Plain Talk

"You may have insurance, but can you afford to actually use it?"

That simple, devastating question from North Dakota Insurance Commissioner Jon Godfread cuts straight to the core of an escalating crisis facing families across our state. It feels like every time North Dakotans turn around, another necessity has gotten more expensive. But few price hikes are quite as stomach-churning as what's happening to health insurance, where double-digit premium increases are landing on kitchen tables like an anvil.

Newly approved rate filings for 2027 from the Insurance Department show small group and individual plans facing eye-watering jumps, with some carriers seeing maximum approved increases topping 25% and 26%.

Godfread joined us on the latest episode of Plain Talk to unpack those numbers and the broken system driving them. While North Dakota has "prior rate approval"—giving Godfread's office authority to review proposed hikes before they hit the market—the underlying claims data leaves regulators with little room to maneuver.

"It's not a fun press release to put out," Godfread told us. "It's a lot more fun to be insurance commissioner when rates are going down or things are stable. But it also is important to be transparent and have these conversations."

Godfread pointed out that while North Dakota aggressively audits insurance carriers, state regulators have virtually no oversight over the actual prices charged by hospitals and medical providers. "We've got some pretty stringent regulations on that side of the coin," Godfread said. "But we don't have that same set of regulations or oversight on the provider side."

That dynamic leaves consumers trapped in a shell game where hospitals and insurers point fingers while bills spiral out of control. "We spend an awful lot of time arguing who's paying that bill, not saying why is this bill so high," Godfread said. "I've been in the middle of this for a decade now where you've got the insurers saying, 'Everything's too expensive, our claims are going through the roof.' You've got the hospitals saying, 'If we don't get higher reimbursement, we're going to have to close our doors.' And it's the consumers that are caught in the middle."

With deductibles climbing to keep premiums from exploding even higher, Godfread warned that having a card in your wallet is no longer enough. "We're in a trajectory that isn't good. It's not sustainable," he said. "We have to put some sunlight on the system. If we can inform the conversation, if we can have the data to actually have the conversation, we might be able to make some movement."

Following our interview with Godfread, Chad and I dug into the human toll of these runaway costs—the existential dread that keeps working parents awake at night wondering how an emergency room visit would wreck their finances, and the growing threat of hospital-insurer vertical integration where choices vanish. We also turned our attention to the latest state audit hitting the Commerce Department, where the North Dakota Development Fund is facing blistering scrutiny over self-dealing and conflicts of interest. With state leaders pledging to take Commerce "down to the studs," we discussed why real accountability is urgently needed before public trust in state economic development completely collapses.

If you want to participate in Plain Talk, just give us a call or text at 701-587-3141. It's super easy — leave your message, tell us your name and where you're from, and we might feature it on an upcoming episode. 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

"You may have insurance, but can you afford to actually use it?"

That simple, devastating question from North Dakota Insurance Commissioner Jon Godfread cuts straight to the core of an escalating crisis facing families across our state. It feels like every time North Dakotans turn around, another necessity has gotten more expensive. But few price hikes are quite as stomach-churning as what's happening to health insurance, where double-digit premium increases are landing on kitchen tables like an anvil.

Newly approved rate filings for 2027 from the Insurance Department show small group and individual plans facing eye-watering jumps, with some carriers seeing maximum approved increases topping 25% and 26%.

Godfread joined us on the latest episode of Plain Talk to unpack those numbers and the broken system driving them. While North Dakota has "prior rate approval"—giving Godfread's office authority to review proposed hikes before they hit the market—the underlying claims data leaves regulators with little room to maneuver.

"It's not a fun press release to put out," Godfread told us. "It's a lot more fun to be insurance commissioner when rates are going down or things are stable. But it also is important to be transparent and have these conversations."

Godfread pointed out that while North Dakota aggressively audits insurance carriers, state regulators have virtually no oversight over the actual prices charged by hospitals and medical providers. "We've got some pretty stringent regulations on that side of the coin," Godfread said. "But we don't have that same set of regulations or oversight on the provider side."

That dynamic leaves consumers trapped in a shell game where hospitals and insurers point fingers while bills spiral out of control. "We spend an awful lot of time arguing who's paying that bill, not saying why is this bill so high," Godfread said. "I've been in the middle of this for a decade now where you've got the insurers saying, 'Everything's too expensive, our claims are going through the roof.' You've got the hospitals saying, 'If we don't get higher reimbursement, we're going to have to close our doors.' And it's the consumers that are caught in the middle."

