Difference between revisions of "North Dakota Read Bills Before Vote Initiative (2012)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(39 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{NDConstitution}}'''North Dakota Read Bills Before Vote Initiative''' may appear on the [[BC2010#November|November 2, 2010]] ballot in [[North Dakota]] as an {{icafull}}.<ref>[http://www.jamestownsun.com/event/apArticle/id/D9DP0CG80/ ''Associated Press'',"Measure requires ND lawmakers to read bills," February 10, 2010]</ref> The proposed measure would require that state lawmakers swear they have read and understood legislative bills before voting. Additionally, lawmakers would have to swear to not being influenced by bribes or "vote trading."
+
{{nond2012}}{{tnr}}'''North Dakota Read Bills Before Vote Initiative''' did not make the [[North Dakota 2012 ballot measures|November 2012]] ballot in [[North Dakota]] as an {{issfull}}.<ref>[http://www.jamestownsun.com/event/apArticle/id/D9DP0CG80/ ''Associated Press'',"Measure requires ND lawmakers to read bills," February 10, 2010]</ref> The proposed measure called for requiring that state lawmakers swear they had read and understood legislative bills before voting. Additionally, lawmakers would have had to swear to not being influenced by bribes or "vote trading."<ref name="InForumFeb10"/><ref>[http://www.jamestownsun.com/event/article/id/106568/ ''Associated Press'',"Measure: Leaders must read all bills," March 9, 2010]</ref> Lawmakers would not have to swear to reading the bill if they opposed it. Additionally, the requirement did not apply to legislative committees. However, bills and resolutions would have to be posted on the internet for at least four days before a vote.<ref>[http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/154866/ ''Associated Press'',"‘Read before vote’ measure circulates," March 19, 2010]</ref>
  
The measure is being proposed by Jerrol LeBaron of California. However, in order to be eligible for a ballot, LeBaron must first acquire 25 sponsors in the state.<ref>[http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/268606/ ''Associated Press'',"Initiative requires reading of bills," February 10, 2010]</ref>
+
==Text of measure==
 +
<u>'''Petition Title:'''</u><ref name="PetitionText">[http://www.nd.gov/sos/electvote/elections/docs/petition-bill-certification.pdf ''North Dakota Secretary of State'',"Initiative Petition full text - read bills," March 10, 2010]</ref>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>This initiated measure would add a new section to chapter 54-03 of the North Dakota Century Code requiring that legislators certify that they have read and that they understand each bill before voting in favor of it and that each bill be posted on the Internet for four days prior to a floor vote on the bill, except in an emergency.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<u>'''Text of the measure:'''</u><ref name="PetitionText"/>
 +
 
 +
'''BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA:'''<BR>
 +
 
 +
'''SECTION 1.''' A new section to chapter 54-03 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows:
 +
 
 +
'''Read the bills and allow citizens to read them too - before the vote.'''
 +
 
 +
# No vote in favor of the passage of the bill shall count unless the legislator certifies, in writing before the vote, under penalty of perjury, that he or she has personally fully read the entire contents of the bill, and has taken steps to understand it and its ramifications to the best of his or her ability.
 +
# No vote which will pass or defeat a bill shall occur until four days after the entirety of the final version of the bill has been posted on the Internet for citizen review. Any alterations or amendments to the bill require a reposting and restart of the review period. This requirement shall not apply to emergencies involving state security of natural catastrophe.
 +
 
 +
==Support==
 +
The measure was proposed by Jerrol LeBaron of California. In order to be eligible for the ballot, LeBaron was required to collect 25 sponsors in the state.<ref name="InForumFeb10">[http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/268606/ ''Associated Press'',"Initiative requires reading of bills," February 10, 2010]</ref> David Wolfer, a retired Bismark businessman and chairman of the campaign, said, "The primary function of a legislator is to know the laws he's going to pass...I'm motivated to see that that job gets done properly."<ref name="APMarch10"/>
 +
 
