Latest news with #SenateStateandLocalGovernmentCommittee
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Lawmakers approve earlier deadline for North Dakota absentee ballots to align with Trump order
Ballots that had arrived by mail or were set aside on Election Day sit on a table at the Cass County Courthouse on Nov. 18, 2024, waiting to be reviewed. (Jeff Beach/North Dakota Monitor) The League of Women Voters of North Dakota is asking Gov. Kelly Armstrong to veto a bill that would shorten the window for North Dakotans to submit mail-in absentee ballots. Mail-in ballots are counted in North Dakota so long as they're postmarked by the day before Election Day and are delivered within 13 days of the election. House Bill 1165 would amend this to require mail-in ballots to be received by an election officer by the time the polls close — a change the League in a Tuesday email to members called an 'overreach and overreaction.' 'Eligible North Dakota voters should be able to mail their absentee ballot without fear that their ballot will be tossed out,' Barbara Headrick, the organization's president, said in a statement to the North Dakota Monitor. She said the bill would create obstacles for groups like rural and Native voters, seniors and people with disabilities. The amendment was made to comply with a March 25 executive order issued by President Donald Trump that forbids states from counting mail-in ballots received after Election Day. North Dakota counties report absentee ballots with missing postmarks The bill was originally intended to clean up state law governing elections procedures. The main purpose of the bill is to make ballots easier for voters to understand and make election practices more uniform across the state. It addresses things like write-in candidate deadlines, what counts as a valid residential address and who can remove election judges, for example. 'What's in this bill is what I would refer to as the 'no-brainer' stuff,' Rep. Scott Louser, R-Minot, the bill's primary sponsor, said at its first hearing before the House Political Subdivisions Committee in January. The Senate State and Local Government Committee during committee discussion earlier this month added the deadline change for mail-in ballots. The amendment was brought by the Secretary of State's Office, according to Deputy Secretary of State Sandra McMerty. McMerty in a Tuesday statement to the North Dakota Monitor said the change was suggested to comply with the executive order and to 'remove uncertainty and inconsistencies surrounding postmarking requirements of the USPS.' Since the amendment was introduced after the bill's public hearing in the Senate, the public did not have an opportunity to comment on the proposed changes. States neighboring North Dakota — Minnesota, Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska — already have similar requirements on the books, she noted. Sen. Kristin Roers, R-Fargo, chair of the Senate State and Local Government Committee, said during the hearing the Legislature had weighed adopting the policy before and that she feels it is 'best practice' for elections. The state has been reluctant to change the law in case ballot delivery is delayed by the postal service, Roers said. She said this shouldn't be an issue since the post office treats the election-related mail with extra care. McMerty said the Secretary of State's Office doesn't anticipate the change causing any problems either. 'We don't foresee significant barriers to voters as 0.1% of absentee ballots in the general election were postmarked prior to Election Day and delivered to the county after Election Day,' she told the Monitor. Military overseas ballots wouldn't have to observe the same deadline, they would just have to be mailed by the time polls close on Election Day, the bill indicates. Ballots would have to be received by the time the county canvassing board meets. Voters also would be able to personally hand in their ballots to their county auditor on Election Day before polls close. Voting by mail? Election workers are worried about issues at the Postal Service. The Senate last week voted 43-4 to pass the bill. The House on Monday approved the amended bill by a vote of 85-7. The Legislature in March approved a resolution earlier this session, House Concurrent Resolution 3006, calling on the postmaster general of the United States Postal Service to address problems with mail. 'During testimony, we heard instance after instance of non-delivered or late delivered mail that caused harm to our citizens,' said Sen. Mike Wobemma, R-Valley City, said of the measure on the Senate floor last month. After last June's primary election, at least five North Dakota counties reported receiving absentee ballots by mail with no postmarks. Trump's executive order remains in effect, though a group of 19 states earlier this month filed a federal lawsuit over the directive, arguing that it violates states rights and will make it harder for some Americans to vote. North Dakota is not a party to the lawsuit. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
03-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bill requiring immigrants without legal status to leave Tennessee in 72 hours shelved until 2026