With deductibles climbing to keep premiums from exploding even higher, Godfread warned that having a card in your wallet is no longer enough. "We're in a trajectory that isn't good. It's not sustainable," he said. "We have to put some sunlight on the system. If we can inform the conversation, if we can have the data to actually have the conversation, we might be able to make some movement."

Following our interview with Godfread, Chad and I dug into the human toll of these runaway costs—the existential dread that keeps working parents awake at night wondering how an emergency room visit would wreck their finances, and the growing threat of hospital-insurer vertical integration where choices vanish. We also turned our attention to the latest state audit hitting the Commerce Department, where the North Dakota Development Fund is facing blistering scrutiny over self-dealing and conflicts of interest. With state leaders pledging to take Commerce "down to the studs," we discussed why real accountability is urgently needed before public trust in state economic development completely collapses.

If you want to participate in Plain Talk, just give us a call or text at 701-587-3141. It's super easy — leave your message, tell us your name and where you're from, and we might feature it on an upcoming episode. 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

With household utility bills climbing and massive energy projects putting landowner rights under a microscope, our latest Plain Talk debate brought the race for the North Dakota Public Service Commission into focus. Incumbent Republican Jill Kringstad, appointed by Gov. Kelly Armstrong to fill the unexpired term of now-Congresswoman Julie Fedorchak, faced off against Democratic-NPL challenger Scot Kelsh, an 18-year veteran of the state legislature.

Because the PSC operates as a quasi-judicial body barred from discussing active contested dockets, the debate centered on regulatory philosophy, rate affordability, and landowner relations.

Kringstad leaned on her background as a certified public accountant with an economics degree who served eight years on PSC staff before her appointment. "I understand the accounting concepts behind it," Kringstad said of utility rate hike requests. "I can really dig in and dig deep into: What are these costs that they're asking for? Are they reasonable? Do they have backup to them? Are they reasonable for North Dakota consumers to be paying for?" She pointed to a recent Xcel Energy rate case where regulators whittled an initial 19% request down to 10% over four years. "We actually did hold that under the rate of inflation," she said. "If North Dakota ratepayers were paying, using the same amount of energy, but they were paying Louisiana rates, they'd be paying a quarter of a billion dollars more."

Kelsh countered that double-digit requests still outpace family wages. "Nobody is really getting that in pay increases generally every year," Kelsh said. Drawing on his legislative tenure on finance and energy committees, Kelsh acknowledged rising supply chain costs—noting a wooden power pole jumped from $200 in 2020 to $600 today—but warned that North Dakota is slipping behind other states. "We don't have the lowest electricity rates anymore," Kelsh said, pointing to lower rates in Nevada and Utah. "We really have to be careful that does not get away from us."

The sharpest exchange centered on public hearings for major pipeline and transmission projects. "What we are hearing on the campaign trail is that people aren't being heard; they feel like they're not being heard," Kelsh said, arguing that developers testify first while citizens are kept waiting. "It just seems like it's a method for them to wear us down so that we give up and go home."

Kringstad pushed back, explaining that developers testify first so everyone has the most updated environmental studies and reroutes before citizen comments begin. She highlighted legislation she helped pass that splits complex proceedings into technical hearings followed by local evening hearings directly in affected communities. She also stressed the PSC's statutory limits regarding private leases and eminent domain. "You're talking about a contract between a private citizen and a private company, and I don't think you want the government in the middle of that," Kringstad said, adding: "I have never been asked to sign an NDA from a developer, nor would I."

On the massive electric load demanded by artificial intelligence data centers, Kelsh warned that grid infrastructure cannot absorb sudden spikes. "We're talking real juice, real power there, and our grid and our generation capacity is just not there yet," Kelsh said, arguing the state must ensure legacy ratepayers don't subsidize data centers.

Kringstad cited Montana-Dakota Utilities' Ellendale data center as proof the commission already protects consumers. "The data center customer paid all of the network upgrade costs upfront," Kringstad said, noting profit-sharing provisions have returned more than $38 million in rate credits to MDU customers since 2023.

On grid reliability, Kringstad emphasized the necessity of baseload coal and natural gas during brutal winters. "When we're talking 40 below for days on end in a North Dakota winter when the wind's not blowing, that's no longer a reliability thing, that's a safety issue," she said, noting four-hour battery storage "is not going to cut it."

