A proposed state constitutional amendment that would require a super-majority of legislators to pass state tax increases would be bad for cities in rural Minnesota, the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities says.

Some Republican legislators have supported the proposal, which would require three-fifths support in both the state House and Senate to pass tax increases.

But Tim Flaherty, an attorney and lobbyist for CGMC, says it would be bad for smaller cities around the state, said a story in the Bemidji Pioneer.

He says if taxes are harder to increase, legislators will be more likely to cut local government aid as a way to balance the budget. And cuts to education funding would lead to more local referendums, which hurt smaller, property-poor districts.

“It’s going to hurt greater Minnesota more than the rest of the state,” Flaherty said.

The story notes that the super-majority proposal is part of a measure that's among many proposed constitutional amendments floating around the Legislature. With Republicans in control of both houses, amendments are one way they could get around a potential veto by Gov. Mark Dayton, a Democrat, the story says.

But Republican state Sen. John Carlson of Bemidji isn't one of those supporting that route. He told the paper that constitutional mandates aren't always best.

“Just because the governor says no doesn’t mean we have to go past him and go the Constitution,” Carlson said.