Quote:
Originally Posted by 142EBC
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.
|
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?