters, including a required ballot title and the exact yes/no question. In addition, it provides that prior elections before the 2026 general election count when enforcing the new limit, meaning a sitting or former governor’s earlier elections would be included in determining eligibility if the amendment is adopted.
Impact
If approved by voters, the bill would change the Minnesota Constitution and permanently bar any person elected governor twice from seeking the office again. It would affect future gubernatorial candidates, current and former governors with prior elections, and election officials responsible for enforcing candidate eligibility. Because it is a constitutional amendment, the change would not take effect unless ratified by the electorate in 2026.
Sentiment
The available record shows the bill was introduced and referred to the House Committee on State Government Finance and Policy, but there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes included here. As a result, there is no documented debate or formal sentiment in the provided materials beyond the bill’s clear policy purpose of establishing gubernatorial term limits.
Contention
The main point of contention inherent in the bill is whether Minnesota should impose term limits on the governor at all, and whether prior elections should count toward the two-term cap. Supporters would likely view the proposal as a way to promote turnover and limit long-term concentration of power, while opponents could argue it restricts voter choice and removes experienced leaders from consideration. No specific arguments from legislators or stakeholders are included in the provided context.