Latest news with #Roers
Yahoo
03-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Effort to improve North Dakota campaign finance reporting fails
Sens. Kristin Roers, from left, Jose Castaneda and Jeff Barta, conference committee members on House Bill 1377, walk at the Capitol on May 1, 2025. Roers expressed frustration early Saturday that the House and Senate could not reach an agreement on adding more transparency to campaign finance reporting. (Kyle Martin/For the North Dakota Monitor) A stripped-down campaign finance bill failed in the Senate early Saturday morning after a prolonged disagreement between chambers. House Bill 1377 was the last bill on the House and Senate floor for the 2025 legislative session. Some lawmakers hoped it would be a vehicle for ambitious changes in campaign spending transparency, as well as for streamlining financial disclosure regulations for candidates. It would have taken effect at the same time as the launch of the North Dakota Secretary of State's Office's new campaign finance system. 'We had a real opportunity this year with the new software coming in to take a big step forward in our campaign finance transparency and unfortunately, we failed,' said Sen. Kristin Roers, R-Fargo, who sat on the conference committee appointed to workshop the bill. North Dakota Legislature adopts 'historic' property tax bill on final day of session A conference committee of six lawmakers met several times throughout the day to work out differences over the bill. The committee ultimately decided against including a handful of transparency-related proposals in the legislation. Dissatisfied with what the committee advanced to the floor, Roers ultimately asked the Senate to reject the proposal when it got to the floor about 3:45 a.m. Saturday. It failed 5-39. The House, meanwhile, gave the bill a favorable 65-25 vote. Rep. Dan Ruby, R, Minot, who sponsored House Bill 1377, said the bill deserved to pass even if some lawmakers wished it had done more for campaign finance transparency. 'This is still a good bill,' he said. House Bill 1377 sought to incentivize campaign reporting compliance by increasing late fees and making info about late filers public online. 'If you are late with fines or amendments in the future, that information will be posted on the Secretary of State's website,' said Rep. Vicky Steiner, R-Dickinson, who carried the bill on the floor Saturday morning. Other changes highlighted by Steiner included inflationary adjustments to campaign contribution reporting thresholds, and updating state law to reflect an Attorney General's Opinion related to federal political action committees. The bill sought to revive some components of Senate Bill 2156, which failed upon its second visit to the Senate floor earlier this session after significant amendments by the House. A Senate committee led by Roers had voted to fold elements of Senate Bill 2156 into House Bill 1377 — causing consternation among some lawmakers in the House. The Senate approved the changes, though the House voted last week not to concur with the amendments. The conference committee discussed, though ultimately rejected, several transparency-related provisions. One was to publicize candidates' beginning and ending campaign fund balances. Lawmakers also considered making itemized campaign expenditures available to the public. North Dakota already makes campaign contributions above $200 public. Some legislators on the committee were skeptical the additional information would be useful. Steiner said during a Friday meeting that full campaign spending information should not be publicized because it can be weaponized against candidates — especially in small communities. 'My rural legislators are concerned about someone saying, 'You bought from Joe and you didn't buy from me, Bill,'' she said during the meeting. Rep. Steve Vetter, R-Grand Forks, said he doesn't think the public is interested in a higher level of detail. 'Nobody's asking to know which vendors I'm working with or those types of things,' Vetter said. Rep. Emily O'Brien, R-Grand Forks, told her colleagues on the House floor she was disappointed with the direction the bill had taken. She said she didn't understand why some lawmakers are reluctant to make more campaign finance data public. 'No one should have to ask,' O'Brien said. Bill would require more frequent financial disclosure reporting from North Dakota officials Gov. Kelly Armstrong, who spoke with reporters early Saturday about some of the final bills of the session, said he doesn't think citizen lawmakers should be required to report the same level of financial disclosures as congressional candidates. But he said the items in House Bill 1377 seemed reasonable. 'I don't think asking for beginning fund balances and ending fund balances and itemizing your expenses in a campaign are too much to ask of elected officials,' said Armstrong, a former state senator and U.S. House representative. 'I think the more transparency you have, the more trust you get from the public,' he added. Armstrong last week signed a separate bill that will require North Dakota officials to file financial disclosure forms annually, rather than only when they are appointed or file to run for office. House Bill 1469 also requires the secretary of state to publish the forms online. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
17-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
North Dakota Senate vote allows funding for public broadcasting, but no guarantee
Prairie Public Broadcasting's offices in downtown Fargo. (Jeff Beach/North Dakota Monitor) The North Dakota Senate defeated a bill that bans state or federal funding for public broadcasting but some senators who voted against the bill still called for defunding Prairie Public Broadcasting. North Dakota typically funds Prairie Public Broadcasting through the Office of Management and Budget bill. Gov. Kelly Armstrong's proposed budget included nearly $2.9 million for Prairie Public. When House Bill 1255 mandating the public broadcasting funding ban passed the House of Representatives, Appropriations Committee members took Prairie Public funding out of the OMB bill. Sen. Kristin Roers, R-Fargo, said Monday that the appropriations bill is where the funding decision should be made and warned of unintended consequences of passing the House bill. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Jorin Johnson, R-Fargo, failed on a 24-6 vote. Prairie Public supporters urge North Dakota Senate to restore state funding Roers said the House bill would have prevented federal funding for public broadcasting from passing through a state agency. She said the bill also could have prevented state agencies from renting space on towers owned by Prairie Public for things such as emergency sirens and weather instruments. 