Amanda Matchett
DemocraticQ1 If elected, in what capacities would you refer to scientists when you are deciding how to vote on a policy?
“Science should inform policymaking whenever a decision depends on questions of public health, environmental impact, technology, infrastructure, or other areas where specialized expertise matters. I would seek input from scientists, researchers, technical experts, state agencies, and affected communities, while also looking carefully at the quality of the evidence and areas where experts may disagree. Policymakers still have to weigh costs, benefits, values, and real-world impacts, but those decisions should begin with reliable evidence rather than ideology. As an attorney who works extensively with technology, privacy, cybersecurity, and artificial intelligence, I am accustomed to asking experts what the evidence actually tells us before deciding what we should do with it.”
KEYWORDS: Evidence-based, Expertise, Accountability
Q2 Recently H.J. Res 140 passed, overturning a 20-year mining ban in the National Forest System land surrounding the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. What is your position on mining projects in this region and what policies, if any, would you support to protect the surrounding watershed?
“The Boundary Waters is an irreplaceable Minnesota resource, and I strongly support Governor Walz’s recent executive action protecting the Boundary Waters watershed from nonferrous mining. But an executive order is not a substitute for durable protection. I support legislation establishing permanent protections against sulfide-ore mining in the Boundary Waters watershed unless and until credible, peer-reviewed scientific evidence demonstrates that it can be done without jeopardizing the watershed.
The Boundary Waters is an interconnected ecosystem, and contamination upstream could cause damage that is extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to reverse. When the potential consequences are that significant and permanent, our policy should reflect the science and the risk. Minnesota can support mining and economic development in appropriate places while recognizing that some natural resources are too valuable to gamble with.”
KEYWORDS: Boundary Waters, Science-Based, Permanent Protection
Q3 Contamination from PFAS and other “forever chemicals” in 21 community water systems in Minnesota exceed national regulations, putting residents at risk of negative health impacts. What policies, if any, do you propose to protect Minnesota residents from the potential impacts of PFAS?
“Minnesotans should not have to wonder whether the water coming from their tap is safe. I support continued statewide PFAS monitoring, transparent public reporting, assistance for communities that must upgrade drinking-water treatment systems, and strong enforcement against significant sources of PFAS contamination. Minnesota should also continue reducing unnecessary uses of PFAS so that we are not simply paying to remove these chemicals from water after they have already entered the environment. Importantly, the financial burden of contamination should not fall primarily on homeowners and local ratepayers. State policy should continue applying the principle that those responsible for pollution bear an appropriate share of the cleanup costs.”
KEYWORDS: Clean Water, Prevention, Polluter Accountability
Q4 There have been multiple hyperscale data centers proposed throughout the state, including one currently under construction. What policies and regulations, if any, do you support to assess and act on the potential impacts of these data centers?
“Data centers are important infrastructure for our increasingly digital economy, including artificial intelligence, but Minnesota should understand their full impact before committing significant public resources to them. I support rigorous review of major projects’ electricity demand, water consumption, environmental impacts, effects on the electrical grid, and potential costs to residential and small-business ratepayers. Large data centers should pay their fair share of infrastructure costs rather than shifting those costs onto existing customers, and developers should be transparent about expected energy and water use. I also support incentives and requirements that encourage water reuse, efficient cooling, clean energy, and other technologies that reduce environmental impact. The goal should not be to reject innovation, but to make sure Minnesota gains the economic benefits of new technology without quietly socializing its costs.”
KEYWORDS: Innovation, Sustainability, Accountability
Q5 In 2025 alone, the National Institute on Health (NIH) awarded over $700 million for research grants and contracts to Minnesota universities, which directly supported over 7,000 jobs and $1.79 billion of economic activity in Minnesota. What policies, if any, do you plan to implement or support regarding funding for continued science research either at the state or federal level?
“Scientific research is both a public good and an important part of Minnesota’s economy. Our universities, health systems, researchers, and biotechnology companies generate discoveries, train skilled workers, attract investment, and improve people’s lives. I support strong and predictable federal funding for institutions such as NIH and NSF, and at the state level I would support investments that leverage federal research dollars, strengthen research partnerships, support emerging technologies, and help Minnesota turn discoveries into businesses and jobs. We should also continue investing in public universities and in STEM education so Minnesota has the workforce necessary to remain competitive. Cutting research funding may save money on a spreadsheet today while costing us medical breakthroughs, economic growth, and skilled jobs tomorrow.”
KEYWORDS: Research, Innovation, Investment
Q6 Fatal drug overdoses in Minnesota have significantly declined in recent years, representing a 28% drop from a record peak of 1,392 overdose deaths in 2022. However, compared to White Minnesotans, Indigenous Minnesotans are 7 to 15 times more likely to experience a fatal drug overdose, while Black Minnesotans are 2 to 3 times more likely to die from a drug-related overdose. What policies, if any, do you support to continue the downward trend of overdose deaths for Minnesotans?
“The recent decline in overdose deaths is encouraging, but the significant racial disparities show that Minnesota’s work is far from finished. I support maintaining broad access to naloxone, evidence-based substance-use treatment, medications for opioid use disorder, mental-health services, and harm-reduction programs that help keep people alive long enough to recover. We should also invest in culturally responsive and community-led programs, particularly in Indigenous and Black communities experiencing disproportionately high overdose rates. Treatment should be available when someone is ready for it, regardless of income or geography, and our policies should recognize substance-use disorder as a public-health issue while still holding people who traffic dangerous drugs accountable. Success should mean both fewer overdose deaths overall and closing the unacceptable disparities between Minnesota communities.”
KEYWORDS: Treatment, Harm Reduction, Equity