Martha Brown

“I believe good policy starts with good information. As a legislator, I would seek out scientists and other subject-matter experts when legislation involves issues where their expertise can help us understand the evidence, risks, and likely outcomes.

I would look to scientists to help distinguish established evidence from assumptions or political talking points, and I would consider the quality and breadth of the available research when making decisions. I would also value input from multiple experts and perspectives rather than relying on a single source.

My background as an educator, researcher, and program evaluator has taught me to ask questions, examine evidence, understand limitations, and be willing to change course when new information becomes available.

Scientists provide expertise; elected officials have a responsibility to weigh that evidence alongside the experiences and needs of the people they represent. I would bring those pieces together to make thoughtful, evidence-informed decisions—not decisions based on ideology or who is making the loudest argument.”

KEYWORDS: Evidence research risks/outcomes

“The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and the watershed that surrounds it are irreplaceable Minnesota treasures. I oppose mining projects that put this unique ecosystem and its clean water at risk.

Minnesotans should not have to choose between economic opportunity and protecting the resources that sustain our communities. But some places are simply too important to gamble with—and the Boundary Waters is one of them.

If elected, I would support policies that protect the watershed from mining-related contamination and require rigorous, independent environmental review before any project moves forward. That review must consider not only immediate impacts, but also the long-term risks to water quality, wildlife, and surrounding communities.

We should follow the science, listen to the people who know and care for this region, and put the protection of clean water ahead of short-term political interests. The Boundary Waters belongs to all of us, and we have a responsibility to leave it protected for future generations.”

KEYWORDS: ecosystem protection mining ban

“Minnesotans deserve clean, safe drinking water. PFAS contamination is a serious concern because these chemicals persist in the environment and can accumulate over time.

I would support stronger standards for PFAS in drinking water, continued testing and monitoring of community water systems, and timely public notification when contamination is found. We should also prioritize preventing PFAS from entering our water in the first place by limiting unnecessary use and holding manufacturers and other responsible parties accountable for contamination and cleanup costs.

At the same time, communities should have the resources they need to address existing contamination. I would support state assistance for testing, filtration, and cleanup, particularly when the cost would otherwise fall on local taxpayers and ratepayers.

My approach is straightforward: follow the science, prevent pollution whenever possible, protect public health, and make sure those responsible for contamination—not ordinary Minnesota families—bear their fair share of the cost.”

KEYWORDS: prevention clean-up accountability

“Data centers can bring economic opportunities, but hyperscale facilities can also have significant impacts on energy use, water resources, infrastructure, and surrounding communities. Minnesota should not give these projects a free pass.

I support the highest standards of accountability and review for hyperscale data centers, including comprehensive environmental and infrastructure impact assessments before approval. Communities deserve meaningful opportunities for public input, and all relevant information about a proposed project—including its energy and water use, environmental impacts, tax arrangements, and public costs—should be transparent and accessible.

Data centers should be responsible for the infrastructure and resources they require rather than shifting those costs to Minnesota taxpayers and ratepayers. I would also support clear, enforceable standards for energy and water use and appropriate environmental protections.

We can welcome innovation and economic development while still protecting our communities and natural resources. The standard should be simple: **if a project affects the public, the public deserves a full review, a voice in the process, and complete transparency about the costs and benefits.**”

KEYWORDS: accountability review infrastructure

“Minnesota benefits enormously from investments in scientific research. I support continued public investment in research at both the state and federal levels because many important discoveries and innovations would not happen without it.

At the same time, government should not be expected to bear 100% of the cost. I would like to see greater investment from private companies and industries that benefit from research and innovation. Public-private partnerships can expand research capacity and create jobs while leveraging taxpayer dollars.

However, private investment must never come at the expense of scientific independence. Research funding should include strong transparency and conflict-of-interest protections so that sponsors cannot influence research findings, suppress unfavorable results, or undermine public trust. We need to protect researchers’ ability to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

My goal is a balanced approach: maintain strong public investment in basic and applied research, encourage responsible private-sector investment, and ensure that the science—not the source of the funding—determines the conclusions.”

KEYWORDS: public-private partnership

“Minnesota’s progress in reducing overdose deaths is encouraging, but we cannot be satisfied while some communities continue to experience dramatically higher rates of fatal overdose. The disparities affecting Indigenous and Black Minnesotans reflect longstanding inequities in access to healthcare, treatment, mental health services, and other resources, compounded by a history of discrimination in our healthcare and public systems.

I support expanding accessible, culturally responsive substance-use treatment, mental healthcare, recovery services, and harm-reduction resources in underserved communities. This includes making lifesaving medications such as naloxone readily available and ensuring people can get help before they reach a crisis.

We also need to address the underlying barriers that keep people from care—including cost, transportation, provider shortages, and lack of culturally responsive services. I would work with Tribal Nations, Black communities, healthcare providers, and people with lived experience to develop solutions rather than assuming a one-size-fits-all approach.

We should continue using data and evidence to evaluate what works and hold ourselves accountable for reducing—not simply documenting—these disparities. Every Minnesotan deserves the opportunity to live a healthy life and access care when they need it.”

KEYWORDS: culturally-responsive accessibility inequity