RepublicanINCUMBENT

Natalie Zeleznikar

Minnesota State House District 3B 2026 · 2026

↗ Official Website

Policy Positions

52%

Avg Confidence

Issue Areas

Find Your Alignment →

Policy Positions

▲

Criminal Justice

1 position

Do you believe that repeat violent offenders should face longer mandatory minimum prison sentences than current law requires?

Support

Party InferenceNo direct statements on mandatory minimum sentencing for repeat violent offenders found in campaign materials; position inferred from Republican party baseline on criminal justice and candidate's stated commitment to 'limited government' and 'common sense solutions' balanced against her healthcare/vulnerable-population focus. Fact-check this →

◊

Drug Policy

1 position

Do you believe local governments should have the authority to prohibit cannabis retail businesses from operating within their jurisdictions?

Neutral

Party InferenceNo direct statements on cannabis retail policy or local zoning authority found in campaign platform; inferred from Republican party baseline position favoring local control, but without specific evidence on this issue. Fact-check this →

■

Education

1 position

Would you support creating education savings accounts that give families the option to apply their share of state school funding toward tuition at a private school?

Neutral

Party InferenceCampaign platform emphasizes 'limited government' and property-tax relief through unfunded-mandate reduction, but contains no explicit statement on education savings accounts or school-choice policy; position inferred from Republican party baseline absent direct candidate evidence on this specific issue. Fact-check this →

◆

Environment

1 position

Do you believe Minnesota should keep its current law requiring all electricity delivered by utilities to come from carbon-free sources by 2040?

Oppose

Party InferenceNo direct statements on carbon-free electricity mandate found in campaign platform; position inferred from Republican party baseline opposition to prescriptive renewable energy mandates and stated commitment to 'limited government' and 'common sense solutions' focused on affordability and business tax competitiveness. Fact-check this →

□

Gun Policy

1 position

Do you believe courts should have the authority to temporarily remove firearms from people determined by a judge to be a danger to themselves or others?

Neutral

Party InferenceNo direct statements on firearm removal policies or extreme risk protection orders found in campaign materials; position inferred from Republican party baseline stance which shows mixed support for such measures. Fact-check this →

♥

Healthcare

1 position

Do you believe residents should have the option to purchase health coverage directly through a state-run insurance program if they choose?

Oppose

Party InferenceCandidate's campaign platform emphasizes 'limited government' and cost-reduction through ending unfunded mandates and reducing taxes/fees, with no mention of or support for state-run health insurance programs; position inferred from stated Republican ideology and absence of any platform language supporting public option or state insurance programs. Fact-check this →

▪

Housing

1 position

Would you support requiring cities to allow more than one housing unit on lots where only single-family homes are currently permitted by zoning rules?

Oppose

Party InferenceCandidate's campaign platform emphasizes 'limited government' and ending unfunded mandates; no direct statements on zoning/housing density, but Republican party baseline and local property-tax focus suggest skepticism toward density mandates. Fact-check this →

▶

Immigration

1 position

Would you support a policy that allows residents to obtain a driver's license regardless of their immigration status?

Oppose

Party InferenceNo direct statements on immigration-related driver's license policy found in campaign materials; inference based on Republican party baseline opposition to immigration-status-neutral licensing, tempered by candidate's moderate rhetoric on pragmatic problem-solving. Fact-check this →

△

Infrastructure

1 position

Would you support a policy that dedicates metro-area sales tax revenue specifically to funding public transit expansion and operations?

Oppose

Party InferenceCandidate's platform emphasizes 'limited government,' ending unfunded mandates, and reducing taxes/fees; no statements support dedicated sales tax funding for transit; inferred opposition based on stated fiscal conservatism and party baseline on revenue-dedicated transit funding. Fact-check this →

⚐

Labor

1 position

Would you support continuing a state-run paid leave program that allows workers to receive benefits funded by employer and employee payroll taxes?

Oppose

Party InferenceNo direct evidence on paid leave policy found in campaign materials; position inferred from candidate's stated commitment to 'limited government' and opposition to unfunded mandates, aligned with typical Republican skepticism of employer-employee payroll tax programs. Fact-check this →

◈

Social Security

1 position

Would you support a policy that fully exempts all Social Security benefits from Minnesota state income tax, regardless of how much income a recipient earns?

Support

Party InferenceCandidate's campaign platform emphasizes tax relief for working families and reducing unfair tax burdens (car tab fees, property taxes, expanded child tax credits), suggesting alignment with exempting Social Security from state income tax, though no explicit statement on this specific policy appears in available materials. Fact-check this →

⚑

Taxes

1 position

Do you believe the state should establish an additional income tax bracket with a higher rate for income earned above one million dollars per year?

Oppose

Party InferenceCandidate's campaign platform emphasizes 'limited government' and focuses tax relief on property tax/car tab reduction and expanding middle-income child tax credits rather than progressive income taxation; no direct statement on millionaire tax bracket found, but Republican party baseline and stated philosophy suggest opposition. Fact-check this →