If you want to participate in Plain Talk, just give us a call or text at 701-587-3141. It's super easy — leave your message, tell us your name and where you're from, and we might feature it on an upcoming episode. 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

With household utility bills climbing and massive energy projects putting landowner rights under a microscope, our latest Plain Talk debate brought the race for the North Dakota Public Service Commission into focus. Incumbent Republican Jill Kringstad, appointed by Gov. Kelly Armstrong to fill the unexpired term of now-Congresswoman Julie Fedorchak, faced off against Democratic-NPL challenger Scot Kelsh, an 18-year veteran of the state legislature.

Because the PSC operates as a quasi-judicial body barred from discussing active contested dockets, the debate centered on regulatory philosophy, rate affordability, and landowner relations.

Kringstad leaned on her background as a certified public accountant with an economics degree who served eight years on PSC staff before her appointment. "I understand the accounting concepts behind it," Kringstad said of utility rate hike requests. "I can really dig in and dig deep into: What are these costs that they're asking for? Are they reasonable? Do they have backup to them? Are they reasonable for North Dakota consumers to be paying for?"

She pointed to a recent Xcel Energy rate case where regulators whittled an initial 19% request down to 10% over four years. "We actually did hold that under the rate of inflation," she said. "If North Dakota ratepayers were paying, using the same amount of energy, but they were paying Louisiana rates, they'd be paying a quarter of a billion dollars more."

Kelsh countered that double-digit requests still outpace family wages.

"Nobody is really getting that in pay increases generally every year," Kelsh said. Drawing on his legislative tenure on finance and energy committees, Kelsh acknowledged rising supply chain costs—noting a wooden power pole jumped from $200 in 2020 to $600 today—but warned that North Dakota is slipping behind other states. "We don't have the lowest electricity rates anymore," Kelsh said, pointing to lower rates in Nevada and Utah. "We really have to be careful that does not get away from us."

The sharpest exchange centered on public hearings for major pipeline and transmission projects. "What we are hearing on the campaign trail is that people aren't being heard; they feel like they're not being heard," Kelsh said, arguing that developers testify first while citizens are kept waiting. "It just seems like it's a method for them to wear us down so that we give up and go home."

Kringstad pushed back, explaining that developers testify first so everyone has the most updated environmental studies and reroutes before citizen comments begin. She highlighted legislation she helped pass that splits complex proceedings into technical hearings followed by local evening hearings directly in affected communities. She also stressed the PSC's statutory limits regarding private leases and eminent domain.

"You're talking about a contract between a private citizen and a private company, and I don't think you want the government in the middle of that," Kringstad said, adding: "I have never been asked to sign an NDA from a developer, nor would I."

On the massive electric load demanded by artificial intelligence data centers, Kelsh warned that grid infrastructure cannot absorb sudden spikes. "We're talking real juice, real power there, and our grid and our generation capacity is just not there yet," Kelsh said, arguing the state must ensure legacy ratepayers don't subsidize data centers.

Kringstad cited Montana-Dakota Utilities' Ellendale data center as proof the commission already protects consumers. "The data center customer paid all of the network upgrade costs upfront," Kringstad said, noting profit-sharing provisions have returned more than $38 million in rate credits to MDU customers since 2023.

On grid reliability, Kringstad emphasized the necessity of baseload coal and natural gas during brutal winters. "When we're talking 40 below for days on end in a North Dakota winter when the wind's not blowing, that's no longer a reliability thing, that's a safety issue," she said, noting four-hour battery storage "is not going to cut it."

If you want to participate in Plain Talk, just give us a call or text at 701-587-3141. It's super easy — leave your message, tell us your name and where you're from, and we might feature it on an upcoming episode. 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

After spending a marathon day at Bismarck State College moderating debates across five statewide races and ballot measures, my co-host Chad Oban and I stepped out of our neutral moderator chairs on the latest episode of Plain Talk to give our candid, unfiltered analysis of how it all went down.

Putting candidates around a table rather than behind formal podiums forced genuine, revealing conversations rather than rehearsed stump speeches. But now that the moderators don't have to keep our opinions to ourselves, we dive into the unforced errors, the surprising highlights, and the moments that defined the day.

In the U.S. House race, we examine why Democratic-NPL challenger Trygve Hammer missed an immediate opening to challenge Republican Julie Fedorchak on debates, and why both candidates completely punted when pressed on the harsh fiscal realities of a $40 trillion national debt. We also weigh in on Fedorchak's reliance on national talking points—and the awkward dynamics of political spouses mixing it up with online commenters.

