An apparent deal between Republican Rep. Rod Hamilton of Mountain Lake and Democrats in the Minnesota House on trading his vote to override the governor for favorable consideration of a road in his district sounded questionable to begin with. Now, it looks even worse.

Democrats agreed to insert a 22 line provision in the transportation bill that set out in not so subtle ways to move Highway 60 in Hamilton’s district up in the priority rankings for MnDOT projects to be completed.

Now, MnDOT says the language wasn’t clear and if it was clear, the agency doesn’t have the money. Democrats who made the deal say Hamilton misunderstood, a statement Hamilton and fellow southern Minnesota legislator Sen. Jim Vickerman, DFL, Tracy., say is off base.

Such deals are somewhat unprecedented in legislative deliberations. The state and MnDOT have long prided themselves on de-politicizing road funding decisions when it came to specific roads. MnDOT has had in the past a system of prioritizing roads with the most need and have usually involved local authorities when making those decisions.

One could argue that Democrats were down to their last straw for making the override vote stick on the $6.6 billion transportation package. That they committed possibly only a venial sin for making such a deal, and that it was necessary for the greater good that would come from the transportation package.

The language apparently specified the funds be expended first for projects that met specific criteria. That criteria, apparently not so surprisingly, met the criteria that applied to the need to widen Highway 60 between St. James and Windom in Hamilton’s district.

Putting specific road language like that into a transportation funding bill sort of opens the floodgates to make road repair political instead of practical. It also sets a dangerous precedent, almost creating a earmark-like system for road funding. That’s a federal model the state certainly doesn’t want to follow.

Unfortunately, MnDOT’s response and its changing policy on road priorities also carries elements of political deal-making. Members of the Highway 14 Partnership have recently taken issue with MnDOT changes in criteria for assessing road priorities. The group argues the new priority favors metro area roads. Those changes can be political because the MnDOT commissioner answers to the governor.

If anything, more transparency is needed. MnDOT needs to clearly define criteria on how they will allocate funds to certain roads. There needs to be a public discussion of the fairness of that criteria, and public comment on it.

Our road funding system should be fair and based on facts, not politics.