Plain Talk

Steve Bakken is the former mayor of Bismarck, and the chair of the committee backing Measure 5, which seeks to legalize recreational marijuana in North Dakota. Pat Finken is a long-time advertising professional and political activist. He's a part of the coalition opposing Measure 5. These gentleman came together on Plain Talk to make their respective cases. The contrasts in their arguments, as you might expect, were sharp. Bakken says Measure 5 is a "very conservative" legalization that gives state officials plenty of latitude to regulate lawful use of the drug. The measure "gives all the power to the state," he said. But Finken painted the measure as exacerbating North Dakota's existing problems with substance abuse. "The marijuana of today is not safe," he said. "It's ten times more powerful" than what Americans have may been smoking in past decades. He rejected the argument that marijuana legalization is inevitable, saying that even if North Dakota were the last state in the union without legal access for recreational use, he wouldn't mind it. "I'm perfectly content for North Dakota to remain an island," he said. Bakken, for his part, argued that Finken's alarmism is out of date. "That reefer madness mentality goes back to the 50s." To subscribe to Plain Talk, search for the show wherever you get your podcasts, or use one of the links below. Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube | Pocket Casts | Episode Archive

Is Attorney General Drew Wrigley's office wasting money on unnecessary litigation? Is North Dakota's Republican majority in the Legislature being something less than good stewards of our fiscal resources by passing controversial bills that invite litigation? House Minority Leader Zac Ista, who led his caucus in voting against approving attitional litigation funds for Wrigley's office at a recent meeting of the Legislature's Budget Section committee, joined this episode of Plain Talk to discuss it. Though, given that one of the laws currently being litigated is North Dakota's restrictive ban on most abortions, that dominated the conversation, which had my co-host Chad Oban calling me "raging Rob." Admittedly, I have been a bit feisty lately. But abortion litigation isn't the only cost North Dakota is facing. The biggest line item for litigation costs recently is related to our state's suit against the federal government over the expenses associated with responding to the violent, protracted protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. And aren't we prone to seeing the efficacy of any given litigation through the lens of our feelings about the policy being litigated? Isn't it natural that Democrats might not like the policy and legal priorities of a Republican majority, and a Republican attorney general? Rep. Ista answered those questions and more. Also on this episode, we discuss the odds of Measure 4 passing on the November ballot. To subscribe to Plain Talk, search for the show wherever you get your podcasts, or use one of the links below. Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube | Pocket Casts | Episode Archive

If you read the ballot language for Measure 3 and still didn't understand just what it is the proposed constitutional amendment does, I wouldn't blame you. I don't think that's anyone's fault. It's just a somewhat arcane topic, but that doesn't mean it's not important. State Rep. Corey Mock joined us on this episode of Plain Talk to discuss the proposal, which would make some changes around the Legacy Fund, which these days is sporting a balance of around $11 billion. Currently, lawmakers have the statutory authority to spend up to 15% of the principal of that fund. Mock said that was written into the original amendment that created the fund to ensure that at least some of it was available to lawmakers should some emergent situation make it necessary. But when the Legacy Fund was created, nobody expected it to grow as far and as fast as it has. Mock said the original projects for the fund expected it to cross the $1 billion threshold by like 2021. Clearly, we're well beyond that, but the Legislature's authority to spend as much as 15% of it has resulted in some lost opportunities. The fund managers have to keep those funds liquid, because theoretically the Legislature could come calling for them. Measure 3 shrinks that from 15% to 5%. Given that the Legacy Fund is much, much larger now than we expected when that original 15% limit was written into the constitution, lowering still leaves plenty of money available to lawmakers in an emergency, but allows the fund managers to invest more of the principal and get bigger returns. Also on this episode, guest co-host Jamie Selzler and I discuss the state of the presidential race. To subscribe to Plain Talk, search for the show wherever you get your podcasts, or use one of the links below. Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube | Pocket Casts | Episode Archive