We break down the day's most substantive policy clash between appointed Superintendent Levi Bachmeier and classroom teacher Tracy Foss, exploring their sharp divide over standardized testing versus classroom realities and whether one-time bonuses do anything to solve North Dakota's teacher shortage. We also look at the stark contrast in the Agriculture Commissioner debate, where incumbent Doug Goehring's understated bureaucratic command clashed with challenger Vern Thompson's populist grievances over data centers and six-figure public records requests.

We also untangle the philosophical battles over Measures 1 and 2, from the flood of out-of-state dark money pouring into the 60% supermajority fight to the dilemma of enshrining universal school meals in the state constitution rather than dealing with it in statute.

Beyond the candidate matchups, we tackle a lively stack of listener feedback on everything from the debates themselves to broader fiscal policy. In response to a listener calling for a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution, we push back on the idea that the problem is statutory: politicians don't balance budgets because voters don't actually want to see sacred spending cows slaughtered or pay higher taxes to balance the books. We also address listener pushback regarding public dollars for teacher recruitment bonuses and school lunches going to private schools, explaining that workforce incentives target labor shortages regardless of setting, and federal school meals have always functioned as anti-hunger programs rather than institutional subsidies. Finally, we respond to pension concerns from retired educators, debate whether Chad bears an uncanny resemblance to comedian Tom Segura, and stand firmly by our editorial decision to exclude minor independent candidates from the congressional debate so voters could hear a focused exchange between the two primary contenders.

If you want to participate in Plain Talk, just give us a call or text at 701-587-3141. It's super easy — leave your message, tell us your name and where you're from, and we might feature it on an upcoming episode. 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

After spending a marathon day at Bismarck State College moderating debates across five statewide races and ballot measures, my co-host Chad Oban and I stepped out of our neutral moderator chairs on the latest episode of Plain Talk to give our candid, unfiltered analysis of how it all went down.

Putting candidates around a table rather than behind formal podiums forced genuine, revealing conversations rather than rehearsed stump speeches. But now that the moderators don't have to keep our opinions to ourselves, we dive into the unforced errors, the surprising highlights, and the moments that defined the day.

In the U.S. House race, we examine why Democratic-NPL challenger Trygve Hammer missed an immediate opening to challenge Republican Julie Fedorchak on debates, and why both candidates completely punted when pressed on the harsh fiscal realities of a $40 trillion national debt. We also weigh in on Fedorchak's reliance on national talking points—and the awkward dynamics of political spouses mixing it up with online commenters.

We break down the day's most substantive policy clash between appointed Superintendent Levi Bachmeier and classroom teacher Tracy Foss, exploring their sharp divide over standardized testing versus classroom realities and whether one-time bonuses do anything to solve North Dakota's teacher shortage. We also look at the stark contrast in the Agriculture Commissioner debate, where incumbent Doug Goehring's understated bureaucratic command clashed with challenger Vern Thompson's populist grievances over data centers and six-figure public records requests.

We also untangle the philosophical battles over Measures 1 and 2, from the flood of out-of-state dark money pouring into the 60% supermajority fight to the dilemma of enshrining universal school meals in the state constitution rather than dealing with it in statute.

Beyond the candidate matchups, we tackle a lively stack of listener feedback on everything from the debates themselves to broader fiscal policy. In response to a listener calling for a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution, we push back on the idea that the problem is statutory: politicians don't balance budgets because voters don't actually want to see sacred spending cows slaughtered or pay higher taxes to balance the books. We also address listener pushback regarding public dollars for teacher recruitment bonuses and school lunches going to private schools, explaining that workforce incentives target labor shortages regardless of setting, and federal school meals have always functioned as anti-hunger programs rather than institutional subsidies. Finally, we respond to pension concerns from retired educators, debate whether Chad bears an uncanny resemblance to comedian Tom Segura, and stand firmly by our editorial decision to exclude minor independent candidates from the congressional debate so voters could hear a focused exchange between the two primary contenders.

If you want to participate in Plain Talk, just give us a call or text at 701-587-3141. It's super easy — leave your message, tell us your name and where you're from, and we might feature it on an upcoming episode. 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

Should free breakfast and lunch be guaranteed to every North Dakota student under the state constitution, right alongside textbooks, yellow school buses and the basic right to a public education? That fundamental question drove our debate over Measure 2, putting outgoing state Rep. Zac Ista, a Grand Forks Democrat, and veteran Republican attorney and former party chair Bob Harms on opposite sides of the podium.

