Measure requires lawmakers to read bills
 

I read this in today's paper. It sounds to me like a great idea; actually a "no-brainer." I really like the idea of having to post them on the Internet for 4 business days prior to a vote. Other than national security and emergencies, I don't see a problem with this idea. Anyone care to shed some light on what might be a downside to this?
Thanks,
Mike

BISMARCK (AP) - A proposed ballot initiative would require North Dakota lawmakers to swear they have read and understood any bill they intend to support, and attest that they haven't been influenced by bribes or vote trading.

The measure, proposed by Jerrol LeBaron of California, also would delay a final vote on any bill in the North Dakota Legislature until it had been posted on the Internet for at least four days.

North Dakota is the first state where LeBaron is attempting to put the issue on the ballot. He said he picked North Dakota because its petition deadlines provide enough time to gather the required signatures this year.

''North Dakota actually has a wonderful opportunity here ... for the legislators to brag about the fact that it is the most transparent, most accountable, and most responsible state in the nation,'' he said.

LeBaron, who lives in Tajunga in Los Angeles County, has been traveling to North Dakota for the past two weeks attempting to recruit sponsors for the measure, which he hopes will be put on the November ballot.

A North Dakota initiative must have at least 25 sponsors who are eligible to vote in the state. LeBaron said he was close to having the number of sponsors he needs.

His proposal is a constitutional amendment, which would require signatures from at least 25,688 North Dakota voters to put it to a statewide vote. To qualify for the November election, the needed signatures would have to be turned in to Secretary of State Al Jaeger by Aug. 4.

The amendment says the North Dakota House and Senate may not vote on any legislation until after its final text has been available for public viewing on the Internet for at least four business days. Any amendments to the measure would require the waiting period to begin anew.

It says any legislator who votes for a bill or resolution must sign two sworn statements, the first attesting that he or she has read the bill and understands it, and the second promising that his or her vote has not been influenced by a bribe or vote trading. A bill's opponent would have to sign only the no-improper-influence pledge.

A lawmaker who falsely signed either affidavit could be prosecuted for perjury, the measure says. A perjury conviction in North Dakota carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

Rep. Al Carlson, R-Fargo, the House majority leader, said he did not believe the measure was necessary.

''If I saw a problem I'd probably think he had a good idea, but I'm wondering where the problem here is,'' Carlson said. ''But our process is open. If he can get the signatures, we'll vote on it.''

The text of bills and amendments in the North Dakota Legislature are already available on the Internet, as are the schedules of committee hearings where bills are examined in detail, Carlson said.

The Legislature's rules require that every bill and resolution get a hearing and a vote in the chamber in which it was first introduced, unless the proposal is withdrawn.

<p

It's an interesting notion on its face, but there are several problematic aspects of the bill. The requirement to read a bill under penalty of perjury is likely unenforceable. The thing about "vote trading" is also likely unenforceable as a legislator could simply assert that he voted for it for some other reason. As far as bribery goes, it's already illegal. Also, what's the deal with making a "no" vote easier to cast?

I think this is nothing other than a "feel good" measure, particularly since it's a friggin' Californian trying to impose it in North Dakota. What's up with that?

Stupid idea IMHO, to start not everone has access to the Internet, so many bills contain references to existing legislation where would you stop reading. Yet another California proposition.

Interesting points. Isn't it a step toward transparancy though? Room for fine tuning? Absolutely! But a step in the right direction none the less. Yes, no, maybe?
Mike

According to the House Majority leader bills are already posted and gone over in committee.

Again it sounds nice on its face, but I doubt it will accomplish anything in the long run. ND already requires Internet posting of all bills and all provisions of the ballot initiative other than bribery are unenforceable and bribery is illegal already. I don't know a thing about ND politics, but I doubt that these issues are a problem up there or anywhere else (other than perhaps CA where the initiator hails from). Actually, I think ballot initiatives themselves are a bigger problem than the issues that this initiative is trying to fix.

I don't know. I'm always worried there's bull shit built into things like this. We heard this over and over about health care- like they didn't know what was in it. Bull shit. They would have one empty suit telling us "we don't even know what's in it" on CNN, then a different empty suit on FOX telling us exactly what was wrong with it.

Seems to me they would use this as a tool to make the slow process even slower. Stall a bill to death- like they did with health care. Change a word, then say "well, need another four days". Then cange another word...

It's really very simple. The bill would make it harder to pass anything without having any impact on the ability to stop anything. It's all about maintaining the status quo.

By the way, the Scientologists are behind this.

John

Interesting... can you provide a link to that info?
Mike

I Googled the guy who's promoting it, Jerrol LeBaron. Very plugged into the "church".

John