A bill that would send immigrants without permanent legal status to jail for being in Tennessee was pushed to 2026. (Photo: John Partipilo) A bill creating a new state crime for immigrants illegally present in Tennessee – punishable by incarceration followed by a 72-hour notice to vacate the state – has been deferred until 2026. The move to table the controversial measure Wednesday in the Senate State and Local Government Committee came at the request of its chairman. Sen. Richard Briggs, a Knoxville Republican, cited his neighbor from Canada, an engineer who is at risk of being unable to renew her visa before it expires due to bureaucratic delays resulting from actions taken by the Department of Government Efficiency. Briggs said he was concerned the law could sweep up immigrants like her. Bill giving immigrants without legal status 72 hours to leave Tennessee advances in House The bill's sponsor, Republican Sen. Jack Johnson of Franklin, acknowledged the measure runs afoul of established law and a 2012 Supreme Court decision that said states cannot usurp the federal government's exclusive power to enact immigration enforcement laws. Rep. Lee Reeves, a Franklin Republican, cosponsored the bill, but noted the bill would take effect only in certain circumstances. The bill was crafted as a 'trigger' law, only going into effect if one of three things happened: the Supreme Court overturned its 2012 decision, the U.S. Constitution is amended or similar laws enacted by other states remain in effect for 60 days. Sponsors of the bill said it was intended to 'demagnetize' Tennessee as a destination for immigrants who lack legal status and immigrant advocates called it 'incredibly inhumane' legislation that put families living in Tennessee at risk. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
29-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Proposal to change North Dakota sessions to every year debated in Senate committee
Mar. 28—BISMARCK — Grand Forks legislator Landon Bahl believes a proposal that would end the Legislature's traditional biennial schedule would modernize the state's lawmaking process while preserving the integrity of the current system. Bahl, a Republican member of the state House of Representatives, testified in favor of House Bill 1408 during a Friday morning meeting of the Senate State and Local Government Committee. As chief sponsor of the plan, he believes its approval will strengthen the legislative process, improve decision-making and ensure "long term efficiency in government." North Dakota's Legislature is one of just four states that still meet every other year. Fifty years ago, more than 40 states followed the every-other-year schedule. Technically, HB 1408 seeks to amend and reenact a section of the North Dakota Century Code, "relating to annual reconvened sessions of the legislative assembly." If passed in its current form, HB 1408 would maintain the 80-day limit but would instead distribute them over two years, starting in 2027. The bill passed the House 64-26 and is working its way through the Senate process. The goal, Bahl said, is to improve responsiveness and allow for more timely decision-making. Additionally, according to his written testimony, it could better attract "high-quality legislative candidates by making public service more accessible. Annual sessions would allow more North Dakotans, especially those unable to commit to four months at a time, to serve, fostering a more experienced, diverse and representative Legislature." He also believes the change would improve the effectiveness of interim legislative committees. "Don't get me wrong. I think we all enjoy our interim committees, but I think we can all agree that they may not be the most effective — not because of who is leading them, but just simply because of how the process unfolds for those committees," Bahl said during Friday's hearing. He was pressed on that. Committee member Sen. Judy Lee, R-West Fargo, said "I respectfully take umbrage that you think interim committees are not effective. ..." Bahl clarified: "I never said interim committees are not effective. I said they could become more effective." Lee called the proposal a "big fruit basket upset." Opponents believe annual sessions could give too much power to or put too much work on the shoulders of Legislative Management, a body that works between sessions to provide services to lawmakers. Scott Hanebutt, director of public policy for the North Dakota Farm Bureau, believes it could increase state spending and limit farmers from being in the Legislature. During testimony against SB 1408 on Friday, Hanebutt said he has worked as a lobbyist elsewhere and said "I wouldn't mess with a good system, which is what we have here. "Every state is a little bit different so I am sure we can find examples on both sides of the argument," he said. "Our (Farm Bureau) members have certainly always believed that increasing to an annual session would increase budgets and would make it harder to get farmers to run for the Legislature. So we feel this isn't a good idea for our state, and for the rural people of our state." Rep. Scott Louser, R-Minot, testified in favor, saying he has previously been against all proposals to change to annual sessions. He said this year's proposal prompts creative ideas and "outside-the-box" thinking. Further, he said, the length of the state's current single sessions comes with a certain level of tedium. "I want to be careful how I say this, but we all get mental fatigue in April. When the most important decisions are being made for North Dakota, we are tired," he said. "... I think there is a lot of benefit in doing (the change to annual sessions)." Among those who testified Friday was Jim Mehlhaff, the majority leader in the South Dakota Senate. He gave neutral testimony, providing an outline of the work that is done in that state's annual schedule.
