Marisa Simonetti
UnaffiliatedQ1 If elected, in what capacities would you refer to scientists when you are deciding how to vote on a policy?
“Scientists serve an explicitly advisory, technical capacity to provide empirical data, rigorous risk assessments, and verifiable research metrics. They do not hold legislative authority. When evaluating policy, scientific data will be heavily weighed for factual accuracy and engineering viability, but any resulting legislative action must strictly pass constitutional muster. Scientific consensus can never be weaponized as a tool of administrative overreach to override individual sovereignty, personal liberty, or property rights. Data informs, but the Constitution governs.”
KEYWORDS: Empirical Evidence. Liberty
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 passage of H.J. Res 140 properly scales back federal overreach by returning land-use and resource decisions to state and local jurisdictions. Economic optimization and domestic resource independence should be pursued, provided they are governed by a strict property-rights framework. Rather than blanket federal prohibitions, I support local and state-level enforcement of strict tort liability for any direct, verifiable downstream pollution or physical degradation of the watershed. This ensures that extraction projects must absorb 100% of their operational risks, legally protecting private and public property boundaries without choking local economic sovereignty through centralized regulatory standstills.”
KEYWORDS: Decentralization. Property Rights.
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?
“The presence of hazardous contaminants in local water supplies represents a direct physical trespass against private property and bodily sovereignty. Rather than enacting top-down federal regulations that paralyze industrial production through administrative red tape, enforcement must pivot to strict corporate tort liability. Industrial polluters must be held legally and financially accountable for the verifiable physical degradation of shared watersheds and private water tables. I support policies that mandate complete toxicological disclosure by manufacturing entities, enforce strict accountability for remediation costs on the responsible parties, and empower local municipalities to deploy modern filtration technologies without bureaucratic delay.”
KEYWORDS: Transparency .Local Remediation
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?
“Recent public data from SurveyUSA shows that 60% of Minnesotans strictly oppose local hyperscale data center construction. This massive public backlash stems from backroom corporate deals, secret non-disclosure agreements, and unmitigated strains on municipal water tables and energy grids.Under a constitutional first framework, local community consent holds absolute sovereignty. Multi-billion-dollar tech conglomerates possess zero right to force high-consumption computing clusters onto neighborhoods that explicitly reject their footprint. I stand firmly with residents in supporting voter-approved municipal zoning moratoria to protect local resource infrastructure. Furthermore, all state-funded corporate tax subsidies for these projects must be immediately abolished. If a locality chooses to host a facility, the private operator must entirely fund their own dedicated power grids. This structurally insulates everyday citizens from skyrocketing utility bills and resource depletion. Local citizens govern their communities, not unaccountable tech monopolies.”
KEYWORDS: Local Consent. Sustainability.
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?
“Under a constitutional first framework, government science funding must be governed by strict structural auditing, complete toxicological and research transparency, and absolute local accountability. While federal grants can stimulate localized research, centralized agencies must never use public funds to subsidize private corporate monopolies, fund unchecked gain-of-function research, or create top-down institutional echo chambers. I support policies that mandate a 100% open-source, public data requirement for any project utilizing taxpayer dollars. Furthermore, we must decentralize funding allocations by shifting oversight from unelected federal bureaucracies directly to state and local research bodies. This structurally prevents the weaponization of public science capital to protect corporate interests over the health and economic sovereignty of everyday citizens.”
KEYWORDS: Open-Source-Transparency. Fiscal-Accountability. Institutional-Decentralization
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?
“To continue the downward trend of overdose deaths, public health policy must transition completely away from state-funded, short-term stabilization models that keep individuals trapped in an endless loop of addiction. The current framework merely manages the symptoms of substance abuse while keeping patients dependent on partial, state-subsidized treatments. I support policies that aggressively focus on comprehensive, long-term rehabilitation infrastructure and root-cause mental health recovery. This means prioritizing private and community-led inpatient initiatives that provide complete detoxification, intensive cognitive therapies, and foundational career reintegration programs. Furthermore, we must enforce strict criminal tort liability on corporate pharmaceutical siphons that profit from manufacturing these chemical dependencies in vulnerable populations. Public capital should only fund complete, permanent recovery pathways that restore personal sovereignty and financial independence, rather than financing a multi-billion-dollar administrative loop that leaves patients perpetually broken.”
KEYWORDS: Root Cause Rehabilitation