8/6/2019 The North Dakota Legislative Review

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-north-dakota-legislative-review 1/7

 

PO Box 3007, Bismarck, ND 58502

phone: 701.223.8155

email: info@policynd.org | www.policynd.org

The North Dakota Legislative Review

A comprehensive review of the 2011 North Dakota Legislative Session 

The North Dakota Legislative Review is a

comprehensive look at how state legislators

voted during the 2011 legislative session.

This analysis includes appropriations bills

and bills that incorporated ideas put forth in

 Moving Forward , our policy guide, to give

citizens a look at how their legislators voted

on the issues most important to the North

Dakota Policy Council.

The NDPC tracked twenty-four

bills during the legislative session

that ranged from nullifying the new

federal health care law to tax

increment financing (TIF) reform.

There were also dozens of 

appropriations bills that were

debated in each chamber, totaling

more than $10 billion in spending.

Those bills varied in size from $2.2

billion to as little as $4,000.

The Good

Income Tax Cuts

HB1047 passed the legislature

providing North Dakota taxpayers

with $145 million in personal and

corporate income tax cuts. Thoughincome taxes should be eliminated,

all tax cuts are good tax cuts.

Obamacare

The state legislature took significant

steps to combat the effects of Obamacare on

North Dakotans, passing three bills doing

so: HB1165 makes it illegal to compel North

Dakotans to purchase health insurance;

SB2309 declares Obamacare to be

unconstitutional and protects the rights of 

North Dakotans to purchase medical

services free from government interference;

Chart 1: This is a list of the bills tracked by the NDPC during the 2011

legislative session. 

8/6/2019 The North Dakota Legislative Review

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-north-dakota-legislative-review 2/7

Page | 2

HCR3016 is a resolution encouraging the

US Congress to repeal Obamacare.

Unfortunately, the House of Representatives

did not pass HCR3014, the Health Care

Freedom Act state constitutionalamendment, which would have put a state

constitutional measure on the 2012

statewide ballot that had similar language to

HB1165 and SB2309. A constitutional

amendment would have been better because

it would have been much harder to undo in

the future. The House also rejected HB1291

which would have directed the governor to

enter into an interstate compact with all

other willing states to eliminate the effects

of Obamacare on North Dakotans.

Tenth Amendment

The NDPC's third annual Free Market

Forum took place in September 2010.

"Defending the Tenth" was the theme of the

event, which featured speakers Barry

Goldwater, Jr. and Dr. Thomas Woods. The

legislature acted on the message from thatevent and took several steps - albeit small

ones - toward defending North Dakotans

from federal government overreach. They

passed the previously mentioned bills

dealing with Obamacare and HCR3015,

demanding the federal government to only

exercise the powers granted to it in the US

Constitution.

The legislature also passed SCR4007, whichis an application submitted by the state to

the federal government initiating an

amendments convention to amend the US

Constitution to require any increase in the

debt ceiling be approved by a majority of the

states. This bill is probably more of a

political statement than something that will

actually occur, but - even so - the political

statement is strong.

Unfortunately, though, the legislature

rejected HB1287, which would haverequired the EPA to get state approval to

impose any regulations.

Property Rights

The legislature passed SB2204 which

requires legislative approval of all money

given to the Northern Plains National

Heritage Area, a federal program designed

to enact local government land use changesvia federal grants of money.

TIF Reform

In response to the North Dakota Policy

Council's lawsuit against the City of 

Bismarck, the legislature passed SB2050

reforming tax increment financing laws.

Agricultural-assessed land can no longer be

considered blight - a prerequisite for the

inclusion of property in a TIF district - and

the property tax siphoned away from school

districts, counties, and other taxing

 jurisdictions will have to be periodically

adjusted, shifting more property tax dollars

towards those entities and away from TIF

slush funds.

Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying

The legislature passed SB2327, prohibitingthe use of government resources to advocate

for or against initiated measures.

8/6/2019 The North Dakota Legislative Review

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-north-dakota-legislative-review 3/7

Page | 3

The Bad

Pension Reform

The House of Representatives narrowly

rejected HB1228 and thoroughly rejectedHB1258 which would have reformed the

state employees' pension system and

teachers' retirement fund from defined-

benefits program to a 401k-style defined-

contribution programs eliminating any

future burden on taxpayers when the

liabilities in the fund grow faster than the

money in the fund. In other words, these

bills would have eliminated future taxpayer

bailouts of public pension systems.