 +
==Opposition==
 +
[[Bob Stenehjem|Sen. Bob Stenehjem]] argued that there was no need for the initiative and that lawmakers were aware of the details of the bills they were signing. "Show me what problem we have in North Dakota. We don't have a problem. What he ought to do is go to a state where they have a problem," said Stenehjem.<ref name="APMarch10"/> At the time of the proposal, according to the [[North Dakota Constitution]], lawmakers were required to finish their session in 80 days. The measure, said Stenehjem, would have made it harder to meet the requirement.<ref>[http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/apArticle/id/D9EBNNU01/ ''Associated Press'',"ND state Senate leader disputes need for measure," March 10, 2010]</ref>
 +
 
 +
==Media endorsements==
 +
===Opposition===
 +
* '''The Forum''' was opposed to the proposed "Read Bills Before Vote Initiative." In an editorial, the board said, "It’s a foolish and unworkable notion. It’s unnecessary because North Dakota’s system requires that every bill be heard in open committee. Every bill, no matter the committee recommendation, must be reported to the floor of one chamber or the other or both for further debate. No bill can be scuttled by a committee chairman or heard behind closed doors...The proposed measure is seriously flawed. The folks who have signed on to this stupidity haven’t done their homework."<ref>[http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/272284/ ''The Forum'',"Forum editorial: Really bad measure for ballot," March 16, 2010]</ref>
  
 
==Path to the ballot==
 
==Path to the ballot==
 
:: ''See also: [[North Dakota signature requirements]]''
 
:: ''See also: [[North Dakota signature requirements]]''
  
After being approved for circulation, supporters must collect and submit a minimum of 25,688 valid signatures by [[BC2010#August|August 4, 2010]] in order to move the proposed measure to the 2010 ballot.  
+
After being [[approved for circulation]], supporters were required to collect and submit a minimum of 12,844 valid signatures by [[BC2010#August|August 4, 2010]] in order to move the proposed measure to the [[North Dakota 2010 ballot measures|2010 ballot]]. The measure was officially filed with the [[North Dakota Secretary of State]] on [[BC2010#March|March 9, 2010]].<ref name="APMarch10">[http://www.thedickinsonpress.com/event/apArticle/id/D9EBGAH80/ ''Associated Press'',"ND measure requires lawmakers to read, post bills," March 10, 2010]</ref> According to reports, supporters failed to file the required signatures by petition deadline day on August 4, thus failing to qualify for the 2010 ballot.
 +
 
 +
However, the petition was valid for one year and was eligible for the [[North Dakota 2012 ballot measures|2012 ballot]]. The petition was valid until [[BC2011#March|March 18, 2011]]. However, as of that date, no signature were filed.
  
 
==See also==
 
==See also==
* [[2010 ballot measures]]
+
* [[2012 ballot measures]]
* [[North Dakota 2010 ballot measures]]
+
* [[North Dakota 2012 ballot measures]]
 +
 
 +
===Related measures===
 +
{{nob}} [[California Honor in Office Act (2010)]]<br>
 +
 
 +
===Articles===
 +
* [[North Dakota's "Read the bill" initiative approved for circulation]]
 +
* [[North Dakota initiative requires lawmakers read bills before voting]]
 +
 
 +
==={{Pencil}}Interviews===
 +
* [[Interview with Jerrol LeBaron (02/16/2010), Honor in Office]]
 +
 
 +
==External links==
 +
* [http://www.nd.gov/sos/electvote/elections/docs/timeline-bill-certification.pdf Initiative Timeline]
 +
* [http://www.nd.gov/sos/electvote/elections/docs/petition-bill-certification.pdf Full text]
 +
 
 +
==Additional reading==
 +
* [http://www.bismarcktribune.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_12b1776e-3dc4-11df-9803-001cc4c03286.html ''The Bismark Tribune'',"Petitions seek to put six measures on ballot," April 1, 2010]
 +
* [http://www.kxnet.com/custom404.asp?404;http://www.kxnet.com/News/Local/536214.asp ''KXMCTV Minot'',"'Read the Bill' Reaction," March 10, 2010]
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
 
