Voters are urged to support Measure 1 and oppose Measure 2 in the upcoming ballot. These measures are crucial for protecting the state's constitution from external influences and fiscal irresponsibility.
Measure 1 proposes that any constitutional changes in North Dakota should require the approval of 60% of voters. This initiative aims to safeguard the state's foundational principles from being altered by narrow victories fueled by external funding and aggressive advertising campaigns. The involvement of The Fairness Project, a Washington, D. C.-based progressive organization, is highlighted as they are investing heavily to defeat this measure. The motives of such out-of-state entities, known for supporting progressive agendas like defunding police and increasing taxes, are questioned in their efforts to influence North Dakota's constitutional integrity.
It is pointed out that North Dakota already mandates a 60% approval for school bond measures, emphasizing that the constitution deserves at least the same level of protection. Measure 1 is seen as a way to prevent the misuse of the constitutional amendment process by ensuring broader consensus for any changes.
Fiscal Concerns Over Measure 2
Measure 2 poses a significant fiscal risk by proposing mandatory spending for free school meals for all students, regardless of their family's financial status. This measure is considered unnecessary and financially irresponsible, as it would enshrine a spending mandate in the constitution, potentially costing taxpayers $134 million every two years. This comes at a time when agency budget cuts ranging from 3% to 10% have been called for.
It is argued that North Dakota already provides substantial assistance to students from low-income families, with the state spending approximately $40 million annually on meal programs, primarily through federal funding. The current system extends eligibility to families earning up to 225% of the federal poverty level, ensuring that those in need receive help. Measure 2 would unnecessarily extend this benefit to families who do not require financial assistance, thus misallocating taxpayer resources.
There is a warning that constitutional mandates like Measure 2 could restrict future lawmakers' ability to adapt to changing circumstances, as they would be bound by permanent spending requirements. The constitution should not serve as a vehicle for implementing a permanent spending agenda that cannot be achieved through the election of candidates.
In conclusion, North Dakotans are called to protect their constitution and financial interests by voting "yes" on Measure 1 and "no" on Measure 2. The importance of maintaining the constitution's role in providing stability and governance, free from the influence of external agendas and fiscal recklessness, is emphasized.
