North Dakota ballot news
From Ballotpedia
| ||
| Propositions • | Recall | • Law |
Here you'll find a collection of ballot news stories from North Dakota.
North Dakota pharmacy ownership repeal initiative filed for 2010
BISMARK, North Dakota: Last week an initiative to repeal North Dakota's pharmacy ownership law was filed with the secretary of state. The sponsoring committee is called Citizens for Lower Prescription Drugs. In February 2009 the North Dakota House of Representatives reviewed and rejected a bill that proposed repeal the provision that requires pharmacies to be majority-owned by pharmacists. It is argued that the law prevents stores and hospitals from opening their own pharmacies in North Dakota. If the secretary of state approves the initiative for the 2010 ballot, supporters will need to collect a minimum of 12,844 valid signatures.[1]
Fenced hunting ban resurfaces for 2010 North Dakota ballot
BISMARCK, North Dakota: This week North Dakota activists filed the North Dakota Fenced Hunting Ban Initiative (2010) which proposes banning fenced hunting such as game preserves where people pay to shoot big-game animals.[2] The same group, North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase, that supported the 2010 measure sponsored the same measure for the 2008 statewide ballot but failed to collect enough valid signatures.[3]
In order to qualify the initiative for the 2010 ballot, supporters must collect 12,844 signatures by August 4, 2010.[2] First, however, North Dakota Secretary of State Al Jaeger is expected to review and decide whether the proposal will be approved for circulation by mid-August 2009.[3]
North Dakota attorney general says no taxpayer money for ballot measures
BISMARK, North Dakota: Yesterday, North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem said state law does not allow for taxpayer funds to be used in ballot measure campaigns without legal authority.[4] The attorney general's legal opinion comes at the request of three Republican legislators and years of confusion on state law that states the prohibition of the use of taxpayer resources for any “political purpose.” Until yesterday "political purpose" as defined by state law refers to a candidate or political party.[5]In previous elections, public employees have used taxpayer resources to fight a ballot measure that would have, for example, cut income taxes in the state.[6]
However, the attorney general's decision states that "a public body may not generally expend public funds to advocate a position on a ballot measure...courts have held that public bodies have implied power to make reasonable expenditures for the purpose of giving voters relevant facts to aid them in reaching informed decisions in voting on the ballot measure."[4]
Earlier this year, the legislature defeated a bill that would have made it illegal to use state services on a ballot measure campaign.[5]
Legislators in six states consider health insurance reform proposal
State legislators and activists in six states are considering a proposal that would allow people in their state to opt out of any federally-mandated health insurance plans that may be enacted by the federal government. According to Christine Herrera of the American Legislative Exchange Council, their state legislator members have endorsed a resolution that opposes a Medicare-modeled federal health plan. "Our state legislatures are looking at what's going on in Washington as trampling state's rights," she said, and as a result, some state legislators are looking for ways to allow their state's residents to opt out of any coming federal mandates.[7]
In Arizona, legislators have already placed the Arizona Health Insurance Reform Amendment (2010) on their 2010 ballot. Similar measures are under consider in Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wyoming.[7]
Arizona legislator Phil Lopes, a Democrat, is opposed to this approach, saying, "The proponents of this are saying the system we have now works and we don't want any kind of reform. This flies in the face of what the public tells us they want." In a state legislative dialogue that has crossed state lines, Wisconsin Republican legislator Leah Vukmir says, "The real goal of national health insurance exchange isn't competition -- it's a federal power grab that flies in the face of the Tenth Amendment."[7]
Senator Andrist proposes North Dakota constitutional amendment
BISMARCK, North Dakota: John Andrist, a member of the North Dakota Senate since 1992, says that he wants a proposed constitutional amendment on the November 2010 ballot in North Dakota that would largely overturn the provisions endorsed by about 54% of the state's voters in 2008 when they approved the North Dakota Tobacco Use Prevention and Control Program Initiative.
The basic issue is how the state should use the money that regularly flows into its coffers from a tobacco lawsuit. The 2008 initiative earmarked the tobacco settlement funds for particular purposes, such as prevention.
According to Andrist, the 2008 initiative may have been unconstitutional and thus, subject to lawsuits. He thinks the state's voters should re-consider it.[8]
See also
See also
References
| |||||
