June 12 Measures

[UNDBIZ]

Measures 2 & 4 will bring people out to vote. Here's how I plan to vote right now. Please feel free to comment on or correct me on my interpretations of Measures 1 & 3 as those are the ones I'm less knowledgable about.

Measure 1 - No (if passed, allows state legislators to be appointed to state gov't positions)

Measure 2 - No (if passed, removes property taxes and entrusts the state gov't with funding local gov't)

Measure 3 - No (this just looks like a dumb, unnecessary measure that will ensure religious freedom... which we

already have.For those who believe it will ensure more religious freedoms, remember that those freedoms will also be granted to people of other "religions," scientology and such)

Measure 4 - Yes (if passed, allows UND to remain competitive in athletics)

What are your thoughts on the measures up for vote this summer?

[fightingsioux4life]

I am with you on everything you said.

[darell1976]

#1--means Al Carlson could become appointed to the ND Game and Fish? No thanks.

#2-- no brainer, its a way to get rid of our surplus. I am voting no

#3-- I have no clue what this measure even means. I probably will vote no, unless there is a reason to vote yes.

#4--Yes. The obvious choice.

[Fetch]

If in doubt vote NO & most do

[Hammersmith]

Measures 2 & 4 will bring people out to vote. Here's how I plan to vote right now. Please feel free to comment on or correct me on my interpretations of Measures 1 & 3 as those are the ones I'm less knowledgable about.

Measure 1 - No (if passed, allows state legislators to be appointed to state gov't positions)

Measure 2 - No (if passed, removes property taxes and entrusts the state gov't with funding local gov't)

Measure 3 - No (this just looks like a dumb, unnecessary measure that will ensure religious freedom... which we

already have.For those who believe it will ensure more religious freedoms, remember that those freedoms will also be granted to people of other "religions," scientology and such)

Measure 4 - Yes (if passed, allows UND to remain competitive in athletics)

What are your thoughts on the measures up for vote this summer?

Measure 1:

Currently, legislators cannot be appointed to positions while also holding their seat. The measure doesn't change that. Also currently, a legislator cannot be appointed to a brand new position. That also isn't changed by the measure. Finally, the current law says a legislator cannot be appointed to a position whose pay has been increased during that legislative term. This is the part that the measure wants to change. Instead of saying that any increase at all makes legislators ineligible, the new wording allows for pay increases up to the general rate of increase for all state employees.

In other words: Say an appointed job got a 2% cost of living increase as part of a general pay raise to that entire department. Under current law, a legislator couldn't be appointed to that job. Under the new law, they could. But say the job got a 5% raise while the general rate of increase was 3%. A legislator could not be appointed to that job under both the old and new versions of the law.

I can see why the legislature wants this law modified. The original law created an unintential situation where standard pay increases made legislators ineligible for those jobs. The letter and spirit of the law doesn't match up as it currently reads. My biggest issue with it is that it's sponsored by Al Carlson. Hate that guy.

[darell1976]

Measure 1:

Currently, legislators cannot be appointed to positions while also holding their seat. The measure doesn't change that. Also currently, a legislator cannot be appointed to a brand new position. That also isn't changed by the measure. Finally, the current law says a legislator cannot be appointed to a position whose pay has been increased during that legislative term. This is the part that the measure wants to change. Instead of saying that any increase at all makes legislators ineligible, the new wording allows for pay increases up to the general rate of increase for all state employees.

In other words: Say an appointed job got a 2% cost of living increase as part of a general pay raise to that entire department. Under current law, a legislator couldn't be appointed to that job. Under the new law, they could. But say the job got a 5% raise while the general rate of increase was 3%. A legislator could not be appointed to that job under both the old and new versions of the law.

I can see why the legislature wants this law modified. The original law created an unintential situation where standard pay increases made legislators ineligible for those jobs. The letter and spirit of the law doesn't match up as it currently reads. My biggest issue with it is that it's sponsored by Al Carlson. Hate that guy.

So 1 and 4 is thanks to Al Carlson? Good to know. No on 1 and yes on 4.

[UNDBIZ]

Measure 1:

Currently, legislators cannot be appointed to positions while also holding their seat. The measure doesn't change that. Also currently, a legislator cannot be appointed to a brand new position. That also isn't changed by the measure. Finally, the current law says a legislator cannot be appointed to a position whose pay has been increased during that legislative term. This is the part that the measure wants to change. Instead of saying that any increase at all makes legislators ineligible, the new wording allows for pay increases up to the general rate of increase for all state employees.

In other words: Say an appointed job got a 2% cost of living increase as part of a general pay raise to that entire department. Under current law, a legislator couldn't be appointed to that job. Under the new law, they could. But say the job got a 5% raise while the general rate of increase was 3%. A legislator could not be appointed to that job under both the old and new versions of the law.

I can see why the legislature wants this law modified. The original law created an unintential situation where standard pay increases made legislators ineligible for those jobs. The letter and spirit of the law doesn't match up as it currently reads. My biggest issue with it is that it's sponsored by Al Carlson. Hate that guy.

Thank you for the clarification. I guess I don't really support legislators being appointed to any position (unless perhaps they were already in that position and later elected to the legislature). So whatever makes it more difficult for them to be appointed is what I'll vote for. In this case that would appear to be NO on Measure 1.

[Siouxperfan7]

If you need help deciding how to vote, do the opposite of what Dave does. So it would be No on 2, Yes on 3, and Yes on 4. That's exactly how I was going to vote. Glad to know that I don't have the same mindset as Dave!!!

[scpa0305]

If you need help deciding how to vote, do the opposite of what Dave does. So it would be No on 2, Yes on 3, and Yes on 4. That's exactly how I was going to vote. Glad to know that I don't have the same mindset as Dave!!!

