ND Constitutional measure

[NDSportsman]

It gives the govt a veto option on a passed measure, after the fact. This is EXACTLY how south dakota invalidated their citizens vote to legalize cannabis in the state, which passed conclusively. Its being sold as being good, by the govt, thats how you know its bad!

No it does not. This measure simply limits any constitutional amendment to one single matter.

Show me the verbiage in this measure 1 that allows the legislature to veto a passed constitutional measure voted on by the people.

 

[risingsun]

Ho

Old people vote in the primaries and old people are easier to propagandize and manipulate... simple as that.

Hold it.... just wait a gd minute. What is your definition of old? You can't tell Juanr shit.

 

[labhunter66]

You assume this will be a new tax? If you already do not trust government programs what makes you think that they wouldn't take the money anyway? The money coming in for free lunches is already in government or would becoming with another tax in some other form, why not force our state to dedicate funds to helping people, even though it may or may not be life or death for most families?



This is a straw man fallacy. More education = more lifetime earnings. This does not hold true for everyone but data overwhelmingly shows this is the majority. So a less educated society would mean a poorer overall general population, which in a welfare state, would actually work against what you are trying to prevent.


One article from an ultra conservative website does not make me a believer. One thing to remember that many if not most government programs help not hurt, yet the media's hasty generalizations would make you believe otherwise.

A $600,000 contribution from the Washington DC based The Fairness Project is enough to make me not want to vote for this. It's a social mandate that will get out of control just like every other one ever created. Not real thrilled that the North Dakota Farmers Union is supporting this measure financially either.

 

[PrairieGhost]

I have a better idea, make state and federal bills be of one subject. Stop them from adding crap riders to good bills just to get pork for pet projects.

 

[Lycanthrope]

No it does not. This measure simply limits any constitutional amendment to one single matter.

Show me the verbiage in this measure 1 that allows the legislature to veto a passed constitutional measure voted on by the people.

I didnt say 'legislature', did I? Heres how SD used it to eliminate cannabis legalization:

In 2020, South Dakota voters passed Constitutional Amendment A (also called the Marijuana Legalization Initiative) with about 54% approval. This was a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment that would have legalized recreational marijuana use for adults 21 and older (allowing possession of up to 1 ounce), created a regulated market with taxes and licensing, and required the state legislature to enact laws for a medical marijuana program and legal hemp sales by April 1, 2022.

ballotpedia.org
A separate measure on the same ballot (Initiated Measure 26) legalized medical marijuana and passed with stronger support (~70%); it took effect and remains in place because it was a statutory change, not a constitutional amendment.

cannabisbusinesstimes.com
The "Single-Subject Rule" and How It Was UsedSouth Dakota’s Constitution (Article XXIII, § 1) includes a single-subject rule for proposed constitutional amendments: “no proposed amendment may embrace more than one subject.” Voters added this requirement via Amendment Z in 2018 to prevent “logrolling” (bundling unrelated issues together to force voters into an all-or-nothing choice).

ballotpedia.org
Shortly after the election, opponents—including Pennington County Sheriff Kevin Thom, South Dakota Highway Patrol Superintendent Rick Miller, and with support from Gov. Kristi Noem’s administration—filed a lawsuit arguing that Amendment A violated this rule. They claimed it bundled three distinct subjects:

• Recreational marijuana legalization, regulation, and taxation.
• A mandate requiring the legislature to create a medical marijuana program.
• A mandate requiring the legislature to legalize and regulate hemp sales.
  
  ujs.sd.gov

In February 2021, Circuit Court Judge Christina Klinger ruled Amendment A unconstitutional on two grounds:

1. It violated the single-subject rule (the provisions were not “reasonably germane” to one single topic).
2. It went beyond a simple amendment and amounted to a “revision” of the state constitution (which would require a constitutional convention).
   
   ogletree.com

The sponsors appealed. In November 2021, the South Dakota Supreme Court upheld the ruling in a 4-1 decision. Chief Justice Steven Jensen wrote that Amendment A embraced “at least three separate subjects, each with distinct objects or purposes,” and that voters could not fairly decide on them in one up-or-down vote.

npr.org
Result: Effective Veto of the Voter MeasureBecause Amendment A was a constitutional change that would have taken effect automatically, the courts’ ruling nullified it entirely. No recreational legalization occurred. The governor and state officials did not need the legislature to pass a new veto law—the existing constitutional single-subject rule, enforced through the lawsuit and courts, achieved the same outcome.

reason.com
This is why many described it as the government using the single-issue (single-subject) law to override the popular vote. The rule itself was voter-approved in 2018, but critics argued it was selectively applied here to block a measure the Republican-led government and governor strongly opposed on policy grounds.Later attempts at recreational marijuana (a 2022 initiated measure and a 2024 one) both failed at the ballot box, so the issue has not returned via the courts since. The single-subject rule remains in effect and has shaped how future ballot measures are written in the state.

