Karla Hult

“As a longtime journalist, I know how valuable expertise is when tackling complex problems. My instinct is to listen to multiple perspectives before forming a position, and I would prioritize connecting directly with scientists.

We need scientists now more than ever as we face rapid advances in AI, a changing climate, and threats to our natural resources. Before voting on related policy, I would seek briefings from independent researchers, consult agency staff and advisory boards, and read the underlying evidence. I would also ask where uncertainty remains; honest answers about what we don’t know matter as much as what we do.

Case in point: I frequently mention a promising partnership with the University of Minnesota’s new AI Hub, which aligns education, research, and external partnerships under one strategy. Not everyone there may represent the traditional definition of scientist, but its leaders offer exactly the expertise needed to weigh AI’s harms and benefits.

To be clear: science can tell us what is likely to happen, but not always what we should do. Weighing cost, fairness, and community values is an elected official’s job, and I’ll do it with the best evidence in hand.”

KEYWORDS: Listening. Evidence. Accountability.

“I oppose overturning the ban. This decision shows why we must listen to scientists on complex environmental questions.

My friend, meteorologist Paul Douglas, wrote in his January Star Tribune editorial, “I am not anti-mining… I am a proponent of responsible mining.” But on the BWCA’s future, he concluded, “The data isn’t encouraging.” I agree.

The Boundary Waters watershed is a fragile ecosystem and the foundation of a vital tourism economy. I would support:

• Permanent legal protection for the watershed, so it can’t be reversed with a single vote • Independent, science-based water-quality monitoring • Strict financial assurance requirements so taxpayers never foot the bill for cleanup • Responsible mining in places that don’t put wilderness water at risk

I will base every decision on verified information from scientists. I will also engage directly with the people who live and work around the Boundary Waters, including Ely-area residents, outfitters and resort owners, and Tribal Nations. I think it’s critical that all voices be heard on this controversial issue, particularly with such a valuable resource, and the tourism sector that depends on it, at stake.”

KEYWORDS: Legacy. Responsibility. Respect.

“I approach this issue as a journalist, 3M daughter, and concerned Minnesotan. I also believe this issue requires ongoing conversation based on fairness, equity, and – most importantly – science, beginning with one fundamental truth: every Minnesotan deserves safe drinking water. The science is clear: PFAS are harmful at very low levels. I support the DFL approach of stopping PFAS at the source and protecting people now.

First, I oppose the federal rollback. The EPA has proposed rescinding limits on four PFAS and delaying compliance for PFOA and PFOS until 2031. Attorney General Ellison has challenged it, and I’d support Minnesota keeping the 2024 standards, with state standards as a backstop.

Second, I support Minnesota’s 2023 law phasing out PFAS in consumer products by 2032, and would defend it. I’d ensure the MPCA has the resources to enforce manufacturer reporting, first due this July.

Third, I’d fund affected communities. Treatment is expensive, and small systems shouldn’t pass the cost to ratepayers. I’d prioritize Clean Water Fund dollars and federal infrastructure money for the 21 systems exceeding limits, along with expanded testing.

Finally, polluters should pay for cleanup, not taxpayers. And yes, I’ll always listen to Health Department and MPCA scientists.”

KEYWORDS: Responsibility. Accountability. Engagement.

“As a journalist, I believe data centers shouldn’t be developed in secret. I would require meaningful community input, including public hearings, before incentives are approved. Transparency shouldn’t end when a deal is signed: I support mandatory, ongoing public disclosure of energy use, water use, tax incentives, and community impacts.

I will protect and strengthen Minnesota’s guardrails against cost-shifting, so families, seniors, and small businesses never pay higher utility bills because of data centers. Reliable, affordable service must come first for people and businesses already here.

Minnesota’s clean water and natural resources make this a great place to live, work, and raise a family. Data centers should support, not undermine, our goal of 100% carbon-free electricity by 2040, so I would require them to use renewable energy.

Economic development should benefit Minnesotans, not just Big Tech. Companies that build here should create good-paying local jobs, pay their fair share of infrastructure costs, and deliver clear public benefits that outweigh the costs.

Importantly, this reflects my position on data center development and its impact. My concerns about AI generally are significant, so I support a state task force of scientists, utilities, local governments, and concerned residents for oversight.”

KEYWORDS: Transparency. Engagement. Evidence.

“I profoundly believe in the value of scientific investment to our economy and to our quality and sustainability of life. I know the cost of cutting research funding, in economic loss and in time lost to finding answers for overwhelming challenges, including Alzheimer’s and other dementias, which my family knows well, and other chronic illnesses. Again, those $700 million in NIH awards supported over 7,000 Minnesota jobs, so this is an economic issue as much as a scientific one.

Federally, I support:

• Stable, predictable NIH funding, and opposition to arbitrary caps on indirect costs, which keep labs running. Minnesota joined other states in challenging the 15% cap.
• Protecting peer review, so grants are awarded on scientific merit. At the state level, I support:
• Sustained investment in the University of Minnesota, Mayo, and programs like MnDRIVE.
• Bridge funding to keep researchers and jobs here when federal dollars are disrupted.
• Partnerships between industry and universities to turn research into Minnesota jobs.

Research funding isn’t a cost; it’s an investment that returns jobs, discoveries, and healthier lives. I will keep listening to scientists on what they need.”

KEYWORDS: Investment. Hope. Just good economics.

“I wish this devastating disparity were limited to overdose deaths. Alas, we see the same gap in other health outcomes, including Alzheimer’s and other dementias, where I’ve been a strong public advocate. Black Americans are twice as likely to live with dementia, Hispanic Americans 1.5 times, and Indigenous Minnesotans even more so. These gaps are tied to systemic racism: unequal access to high-quality, safe, and trustworthy healthcare, education, housing, and even food, given food deserts.

So I support thoughtful, consistent policies that address access and quality of life, paired with outreach that meets people where they are:

• Keep naloxone widely available, free of stigma, and expand access to treatment and recovery services.
• Direct opioid settlement dollars to the communities hit hardest, including Black- and Indigenous-led organizations and tribal nations, with transparency about where the money goes.
• Fund culturally specific, community-led prevention and care.
• Invest in healthcare access, nutrition, and education, which shape health outcomes long before a crisis.

The 28% decline shows what’s possible, but progress has leveled off recently, and that is no reason to ease up. We should meet this crisis in the communities most affected.”

KEYWORDS: Equity. Access. Outreach.