Economic Development

SB2057 easily passed the legislature,

appropriating $133 million for corporate

welfare subsidies and other politically-

motivated "economic development"

benefits. Article X, Section 18 of the North

Dakota Constitution specifically prohibits

the state from giving loans or handouts tocorporations, and this bill is full of those

types of programs.

In addition, taxing productivity to

run the revenue through an

expensive and inefficient

bureaucracy only to spend that

money on politically-favored

projects and industries is anathema

to free-markets and constrainseconomic growth.

Higher Education

Despite an interesting attempt by

the House of Representatives to

reduce the size of the increase of the

university system's budget from 20% to

15%, the legislature ultimately passed

HB1003 which appropriated $754 million to

the university system and restored most of 

what the House tried to cut.

The Ugly

Budget Increase

The 2011-13 budget passed by the

legislature totaled more than $4 billion, an

increase of 25% over the previous budget.

The general fund budget has now increased

125% since the 2003-05 budget. To put that

into perspective, the federal budget hasincreased 68% over the same time period.

Using dramatic state revenue as an excuse to

massively increase spending, again, the

legislature has put the state budget on an

unsustainable path should revenue stagnate.

But even if state revenue continues to sky-

rocket, there is little justification -

economically or morally - for such budget

increases.

Chart 2: Including the recently passed budget, general fund appropriations

have increased 125% since 2003. 

8/6/2019 The North Dakota Legislative Review

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-north-dakota-legislative-review 4/7

Page | 4

Property Tax Reform Extension

While it seemingly remains

popular, the legislatureoverwhelmingly supported the

extension of former Gov.

Hoeven's property tax relief 

program whereby the state buys-

down school district property tax

mills. The program cost 16%

more than originally anticipated by

the state.

The supposed benefits of the relief planwere first seen in 2009, but according to an

NDPC analysis, if the current trends

continue, governments across the state will

be collecting the same amount of money via

property taxes in 2013 as they did in 2009,

when citizens were upset. However, the

state will also then be spending $400 million

to keep it at those levels.

Government Transparency

In 2009, taxpayers had a major victory as

the legislature passed a law mandating the

North Dakota Office of 

Management and Budget to post

every state expenditure on a

searchable website. In 2011, the

legislature rejected a similar

measure that would have required

all local governments to do thesame.

Results

Senate

The North Dakota Senate voted on 9 policy

bills that were of particular interest to the

NDPC, with five senators - RandalChristmann, David Hogue, Oley Larsen, Joe

Miller, and Bob Stenehjem - receiving a

perfect score. Margaret Sitte also received a

93.94%. It's worth noting that Sen.

Stenehjem and Sen. Christmann are the

Senate Majority Leader and Senate Assistant

Majority Leader, respectively.

The Senate generally passed spending bills

with little or no voting dissent. In fact, 54 of the 65 spending bills that passed were

passed unanimously. Only 6 of 47 Senators

1 5 410

10

20

30

40

50

Number of Legislators

ND Senators "Vote Against" % By

Category

>20%

10%-20%

<10%

NDcharts.com

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

0% 50% 100%

   S   p   e   n    d   i   n   g   %

Policy %

ND Senate: Policy & Spending

Legislators

NDcharts.com

Chart 3: 41 of 47 state senators voted against less than 10% of spending.

Chart 4: State senators generally supported free-market policy ideas more

than spending restraint.

8/6/2019 The North Dakota Legislative Review

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-north-dakota-legislative-review 5/7

Page | 5

voted against more than 10% of 

the total amount of money that

came across their desk, while 33

of 47 voted against less than 5%.

At $10.2 billion, Democrat

Senator Mac Schneider gets the

dubious distinction of being the

biggest spending in the ND

Senate. Democrat Sen. David

O'Connell voted to spend the least

amount of money in the ND

Senate at $7.7 billion.

Chart 3 shows that 41 of 47Senators voted against less than

10% of all spending. 

Each dot on Chart 4 represents a

Senator. Generally speaking, the

further up and to the right on the

chart, the more they supported

free markets during the legislative

session. As we see, Senators are

more likely to vote for free marketpolicy ideas than they are against

spending.

ND House

The North Dakota House of Representatives

voted on 22 policy bills that were of 

particular interest to the NDPC, with only

one - David Weiler - receiving a perfect

score. Dan Ruby and Larry Bellew bothscored above 90%.

The House generally passed spending bills

with more voting dissent. However, only 27

of 94 Representatives voted against more

than 10% of the total amount of money that

came across their desk, while 54 of 94 voted

against less than 5%.