Yahoo
28-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Requiring public comment period at local meetings debated at North Dakota Legislature
Sen. Bob Paulson, R-Minot, testifies in support of a bill during a public hearing at the Capitol on Jan. 24, 2025. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor) North Dakota school boards pushed back on a Senate bill that would require public comment periods during regular meetings of local subdivisions. Sen. Bob Paulson, R-Minot, said he is sponsoring Senate Bill 2180 in response to complaints he's heard from around the state. Complaints include public comment being limited to once per year at local government meetings or requirements that comments be approved ahead of time or limited to agenda items. 'These things are currently happening in North Dakota and I believe it is incumbent upon us as legislators to protect our constituents' ability to redress their government at all levels of our state,' Paulson told members of the Senate State and Local Government Committee last week. An amended version of the original bill would mandate local subdivisions offer a public comment period during regular meetings at least once per month. The bill states the local subdivision may only limit the public comment period to the time of each speaker or total time of the comment period, but it may not limit the topic of public comments to agenda items of the current meeting. KrisAnn Norby-Jahner, general counsel for the North Dakota School Boards Association, said the organization and 168 school boards across the state are opposed to the bill. 'Our public board meetings are not public meetings. They are meetings held in public,' Norby-Jahner said. She added that many school boards already have rules in place to provide for public comments while also limiting outbursts so the boards can conduct their work. 'We maintain the position that these local rules should be controlled at the local level,' she said. Norby-Jahner said limiting comments to agenda items makes sense because the topics for each meeting are included in public meeting notices to ensure the public knows what is being talked about during the meeting. 'When you open public comment to items that are not on an agenda, the public did not have any notice that those discussions were going to occur,' she said. 'And we have very strict notice requirements in our open meeting laws.' She added public comments on district personnel matters could prejudice school board members who often need to sit in a neutral capacity during non-renewal and discharge hearings. The bill allows local governments to require that public comments be pertinent to the local subdivision, not interfere with the regular meeting and not be harassing, defamatory, abusive or unlawful. Comments given by the public may also not include confidential information, such as contract negotiations or information about students. Commenters may be limited to one public comment per meeting. Kory Peterson, former mayor of Horace and a lobbyist for the North Dakota League of Cities, spoke in favor of the bill. As chair of the Horace City Council, he said he allowed comments from the public and put time constraints on the speakers so the work of the council could proceed. 'Sometimes they would bring up a topic that we had not even thought about, or something we were not aware of at the time,' Peterson said. 'So those are good to have when they can be brought up like that.' Peterson said the North Dakota League of Cities initially opposed the bill because it was overly broad, but now supports it after amendments narrowed the focus. Sheri Haugen-Hoffart, a member of the North Dakota Public Service Commission, testified in opposition to the bill. By having only three members of their board, she said a quorum is present during every work session and minor meeting held by the commissioners. She said it would create an undue burden to hold public comment periods during every public meeting. When informed that the amended bill would only affect local subdivisions, Haugen-Hoffart said the Public Service Commission would not oppose the bill. Sen. Kristin Roers, R-Fargo, chair of the Senate State and Local Government Committee, said the bill will be amended further to try and provide more control to political subdivisions on their public comments policies. 'We understand why people are motivated to want something to outline how this works,' Roers said. 'But we want to make sure that it's not so prescriptive from the state, that it isn't possible to do your work at the local level.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