Pretty sure everyone can make up their own minds. Because you don't view his you don't need to push your views on anyone else.

[Siouxperfan7]

Pretty sure everyone can make up their own minds. Because you don't view his you don't need to push your views on anyone else.

Relax...I was just making a joke. Sure it was at Dave's expense...but he's a big boy he can take it You're right, no one on this site has EVER pushed their views on anyone else!!

[bincitysioux]

So you don't want your monthly house payment to go down significantly (or are you not a homeowner)? And you don't support the separation of church and state? REALLY? Hmmm, to each his own but I find that rather interesting.

I don't see how Measure 2 would make your monthly house payment go down. North Dakota is in need of property tax relief, and it can afford to offer it. Measure 2 is a poor way to go about it. And, yes, I am a homeowner and a landowner. Measure 3 is pointless. The separation of church and state is already protected by the U.S. Constitution. Measure 4 is a no brainer............anybody that is even slightly informed on that issue should vote yes.

[82SiouxGuy]

So you don't want your monthly house payment to go down significantly (or are you not a homeowner)? And you don't support the separation of church and state? REALLY? Hmmm, to each his own but I find that rather interesting.

I guess that you don't want to pay for your kids education, or any of the other things that property tax pays for. You do realize that several other taxes will probably go up to replace property taxes. Because there isn't a plan in place, you could end up paying a lot more in total taxes depending on what a new plan would look like. Measure 2 is a poorly written piece of legislation. If they want to cut or eliminate property taxes, figure out a plan to make things work rather than just throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[bincitysioux]

My property taxes are figured into my mortgage ............

Your bank collects your property taxes?

[82SiouxGuy]

Yeah, it's figured into the "escrow" along with my homeowners insurance. I have no idea how common or uncommon this practice is.

It's very common with home mortgages. It is much simpler and more reliable for people. The taxes are put into escrow during the previous year for taxes payable this year. The same thing with insurance. Much less chance of people not having the money when they are due, and it is easier for people to pay a little more each month than coming up with the chunk once or twice a year.

[choyt3]

Educate yourself, North Dakota.

http://c3.thevoterguide.org/v/forum12/index.do

[fightingsioux4life]

I voted today at the Alerus Center:

Measure 1: No

Measure 2: No

Measure 3: No

Measure 4: Yes

Measures 2 and 4 will drive the most turnout, with Measure 3 drawing some people as well.

[bincitysioux]

I voted today at the Alerus Center:

Measure 1: No

Measure 2: No

Measure 3: No

Measure 4: Yes

Measures 2 and 4 will drive the most turnout, with Measure 3 drawing some people as well.

The University of North Dakota appreciates the fact that you are standing up for them!

[The Sicatoka]

Measure 1: I don't think legislators should be put into state administrative offices, ever, unless they give up their legislative seat. If this makes appointing legislators to administrative positions more difficult I'll vote NO for that reason alone.

Measure 2: Great notion, but they have no implementation plan (so the Legislature gets free reign to create one, like raising sales or income tax rates to make up the difference, and they will). Come back next time with an implementation plan. I'll vote NO now.

Measure 3: Stuff like this tends to come back around and prove the law of unintended consequences. I'll vote NO.

Measure 4: I'm voting YES for the University of North Dakota.

[scpa0305]

I sure hope these online polls don't reflect an accurate sample of the population....everyone I talk to in GF (including their mothers) are voting No for Measure 4. Too bad the NCAA is scaring everyone away with their threats.

[The Sicatoka]

I sure hope these online polls don't reflect an accurate sample of the population....everyone I talk to in GF (including their mothers) are voting No for Measure 4. Too bad the NCAA is scaring everyone away with their threats.

That does not align with random polling* by Forum Communications.

That showed Grand Forks County as being one of the biggest potential "yes" vote locations in the state.

*Online polling is always suspect because it is not a random sampling of the pool but rather a "self-selected" subset of the pool. But enough amateur statistical theory ...

[82SiouxGuy]

I sure hope these online polls don't reflect an accurate sample of the population....everyone I talk to in GF (including their mothers) are voting No for Measure 4. Too bad the NCAA is scaring everyone away with their threats.

And just about everyone I know is voting Yes. They aren't threats if they follow through with actions. The sanctions are already in place and have already affected UND. They aren't just threats. And they aren't going away.

[scpa0305]

That does not align with random polling* by Forum Communications.

That showed Grand Forks County as being one of the biggest potential "yes" vote locations in the state.

*Online polling is always suspect because it is not a random sampling of the pool but rather a "self-selected" subset of the pool. But enough amateur statistical theory ...

ditto

[Hammersmith]

Measure 1: I don't think legislators should be put into state administrative offices, ever, unless they give up their legislative seat. If this makes appointing legislators to administrative positions more difficult I'll vote NO for that reason alone.

Just so things remain clear, the bolded section is true in North Dakota right now and will remain true whether measure #1 passes or fails. All measure #1 does is allow ND legislators to be appointed to jobs when that job has received a pay raise no greater than the general rate of all state full time employees. Every once in awhile, a sitting legislator might be the best person for a state job. While there are a LOT of idiots in the legislature, there are also some good people with a great deal of experience. This law would keep those people in the applicant pool even if the job in question received a standard wage increase(like 1-3%).

That being said, I'll probably be voting against it just because the sponsor of the bill is Al Carlson.

My likely vote: No, No, No, Abstain(as long as it doesn't invalidate my ballot - yes otherwise)

[Gothmog]

I don't live in North Dakota anymore. If I did, my vote would be: Yes, Hell No!, No, and Yes.

[82SiouxGuy]

I haven't decided on Measure 1 because of the factors that Hammersmith mentioned, but also lean toward No because of Carlson. It is a definite No on 2, probably a No on 3 and a Hell Yes on 4.