{{reflist|2}}
 
{{reflist|2}}
  
{{2010 ballot measures}}
+
{{2012 ballot measures}}
 
{{North Dakota}}
 
{{North Dakota}}
[[Category:North Dakota 2010 ballot measures]]
+
[[Category:Did not make ballot, administration of government]]
[[Category:Administration of government, North Dakota]]
+
[[Category:Administration of government, 2010]]
+
{{North Dakota stub}}
+

Latest revision as of 10:18, 23 November 2012

Not on Ballot
Proposed allot measures that were not on a ballot
This measure did not or
will not appear on a ballot
North Dakota Read Bills Before Vote Initiative did not make the November 2012 ballot in North Dakota as an initiated state statute.[1] The proposed measure called for requiring that state lawmakers swear they had read and understood legislative bills before voting. Additionally, lawmakers would have had to swear to not being influenced by bribes or "vote trading."[2][3] Lawmakers would not have to swear to reading the bill if they opposed it. Additionally, the requirement did not apply to legislative committees. However, bills and resolutions would have to be posted on the internet for at least four days before a vote.[4]

Text of measure

Petition Title:[5]

This initiated measure would add a new section to chapter 54-03 of the North Dakota Century Code requiring that legislators certify that they have read and that they understand each bill before voting in favor of it and that each bill be posted on the Internet for four days prior to a floor vote on the bill, except in an emergency.

Text of the measure:[5]

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA:

SECTION 1. A new section to chapter 54-03 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows:

Read the bills and allow citizens to read them too - before the vote.

  1. No vote in favor of the passage of the bill shall count unless the legislator certifies, in writing before the vote, under penalty of perjury, that he or she has personally fully read the entire contents of the bill, and has taken steps to understand it and its ramifications to the best of his or her ability.
  2. No vote which will pass or defeat a bill shall occur until four days after the entirety of the final version of the bill has been posted on the Internet for citizen review. Any alterations or amendments to the bill require a reposting and restart of the review period. This requirement shall not apply to emergencies involving state security of natural catastrophe.

Support

The measure was proposed by Jerrol LeBaron of California. In order to be eligible for the ballot, LeBaron was required to collect 25 sponsors in the state.[2] David Wolfer, a retired Bismark businessman and chairman of the campaign, said, "The primary function of a legislator is to know the laws he's going to pass...I'm motivated to see that that job gets done properly."[6]

Opposition

Sen. Bob Stenehjem argued that there was no need for the initiative and that lawmakers were aware of the details of the bills they were signing. "Show me what problem we have in North Dakota. We don't have a problem. What he ought to do is go to a state where they have a problem," said Stenehjem.[6] At the time of the proposal, according to the North Dakota Constitution, lawmakers were required to finish their session in 80 days. The measure, said Stenehjem, would have made it harder to meet the requirement.[7]

Media endorsements

Opposition

  • The Forum was opposed to the proposed "Read Bills Before Vote Initiative." In an editorial, the board said, "It’s a foolish and unworkable notion. It’s unnecessary because North Dakota’s system requires that every bill be heard in open committee. Every bill, no matter the committee recommendation, must be reported to the floor of one chamber or the other or both for further debate. No bill can be scuttled by a committee chairman or heard behind closed doors...The proposed measure is seriously flawed. The folks who have signed on to this stupidity haven’t done their homework."[8]

Path to the ballot

See also: North Dakota signature requirements

After being approved for circulation, supporters were required to collect and submit a minimum of 12,844 valid signatures by August 4, 2010 in order to move the proposed measure to the 2010 ballot. The measure was officially filed with the North Dakota Secretary of State on March 9, 2010.[6] According to reports, supporters failed to file the required signatures by petition deadline day on August 4, thus failing to qualify for the 2010 ballot.

However, the petition was valid for one year and was eligible for the 2012 ballot. The petition was valid until March 18, 2011. However, as of that date, no signature were filed.

See also

Related measures

Proposed ballot measures that were not on a ballot California Honor in Office Act (2010)

Articles

===Pencil.png Interviews===

External links

Additional reading

References