"When it passes, it's going to do two things immediately: It's going to ensure a nutritious, healthy breakfast and lunch for every K-12 student in North Dakota, and it's going to take the cost of those lunches off the plates of families here in North Dakota to the tune of up to $1,000 per student," Ista said. He framed the measure as both a "value proposition" injecting up to $65 million annually back into family budgets and a "values proposition" aligning with the state constitution's existing guarantee of free public education.

Harms countered that Measure 2 is the "wrong vehicle, wrong policy and wrong process."

"The constitution represents our fundamental principles that manage our government. It's not there for fashioning day-to-day policy that the people are expected to vote on every two years," Harms said. He argued that mandating an estimated $134 million per biennium into the constitution is fiscally reckless at a time when the governor has requested 3% to 10% agency budget cuts.

A core point of disagreement was whether school meal programs ought to be means-tested. Harms noted North Dakota already spends roughly $40 million annually — predominantly through federal funds — to feed low-income students up to 225% of the federal poverty line, or $74,250 for a family of four.

"Why would we mandate that my kids get breakfast and lunch?" Harms asked, arguing the measure needlessly subsidizes wealthy families. "Where are mom and dad in all of this? ... We're meeting that need today. If we need to adjust it, we can do that, but we should do that in the legislative body rather than mandated in the constitution."

Ista pushed back, comparing universal meals to other universal services provided inside school walls. "We provide books, Chromebooks, transportation, and we provide that to all students for free," Ista said, noting that families making just over the eligibility cap are squeezed by inflation and sudden economic disruptions. He also cited roughly $2 million in unpaid school meal debt lingering in districts statewide that often gets turned over to collections agencies. "This is a tax cut where we don't have to worry at all about how somebody is spending that tax cut, because the only thing you're allowed to spend it on is the school meals that will be reimbursed."

That prompted a spirited debate over recent state fiscal policy. When asked why universal school meals are treated as an entitlement while the state's recent $1,600 primary residence property tax credit was celebrated by conservatives without any income testing, Harms dismissed the comparison as "apples and oranges".

"That wasn't constitutional, number one," Harms said, adding that expanding state obligations for schooling opens a slippery slope. "If my kid is going to be in school and you're saying, well, he should have food, well, he should have clothing and boots as well. What's the difference?"

The mechanics of funding also drew scrutiny. Under Measure 2, if lawmakers do not allocate funding from other sources, the cost is backstopped by Legacy Fund earnings. Harms argued this subverts the fund's original mission to insulate the state against an oil industry collapse, warning that current projections already show earnings falling short of past legislative spending.

Ista maintained that the Legacy Fund provision is simply a backstop and that the price tag represents less than 1% of the total state budget. He argued that proponents took the constitutional route only after the Legislature repeatedly refused to fund universal meals in statute.

"Voters are right to sort of be fed up by that," Ista said. "The Legislature has shown this is not a top priority for it, so the constitution provides protection so that it won't just be subject to the whims of individual legislators or an individual budget cycle."

00:00 - Introduction & Debate Overview 01:38 - The Affirmative Case for Measure 2 (Rep. Zach Ista) 03:23 - The Opposition Case to Measure 2 (Bob Harms) 07:03 - Legacy Fund vs. Alternative Funding Sources 08:15 - Amending the Constitution vs. Legislative Policy 18:07 - Universal Benefit vs. Means Testing 24:06 - Impact on Federal School Meal Reimbursements 28:40 - Mid-Show Sponsor Break 31:44 - School Meal Debt & Fulfilling State Mandates 36:24 - School Lunches vs. Textbooks & Tech Fees 39:18 - Eligibility for Private School Students 42:00 - Voter Will, Polling & Campaign Funding 50:38 - Data on Student Hunger in North Dakota 54:21 - Closing Remarks & Wrap-Up

#northdakota

Should free breakfast and lunch be guaranteed to every North Dakota student under the state constitution, right alongside textbooks, yellow school buses and the basic right to a public education? That fundamental question drove our debate over Measure 2, putting outgoing state Rep. Zac Ista, a Grand Forks Democrat, and veteran Republican attorney and former party chair Bob Harms on opposite sides of the podium.