Essentially laws like this are easily weaponized to take power away from the people and give it to the govt, which Im not a fan of.

 

[woodduck30]

Free school lunches are already in place for PARENTS making under $72K and reduced if above that.

Now free school lunches for PARENTS that can afford it, but would rather someone else pay their way. Sounds like a great idea.

If it were about the kids, why wouldn't they focus on improving education? Food side is already taken care of. Maybe we should improve their education. Focus on helping teachers teach instead of focusing on coddling kids. Teach them not coddle them.

Imagine how much price per meal will go up due to the vendor knowing this is paid for by the tax dollar! Up, up and away with our property tax bill. This will be so great.

 

[Lycanthrope]

Free school lunches are already in place for PARENTS making under $72K and reduced if above that.

Now free school lunches for PARENTS that can afford it, but would rather someone else pay their way. Sounds like a great idea.

If it were about the kids, why wouldn't they focus on improving education? Food side is already taken care of. Maybe we should improve their education. Focus on helping teachers teach instead of focusing on coddling kids. Teach them not coddle them.

Imagine how much price per meal will go up due to the vendor knowing this is paid for by the tax dollar! Up, up and away with our property tax bill. This will be so great.

Im hopeful that AI will allow parents to better educate their children soon, without having the public school system involved at all.

 

[woodduck30]

I hear that!

We home school our kids during the summer for roughly 45 minutes a day - 4 days a week. They go into school in the fall and score high on those standardized tests they give them. The school does not like that because it will be hard to show improvement from that high score. Their words, not mine. Then after being in school for 6 months, they take the spring test. Their scores almost always go down or stay the same.

 

[johnr]

You assume this will be a new tax? If you already do not trust government programs what makes you think that they wouldn't take the money anyway? The money coming in for free lunches is already in government or would becoming with another tax in some other form, why not force our state to dedicate funds to helping people, even though it may or may not be life or death for most families?



This is a straw man fallacy. More education = more lifetime earnings. This does not hold true for everyone but data overwhelmingly shows this is the majority. So a less educated society would mean a poorer overall general population, which in a welfare state, would actually work against what you are trying to prevent.


One article from an ultra conservative website does not make me a believer. One thing to remember that many if not most government programs help not hurt, yet the media's hasty generalizations would make you believe otherwise.

Not ever will I be swayed into thinking the already free lunch program for the needy needs to be free lunches for all.

I would be ashamed to have my kids, or any part of my family on the role of someone elses dime.

The problem in America today is socialism, and more of it will only make the problem worse.

 

[Duckslayer100]

Not ever will I be swayed into thinking the already free lunch program for the needy needs to be free lunches for all.

I would be ashamed to have my kids, or any part of my family on the role of someone elses dime.

The problem in America today is socialism, and more of it will only make the problem worse.

That's fine. I don't intend to sway the 20 percent of staunch folks on that side. I'll stay with the 80 percent who do.

But I must say, I do love that wrapping food costs in with every other taxable cost associated with mandatory public education is socialism, while bailing out banks or farmers is just good-old fair-and-square capitalism.

I realize you did not draw that comparison, but it does paint a picture.

 

[guywhofishes]

But I must say, I do love that wrapping food costs in with every other taxable cost associated with mandatory public education is socialism, while bailing out banks or farmers is just good-old fair-and-square capitalism.

False equivalence.

 

[Duckslayer100]

False equivalence.

Can you extrapolate?

 

[guywhofishes]

Sorry, don't have time. Ignore it.

 

[tdismydog]

Not ever will I be swayed into thinking the already free lunch program for the needy needs to be free lunches for all.

I would be ashamed to have my kids, or any part of my family on the role of someone elses dime.

The problem in America today is socialism, and more of it will only make the problem worse.

Taxation is wealth redistribution which under its basic definition is socialism. I agree there much wasted money, our ND State government might be the poster child, but not all programs are bad and I think that a free lunch program would be that.