Are the proponents of Measure 2 "elite and out of touch?" Are they "condescending" and "disrespectful" to the electorate? Or do they view North Dakota's initiated measure process -- particularly when it comes to amending the state constitution -- as flawed and needing reform? Measure 2 is a constitutional amendment placed on the ballot by the Legislature, which would prohibit people who aren't North Dakota residents from collecting petition signatures for initiated measures. It would limit measures to a single subject. And, for constitutional measures, it would raise the signature requirement from 4% to 5% of the state's population and require that those proposals be approved through two statewide votes: once on the June primary ballot and again on the November general election ballot. Ellie Shockley, a columnist for the Bismarck Tribune, joined this episode of Plain Talk to make the case against the proposal. It's her words that I'm quoting above. She views this proposed amendment as motivated by a desire among lawmakers to diminish the will of the people in making policy. Sen. Janne Myrdal, a Republican from Edinburg, also joined this episode, and she argued that it's become too easy for deep-pocketed, often out-of-state interests to hire professional signature gatherers (who themselves are often not North Dakotans) to force a vote on complicated policy proposals that aren't often explained well to the voters. This point-and-counterpoint conversation at times got heated, because it deals with some of the bedrock assumptions we make about our system of government. The political power in our republic ultimately comes from the people, but as a question of process, is legislating what are often complicated policy proposals at the ballot box where a distracted electorate, already asked to evaluate candidates for everything from weed control boards to president of the United States, really a good way to make sound policy? The Plain Talk Podcast is the voice of North Dakota politics. To subscribe, search for the show wherever you get your podcasts, like Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or YouTube, or click here for more information.

A heated debate unfolds over Measure 4, aiming to abolish property taxes in North Dakota. Former officials discuss the burdens of property valuation taxes and the necessity for reform. Concerns arise about locking in budget freezes that could unfairly impact municipalities. The dialogue shifts to the implications of potential tax reforms, local control over funding, and the challenges faced by growing cities. As various perspectives emerge, the complexities of taxation, fairness, and economic stability take center stage.

Jared Walczak, state projects director for the Tax Foundation, dives deep into the complexities of North Dakota's property tax system. He argues that while frustrations are valid, eliminating property taxes could lead to severe economic upheaval, as shifting burdens to income or sales taxes would essentially double state taxes. Walczak emphasizes that no developed nation has eliminated property taxes for good reason, urging policymakers to consider more sustainable solutions, like local revenue caps, instead of drastic measures.

North Dakota's gubernatorial race features to affable, well-liked candidates, who clearly like one another as well. Republican Kelly Armstrong was first elected to the North Dakota Senate in 2012, and served there until the 2018 election cycle, when he campaigned successfully for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. That's where he's currently finishing out a term, while also campaigning for governor. Democratic-NPL candidate Merrill Piepkorn has also served in the state Senate. He's been there since he was elected in 2016, and had a one-session overlap with Armstrong's service. On this Plain Talk, the two candidates compared and contrasted with one another under questioning from me and my co-host Chad Oban. We covered everything from internet pornography (Armstrong says he'd like to see North Dakota implement an ID requirement to access it), to political accountability (Piepkorn says long-time Republican supermajorities in North Dakota have created an "environment of entitlement"), to property taxes (both candidates oppose Measure 4 on the November ballot which, if passed, would abolish taxes on property values). To address North Dakota's chronic workforce shortages, Armstrong says "you have to concentrate on cops, teachers, and nurses." Piepkorn, meanwhile, says the state Legislature has been too-focused on the culture war, passing "bad bills that are repelling people." Armstrong said he's "really glad North Dakota has gotten to where it's at" on mental health issues, but added that if he's "blessed to win, in eight years we will still need more work." Piepkorn said that to address North Dakota's childcare shortages, he sees a three-pronged strategy: "help parents, help children, help businesses." These are two candidates who, again, are likable, and like one another, but they have very different visions for how North Dakota should be governed. It was our pleasure to bring their contrasting views to you on Plain Talk. Want to follow Plain Talk and be kept up to date on all of these debates? Click here for an archive of past shows and for information on how to subscribe, or just search for the show wherever you get your podcasts, including on YouTube.

