Essay
Minnesota Statutes 2024, section 145.4718 requires the director of child sex trafficking prevention to submit a program evaluation every other year. The passing of H. F. 129 is no different. However, not only would the director of child sex trafficking prevention have to submit an updated evaluation every two years to the commissioner of health, but also “to the chairs and ranking minority members of the senate and house representatives committees with jurisdiction over health and public safety.” In this way, the report becomes more public as representatives get to review the report. This is a push in the right direction as it increases transparency and fosters accountability. This is especially important as child sex trafficking becomes an increasing problem. As explained by Ronald Weitzer, “Things are only getting worse: Sex trafficking is "mushrooming," child prostitution is increasing at ‘alarming rates,’ and ‘sex trafficking victims are getting increasingly younger’” (Weitzer, 2025, pg. 1348). This bill also has gained support by both Democrat (DFL) and Republican (R) house members. Bipartisan support is especially important when getting bills to pass. In fact, according to Harbridge et al. (2014, p. 328), “Both the public opinion polls and the academic literature suggest that the public should prefer policies that reflect bipartisan process.” So, not only this the dual support of this bill important to the process, but also to the American people.
However, with good implications come bad. The passing of this bill could put unintentional administrative burden on representatives, the Department of Health, and the Director of Child Sex Trafficking Prevention. An article published in the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory states that, “Administrative burden is a venue where politics plays out…This claim aligns with theoretical traditions that emphasize the willingness of political actors to design administrative structures to serve political ends, even if the outcomes are operationally dysfunctional (Moe 1989)” (Moynihan et al., 2014, p. 52). Essentially, this argument supports the idea that representatives could be passing bills for their benefit, and not those of the people. One point of observation when it comes to H. F. 129 is that it does not allocate new funds for the passing of this bill. An argument could be made that funds should have been allocated to paying the extra overseers of the program evaluation. Another observation and/or argument that could possibly arise is the reality of misinterpretation. Because this bill is releasing complex data to more people than just the director of child sex trafficking prevention, it could lead to misinterpretation and, worse yet, poor policy decisions. These decisions could be a result of numerous factors; however, it is important to remember the words of both Dr. Omarova and Dr. Richardson describing the evolving state of public investment, “It is critical to examine the nature and functions of public investment as a unique form of public power now, as the United States faces unprecedented economic, environmental, and political challenges” (T. Omarova & Richardson, 2025, p. 465).
Sources:
Harbridge, L., Malhotra, N., & Harrison, B. F. (2014). Public preferences for bipartisanship in the policymaking process. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 39(3), 327–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12048
Moynihan, D., Herd, P., & Harvey, H. (2014). Administrative burden: learning, psychological, and compliance costs in Citizen-State interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 43–69. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu009
T. Omarova, S., & Richardson, B. (2025). Public Investment as Constitutional Power and Accountability Challenge. The University of Chicago Law Review, 92(2), 461–502. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27366573
Weitzer, R. (2012). Sex Trafficking and the Sex Industry: The Need for Evidence-Based Theory and Legislation. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 101(4), 1337–1369. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23150018