More legislative shenanigans by Al Carlson

[The_Sicatoka]

If you don't like how the (Federal) House and Senate are constituted, change the Constitution. There's a defined process for that. And when your State became a State you agreed to all of it.

Until then, the Senate is set up so the urbans don't overrun the rural. The urbans get the House to do that.

Frankly, if I were to make a change to the make-up of the Senate, I'd repeal (by the process) the 17th Amendment: No more popular vote for Senators; popular vote for House reps only. Go back to Senators picked by state legislatures. That would force folks to look at who they are sending to Bismarck even harder.

[HerdBot]

Currently ND has two types of initiated measures: one for statutes (state laws) and one for constitutional amendments. Example the Marijuana initiated measures are statutory; the term limits initiated measure is constitutional. Current law requires only a simple majority for both types of initiated measures. The proposal to 60% majority is for the constitutional measures only. I am not sure at this point where I personally stand on this issue; but my gut tells me there should be a higher standard to change our ND Constitution than to pass a statutory law.

The irony is they only need 50% and 1 vote to make it a 60%

The North Dakota Constitution isn't the same as the US Constitution in my mind. Lots of stupid shit in there already like requiring a certain number of colleges

It's better than the last attempt but if they are going to require 60%, they should lower the number of required signatures from double to 10% more than a statutory

People knock Marcys Law, but it got 62% yes.

[Yote 53]

Something similar in South Dakota Amendment C requiring a three-fifths (60%) supermajority vote for the approval of ballot measures placed on the ballot through citizen initiative or referred to the ballot by the state legislature that increase taxes or fees or that would require the state to appropriate $10 million or more in the first five fiscal years.

I don't have a problem with this as it applies to to citizen referendums and applies explicitly to tax increases or large state appropriations. When we're talking money like that the threshold should be higher than 50/50. The Legislature still has the power to pass budgets, taxes, etc. at 50%+1. We have a big issue in South Dakota with outside money coming in and dumpling huge money to push initiatives on public referendums. Why? I have no idea. To effect "change" to a population that is really fine with the way things are.

Irony is we passed both medicinal and recreational marijuana referendums and those got hung up or overturned by State Courts denying the will of the people. Those wouldn't even fall under Amendment C. So even when we vote for something the Powers That Be will still find a way to deny you. Like Noem, but she's wrong for what she's doing there. The more popular she gets the more the haters in this state are becoming vocal.

[bisonaudit]

Something similar in South Dakota Amendment C requiring a three-fifths (60%) supermajority vote for the approval of ballot measures placed on the ballot through citizen initiative or referred to the ballot by the state legislature that increase taxes or fees or that would require the state to appropriate $10 million or more in the first five fiscal years.

I don't have a problem with this as it applies to to citizen referendums and applies explicitly to tax increases or large state appropriations. When we're talking money like that the threshold should be higher than 50/50. The Legislature still has the power to pass budgets, taxes, etc. at 50%+1. We have a big issue in South Dakota with outside money coming in and dumpling huge money to push initiatives on public referendums. Why? I have no idea. To effect "change" to a population that is really fine with the way things are.

Irony is we passed both medicinal and recreational marijuana referendums and those got hung up or overturned by State Courts denying the will of the people. Those wouldn't even fall under Amendment C. So even when we vote for something the Powers That Be will still find a way to deny you. Like Noem, but she's wrong for what she's doing there. The more popular she gets the more the haters in this state are becoming vocal.

$10 million dollars seems like a crazy low threshold.

[PickedBess]

100%.
Constitutional changes should not be at the whim of 50%+1.

Boo Boo Boo

[PickedBess]

The_Sicatoka UNDBIZ cx500d

From the Land Downunder

[Bisonator98]

Of course I understand that it was a compromise. I also understand that it was a compromise forged 245 years ago when the only people with political power were white male property owners and that some of that property consisted of other human beings. I stated explicitly that changing the way were represented in the Senate would be very difficult if not impossible. I get it. Jefferson’s “agrarian” vision is firmly enshrined and the amendment process makes it nearly impossible to change because what would possibly induce rural states to voluntarily surrender their power, right? Let’s just be plain about the system we actually have. It’s a veto-ocracy that’s currently ruled by a West Virginia DINOsaur.

You can always leave if you don't like the system.

[bisonaudit]

You can always leave if you don't like the system.

I’ve done that once already. If there’s a next time it would have to be to a place where I’m free to complain about it’s flaws. That was something I really missed.

[HerdBot]

Something similar in South Dakota Amendment C requiring a three-fifths (60%) supermajority vote for the approval of ballot measures placed on the ballot through citizen initiative or referred to the ballot by the state legislature that increase taxes or fees or that would require the state to appropriate $10 million or more in the first five fiscal years.

I don't have a problem with this as it applies to to citizen referendums and applies explicitly to tax increases or large state appropriations. When we're talking money like that the threshold should be higher than 50/50. The Legislature still has the power to pass budgets, taxes, etc. at 50%+1. We have a big issue in South Dakota with outside money coming in and dumpling huge money to push initiatives on public referendums. Why? I have no idea. To effect "change" to a population that is really fine with the way things are.

Irony is we passed both medicinal and recreational marijuana referendums and those got hung up or overturned by State Courts denying the will of the people. Those wouldn't even fall under Amendment C. So even when we vote for something the Powers That Be will still find a way to deny you. Like Noem, but she's wrong for what she's doing there. The more popular she gets the more the haters in this state are becoming vocal.

Fact. More people voted to legalize weed than voted for Noem. I like her general philosophy but she really fucked up on that one. I think she's positioning herself for a VP run not realizing outside of her little world in SD, a huge majority of the nation supports legalization now. It's closer to 70% nationwide. She pretends she's all about freedom but is acting like an authoritarian when it comes to cannabis.

She tried to stop medical marijuana but failed. She fucked up on the recreational big time. Claiming people didn't know what they were voting on is ridiculous

[ByeSonBusiness]

Changing the State Constitution can be raised to 60%, fine by me. The US Senate has a good gig going. Can be frustrating at times but I like the filibuster rule. Truth is, most of the Senators do too. Many claim they don't that actually do.