We all know the old saying.  You don't talk about religion and politics in polite company. Only, does that advice make sense in a society like ours, where we practice self-governance? How can we govern ourselves if we can't talk to one another about politics? And, more pertinent to this episode of Plain Talk, how do we teach our kids how to participate in discourse over challenging issues like abortion or gun control if teachers are afraid to tackle politics in the classroom? Lindsey Galvao is a long-time educator -- the social studies curriculum specialist at GBH and a multiplatform creator for public media, and curriculum writer for the Civics Collection on PBS LearningMedia. Ben Klutsey is the executive director of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University whose work is featured in the documentary "Undivide US." They recently co-authored an op-ed about politics in the classroom, and joined my cohost Chad Oban and I to talk about that very conundrum. "We disagree and that's ok," Klutsey told us. The problem, he argues, is that so many people say "we disagree and you're a threat to my existence." Both Klutsey and Galvao say that teachers need to be unafraid to host discussions about even fraught social and political questions, but that their focus should be on listening and encouraging students to understand one another. But how do we deal with misinformation? Kids who might have gotten the idea that the Sandy Hook school shooting didn't really happen, as right-wing talk radio host Alex Jones has claimed, or that the world is flat? Galvao said she would encourage teachers to ask those kids, "How do you know what you know?" They should be encouraged to explore the basis for their point of view. "We have to think about abiding by certain core principles," Klutsey said, identifying them as respect, authenticity, and curiosity. Which is to say that we need to respect those who disagree with us, represent our own views authentically, and be curious about why others disagree with us. Though, he acknowledged, that doesn't mean making room for false information. "Facts are facts," he said, "and you have to engage on facts as an educator." Want to follow Plain Talk and be kept up to date on all of these debates? Click here for an archive of past shows and for information on how to subscribe, or just search for the show wherever you get your podcasts, including on YouTube.

When U.S. House candidates Julie Fedorchak (a Republican) and Trygve Hammer (a Democrat) sat down for a debate on the Plain Talk podcast with me and my co-host Chad Oban, one of the first questions I asked them was why they wanted to be elected to Congress. Hammer, a Marine Corps veteran, said it's because less than 80 of the current 435 members of the House of Representatives have served in the military. He also said he wants to promote an atmosphere where leaders talk to one another instead of past one another. Fedorchak wants to focus on issues like border security, "record high inflation," and energy policy. One of the last questions I asked them was about their top priorities if elected. Hammer said a new farm bill and the national debt, as well as "talking to North Dakotans continuously" and taking his cues from the people. For her answer, Fedorchak said constituent services, arguing that, even if progress on making policy is stalled, members of Congress can still "be a force" for individual North Dakotans. Our debate covered a myriad of issues, from campaign promises made by national candidates to eliminating taxes on tips and Social Security benefits (Fedorchak wouldn't commit to supporting either, Hammer said he supports both with some caveats), to the national debt, to civility in politics, to America's foreign policy in Ukraine and Gaza. One area where the candidates agreed very closely was the need for a new farm bill. Both acknowledged that American agriculture has been operating under an old and badly out-of-date farm bill. An area where the candidates disagreed sharply was on the issue of abortion. Asked about her support for a national abortion ban -- something presidential candidate Donald Trump has come out against -- Fedorchak described her position as wanting a national "gestational limit" on abortions after around 15 or 16 weeks, with exceptions for the life of the mother and rape or incest. This "would allow states within that framework to be a little stricter," she argued that it would put the United States in line with "every civilized country in the world." Hammer said he does not support a national abortion ban and argued that even state-level bans are often "unnecessarily cruel." He pointed to the failure of a pro-life ballot measure in 2014 as evidence that North Dakotans don't want government interference in the abortion issue "at any level." Our intent with the Plain Talk debates is to foster conversations where the candidates can compare and contrast with one another on the issues. As with our previous U.S. Senate debate between Democrat Katrina Christiansen and Republican incumbent Kevin Cramer, Hammer and Fedorchak engaged civilly, providing robust answers while disagreeing without being disagreeable. Want to follow Plain Talk and be kept up to date on all of these debates? Click here for an archive of past shows and for information on how to subscribe, or just search for the show wherever you get your podcasts, including on YouTube.

Mac Schneider, the U.S. Attorney for North Dakota, shares his passion for public service, stating, "This is the best job I could ever imagine." He discusses the potential uncertainty of his position with the upcoming presidential election and expresses hope for another term if Vice President Kamala Harris wins. Schneider reflects on the local perception of the FBI amidst national political turmoil, noting minimal distrust in North Dakota. He also addresses community challenges like youth sports behavior and the complexities of public school scheduling, advocating for positive change.