Amáda Márquez Simula

“If elected, I would seek scientific expertise whenever legislation involves public health, climate, environmental protection, agriculture, energy, transportation, or other issues where evidence should guide policy. I would consult independent researchers, Minnesota colleges and universities, state and federal scientists, professional associations, and nonpartisan analysts rather than relying solely on industry-funded or politically selective claims. I would also listen to the people most affected by a policy, including workers, farmers, patients, and community organizations, because scientific evidence must be understood in the context of lived experience. I would ask experts to explain both the strength and limits of the available evidence, the likely benefits and risks of different approaches, and the communities that could be disproportionately affected. When credible experts disagree, I would examine the quality of the evidence, disclose uncertainty, and avoid presenting speculation as fact. I would support transparent hearings, public access to research, and regular review of policies as new evidence emerges. Science should inform my decisions, while democratic accountability, equity, and constituent input help determine how that evidence is applied.”

KEYWORDS: Evidence-based decision-making; Independent expertise; Transparency

“Mining can contribute to Minnesota’s economy and support good-paying jobs, but it must never come at the expense of clean water, public health, or the long-term vitality of surrounding communities. I support a rigorous, science-based permitting process that evaluates the full cumulative impact of a project—not just its projected economic benefits—and includes meaningful consultation with tribal nations, local governments, workers, and residents. Any mining project should be required to meet the strongest available environmental standards, demonstrate adequate financial assurance for cleanup and long-term monitoring, and provide a credible plan for closure, reclamation, and treatment of contaminated water. I would support independent scientific review, transparent disclosure of environmental data, strong groundwater and surface-water monitoring, and enforceable penalties for violations. Permits should be denied or withdrawn when a project cannot demonstrate that it will protect the watershed over the long term. I would also support investments in watershed restoration, emergency-response capacity, and economic diversification so communities are not dependent on a single industry. Tribal sovereignty, treaty rights, environmental justice, and the rights of future generations must be central to these decisions. Mining policy should protect both workers and the water and land on which Minnesota communities depend.”

KEYWORDS: Clean water; Responsible mining; Environmental protection

“PFAS contamination is a serious threat to public health, and no Minnesotan should have to worry that their drinking water contains chemicals linked to long-term health harms. I support strong, enforceable standards for PFAS in drinking water, regular testing and public disclosure of results, and rapid notification when contamination is detected. Minnesota should ensure that affected communities have the resources to install effective treatment systems, provide safe alternative drinking water when necessary, and monitor residents who may have experienced significant exposure. The state should also strengthen oversight of industrial discharges, landfills, firefighting-foam use, and other known sources of PFAS, while requiring polluters to pay for cleanup whenever responsibility can be established. I would support phasing out nonessential uses of PFAS, requiring manufacturers to disclose and reduce PFAS in products, and preventing regrettable substitutions with similarly hazardous chemicals. Small and rural water systems should receive technical and financial assistance so that the cost of compliance does not fall on residents through unaffordable rate increases. Finally, Minnesota should coordinate with federal, tribal, and local partners, invest in independent research, and use the best available science to update protections as new evidence emerges. Protecting clean water requires prevention, accountability, and sustained public investment.”

KEYWORDS: PFAS accountability; Clean water; Public health

“Without independent cumulative-impact review, I will not support building new hyperscale data centers because their potential environmental impacts have not been adequately addressed. These facilities can place enormous demands on the electricity grid, potentially increasing costs for residents, requiring major new infrastructure, and complicating Minnesota’s transition to clean energy. They can also consume significant amounts of water for cooling, creating risks for drinking-water supplies and putting additional pressure on communities already facing water challenges. Before considering support for future projects, Minnesota should complete independent, cumulative-impact assessments of proposed and existing data centers, including their effects on electricity reliability, utility rates, greenhouse-gas emissions, groundwater, surface water, and drinking-water supplies. Developers should be required to disclose projected energy and water use, identify the sources of those resources, and pay the full cost of necessary infrastructure and environmental mitigation. Communities, tribal nations, utilities, and residents must have a meaningful voice in these decisions. Until Minnesota can ensure that data centers will not strain the grid, threaten drinking water, increase public costs, or undermine our climate goals, I will oppose their construction. Any future consideration should require enforceable protections, strong transparency, and clear evidence of a net public benefit.”

KEYWORDS: Grid protection; Drinking-water security; Environmental accountability

“Scientific research is a major driver of Minnesota’s economy, supports thousands of good jobs, strengthens our universities and healthcare systems, and helps develop solutions to public-health, environmental, agricultural, and technological challenges. I will support stable, sustained funding for science research at the state level. I would support investing in the University of Minnesota and other public research institutions, expanding competitive grants for emerging researchers, strengthening partnerships among universities, hospitals, nonprofits, and businesses, and supporting workforce development so Minnesota can retain talented scientists and research professionals. State funding should also help institutions compete successfully for research grants and make research careers accessible to people from historically underrepresented communities. I would support state programs that fund basic and applied research, provide matching grants for competitive research awards, and encourage collaboration between academic researchers and Minnesota communities. Funding decisions should be based on scientific merit, public benefit, transparency, and peer review—not political interference. I also support responsible stewardship of public funds, open access to publicly funded research when appropriate, and strong safeguards for research integrity, ethics, and public accountability. Continued state investment in science is an investment in Minnesota’s health, innovation, workforce, and long-term economic vitality.”

KEYWORDS: State research funding; Scientific integrity; Minnesota innovation

“The decline in overdose deaths is encouraging, but the racial disparities in Minnesota’s overdose crisis are unacceptable. Indigenous and Black Minnesotans must have equitable access to prevention, treatment, recovery, and harm-reduction services, with policies shaped by the communities most affected. I support expanding access to naloxone, fentanyl test strips, overdose-prevention education, and culturally specific harm-reduction programs. Minnesota should make treatment available when and where people need it, including same-day access to medication for opioid-use disorder, mobile and rural services, mental-health care, recovery support, and transportation assistance. Treatment should be affordable, voluntary, evidence-based, and available without requiring people to navigate unnecessary barriers. We must also address the structural conditions that drive unequal outcomes, including housing instability, poverty, untreated trauma, inadequate healthcare access, and the criminalization of substance use. I support diverting people from the criminal legal system into care whenever appropriate and investing in Black- and Indigenous-led organizations that have earned community trust. Minnesota should collect and publicly report overdose data by race, geography, and other relevant factors so resources can be directed where they are most needed. Every life saved matters, and reducing deaths requires both public-health action and a commitment to racial justice.”

KEYWORDS: Racial disparities; Harm reduction; Equitable treatment