'If you want to defund public radio and television in North Dakota, do that through the appropriations process,' Roers said. Roers said there are upsides to continuing to fund Prairie Public, such as supporting broadcasts of state high school sports, educational television and local documentaries that are free over the air. She said Prairie Public's broadcast towers also benefit the state. Sen. Scott Meyer, R-Grand Forks, and Sen. Janne Myrdal, R-Edinburg, were among those who voted against the funding ban but advocated for cutting funding in House Bill 1015, which funds the Office of Management and Budget. John Harris, president and CEO of Prairie Public, testified last week in a Senate Appropriations hearing asking that the funding be restored. Harris said Prairie Public would be spending $4 million to $7 million in the next 18 months to upgrade facilities and buy transmitters. The nearly $2.9 million for Prairie Public during the 2025-27 biennium in Armstrong's preliminary budget included $1.7 million in one-time funding to assist with transmitter maintenance and replacement. Prairie Public leaders have testified that the organization can survive without state funding, but that it will mean less local programming. Other sources of funding include charitable gambling, endowment funds and investment funds. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
24-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Changing term limits targeted in North Dakota Senate resolution
Voters participate in the primary election on June 11, 2024, at the Bismarck Event Center. (Kyle Martin/For the North Dakota Monitor) Legislators, citizens and outside proponents for term limits last week debated the legitimacy of North Dakota's term limits law and whether the Legislature can force another statewide vote on the issue. The debate came during a hearing on Senate Concurrent Resolution 4008, with legislators acknowledging that the proposal appears unconstitutional. North Dakota voters in 2022 passed a measure that put term limits for state legislators into the North Dakota Constitution. Lawmakers are now limited to serving up to eight years in the House and up to eight years in the Senate. North Dakota House approves bill seeking to clarify lawmaker term limits measure The resolution that a legislative committee endorsed Friday seeks a new statewide vote to allow lawmakers to serve four complete terms in the Legislature, or a total of 16 years in office, without requiring them to switch chambers. It also proposes that a partial term would not count against a lawmaker's limit. But the citizen-initiated measure passed in 2022 states that the only way to alter or undo the measure is through another citizen-initiated measure. The other way to change the state constitution in North Dakota is for legislators to initiate a statewide vote, which is what the resolution proposes to do. 'I think our hands got tied,' Sen. Jose Castaneda, R-Minot said. Castaneda and other members of the Senate State and Local Government Committee said term limits would weaken the state Legislature, with lawmakers not having enough experience to serve effectively. Bill Sponsor Michael Dwyer, R-Bismarck, said it would likely take a court ruling for the resolution to advance. Sen. Chuck Walen, R-New Town, suggested that legislators could launch a citizen-initiated measure. 'I'd rather try this first,' said Sen. Kristin Roers, R-Fargo, the chair of the committee. She said the bill could be a way to get the issue into the courts. Roers and others on the committee blamed the term limits law on out-of-state money and misleading tactics by the U.S. Term Limits Foundation. Roers said people signing the petition to place state term limits on the ballots believed they were signing a petition for term limits for the U.S. Congress. 'This got on the ballot under false pretenses,' Roers said. Scott Tillman of the U.S. Term Limits Foundation defended in the petitions, saying the group also was gathering signatures in support of congressional term limits. Voters in 2022 passed Measure 1 with more than 63% of the vote. North Dakota lawmakers prepare for impact of term limits Committee members also took issue with Tillman's assertion that term limits were not yet affecting legislators. Roers noted last week's death of Rep. Josh Christy and predicted that people in his district will be reluctant to serve the remainder of his term because it will count as a full term. Sen. Ryan Braunberger, D-Fargo, said that because of term limits and redistricting, the time that he is eligible to serve is being cut short by two years. The measure approved by voters also limits the governor to serving two terms. The legislative proposal does not address the governor's term limit. The committee gave the resolution a do-pass recommendation Friday. A separate bill approved by the House also addresses lawmaker term limits. House Bill 1300 proposes that the clock on term limits doesn't start until after the November 2022 election. It seeks to clear up some confusion about how term limits affect lawmakers elected in 2020 and reelected in 2024. The bill advances to the Senate. The Senate State and Local Government Committee also heard testimony last week on another bill related to statewide ballot measures. Senate Concurrent Resolution 4007, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader David Hogue, would limit proposed constitutional ballot measures to a single subject. The Legislature passed a similar provision in 2023, but it was included with other changes to constitutional measures — raising the voter approval threshold to 60% and requiring a measure to be passed with two votes. Measure 2, which included those changes, failed in the 2024 general election. While there is again a bill advocating for a supermajority to pass a measure, Hogue said he hoped that the measures would be placed on the ballot separately. Former Gov. Ed Schafer spoke in favor of the single subject proposal, saying some past ballot measures have led with some admirable ideas but also included some bad policy. The committee voted 5-1 on Thursday to give the bill a do-pass recommendation despite some opposition. North Dakotans vote down changes to statewide measure process The League of Women Voters of North Dakota said in written testimony that single-subject rules have been debated in thousands of court decisions, with no clear understanding of what constitutes a single subject. The North Dakota Secretary of State's Office would have to rule that a proposed measure meets the single subject rule before petitioners could gather signatures in an effort to get the measure on the ballot. The League also said the bill's language to put it on the June 2026 primary election ballot is a bad idea because of low voter turnout in primary elections. Kevin Herrmann of Beulah testified that the Legislature should quit messing with the citizen-initiated measure process, noting the vote on Measure 2 in 2024 and previous attempted changes. 'The citizens of North Dakota have spoken,' he said. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