Republican Rep. Gary Sukut voted to spend

more money than any of his colleagues in

the ND House at $10.2 billion. At $5.4

billion, Republican Rep. David Weiler votedto spend the least in the ND House.

Chart 5 shows that 67 of 94 Representatives

voted against less than 10% of all spending.

Each dot on Chart 6 represents a

Representative. Generally speaking, the

5 1 2 19 670

20

40

60

80

Number of Legislators

ND Representatives "Vote Against" % By

Category

>40%

30%-40%

20%-30%

10%-20%

<10%

NDcharts.com

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

0% 50% 100%

   S   p   e   n    d   i   n   g   %

Policy %

ND House: Policy & Spending

Legislators

NDcharts.com

Chart 5: 67 of 94 state representatives voted against less than 10% of 

spending?

Chart 6: State representatives generally supported free-market policy ideas

more than spending restraint.

8/6/2019 The North Dakota Legislative Review

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-north-dakota-legislative-review 6/7

Page | 6

further up and to the right on the chart, the

more they supported free markets during the

legislative session. The same pattern we

saw in the ND Senate is also evident in the

ND House. Representatives are more likely

to vote for free market policy ideas than they

are against spending.

Conclusion

While supporters of free markets in North

Dakota should be happy about the good

things the legislature did to defend economic

freedom in North Dakota, the legislative

session – in its entirety – was rather

disappointing.

The good things the legislature did, such as

reforming TIF and protecting North

Dakotans against Obamacare, were far

overshadowed by the dramatic increase in

the size and scope of state government and

the opportunities that were not seized upon,

such as public pension reform and the

elimination of income taxes.

Fiscal conservatives have their work cut out

for them. While the mood of the country

seems to be headed towards austerity, the

growth in state government in North Dakota

has exploded over the past several

bienniums and there appears to be no end in

sight.

Methodology

Policy Bills

 Moving Forward , the NDPC's policy guide,

breaks down proposed policy ideas into two

major categories, long-term and short-term.

The guide was put together that way to give

citizens and state legislators big, long-term

policy objectives while also providing

lawmakers with short-term ideas to put

North Dakota on the path towards the long-

term objectives.

For each "yea" vote on a long-term policy

idea, legislators were given 3 points. For

each correct vote on a short-term policy

idea, legislators were given 2 points.

There were also several bills that touched on

issues the NDPC finds important but were

not in the policy guide. Each legislator was

given 1.5 points for the correct vote on those

bills. Note that a "yea" vote was not alwayswhat we consider the correct vote.

Legislators received 1 point for the correct

vote on non-binding resolutions.

Votes were weighted more heavily towards

the long-term policy ideas, indicating

support for the long-term vision held by the

NDPC. Earned points were added up and

divided by the total possible points to reacha percent. Missed votes were not counted in

either as points earned or as possible points.

Spending Bills

Every legislator was given credit for

spending the entire amount of every

appropriations bill on which they voted

"yea." The amount of money voted to spend

for each "yea" vote was then added up and

divided by the total amount of money in

every bill on which they voted "yea" or

"nay" to reach a percent.

8/6/2019 The North Dakota Legislative Review

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-north-dakota-legislative-review 7/7

Page | 7

There are several points worth noting:

1.  The spending analysis does not

distinguish between types of 

spending. All types of spending are

represented in the overall amountof spending analyzed, meaning that

needed government spending is not

differentiated from spending on

wasteful government programs.

2.  The spending analysis does not take

motivation into account. It is well

known that legislators will vote

against a spending bill because it

was either not spending enoughmoney or it did not include a

particular program. In these cases,

legislators were given credit for not

spending the money when, perhaps,

they wanted to spend more than

what was in the bill. In other

words, this analysis does not

necessarily indicate the upper limit

of how much each legislator

wanted to spend.

3.  Comparing the House of 

Representatives to the Senate is

problematic because they voted on

different bills. While the House

voted on 22 policy bills that were

tracked, the Senate only voted on 9

policy bills. The reason has to do

with which chamber the bill was

introduced into and whether or not

that bill passed that chamber and

actually moved onto the other

chamber. The same goes for

spending bills; each spending bill

that was voted down in each

chamber was different.

4.  Legislators may have voted for the

same idea twice. For instance, a

spending bill may have been killed

in one form and brought back and

passed in a slightly different form.

Those who voted for each bill

would be credited with having

voted for the same idea twice.