"When it passes, it's going to do two things immediately: It's going to ensure a nutritious, healthy breakfast and lunch for every K-12 student in North Dakota, and it's going to take the cost of those lunches off the plates of families here in North Dakota to the tune of up to $1,000 per student," Ista said. He framed the measure as both a "value proposition" injecting up to $65 million annually back into family budgets and a "values proposition" aligning with the state constitution's existing guarantee of free public education.

Harms countered that Measure 2 is the "wrong vehicle, wrong policy and wrong process."

"The constitution represents our fundamental principles that manage our government. It's not there for fashioning day-to-day policy that the people are expected to vote on every two years," Harms said. He argued that mandating an estimated $134 million per biennium into the constitution is fiscally reckless at a time when the governor has requested 3% to 10% agency budget cuts.

A core point of disagreement was whether school meal programs ought to be means-tested. Harms noted North Dakota already spends roughly $40 million annually — predominantly through federal funds — to feed low-income students up to 225% of the federal poverty line, or $74,250 for a family of four.

"Why would we mandate that my kids get breakfast and lunch?" Harms asked, arguing the measure needlessly subsidizes wealthy families. "Where are mom and dad in all of this? ... We're meeting that need today. If we need to adjust it, we can do that, but we should do that in the legislative body rather than mandated in the constitution."

Ista pushed back, comparing universal meals to other universal services provided inside school walls. "We provide books, Chromebooks, transportation, and we provide that to all students for free," Ista said, noting that families making just over the eligibility cap are squeezed by inflation and sudden economic disruptions. He also cited roughly $2 million in unpaid school meal debt lingering in districts statewide that often gets turned over to collections agencies. "This is a tax cut where we don't have to worry at all about how somebody is spending that tax cut, because the only thing you're allowed to spend it on is the school meals that will be reimbursed."

That prompted a spirited debate over recent state fiscal policy. When asked why universal school meals are treated as an entitlement while the state's recent $1,600 primary residence property tax credit was celebrated by conservatives without any income testing, Harms dismissed the comparison as "apples and oranges".

"That wasn't constitutional, number one," Harms said, adding that expanding state obligations for schooling opens a slippery slope. "If my kid is going to be in school and you're saying, well, he should have food, well, he should have clothing and boots as well. What's the difference?"

The mechanics of funding also drew scrutiny. Under Measure 2, if lawmakers do not allocate funding from other sources, the cost is backstopped by Legacy Fund earnings. Harms argued this subverts the fund's original mission to insulate the state against an oil industry collapse, warning that current projections already show earnings falling short of past legislative spending.

Ista maintained that the Legacy Fund provision is simply a backstop and that the price tag represents less than 1% of the total state budget. He argued that proponents took the constitutional route only after the Legislature repeatedly refused to fund universal meals in statute.

"Voters are right to sort of be fed up by that," Ista said. "The Legislature has shown this is not a top priority for it, so the constitution provides protection so that it won't just be subject to the whims of individual legislators or an individual budget cycle."

00:00 - Introduction & Debate Overview 01:38 - The Affirmative Case for Measure 2 (Rep. Zach Ista) 03:23 - The Opposition Case to Measure 2 (Bob Harms) 07:03 - Legacy Fund vs. Alternative Funding Sources 08:15 - Amending the Constitution vs. Legislative Policy 18:07 - Universal Benefit vs. Means Testing 24:06 - Impact on Federal School Meal Reimbursements 28:40 - Mid-Show Sponsor Break 31:44 - School Meal Debt & Fulfilling State Mandates 36:24 - School Lunches vs. Textbooks & Tech Fees 39:18 - Eligibility for Private School Students 42:00 - Voter Will, Polling & Campaign Funding 50:38 - Data on Student Hunger in North Dakota 54:21 - Closing Remarks & Wrap-Up

#northdakota

We began this debate over Constitutional Measure 1 between Grafton businessman James Kerian and North Dakota Watchdog Network director Dustin Gawrylow by asking why voters should—or shouldn't—raise the threshold required to amend the state constitution. "The whole point of having a constitution in our form of government is to have something that is a little more stable, a little more firm at the foundation of our state government," Kerian, who was selected by the pro-Measure 1 group Strong ND to represent the affirmative side, said. "Measure 1 protects our constitution and those constitutional rights by ensuring that, going forward, any changes to the state constitution will have the support of at least six out of every 10 voters." Gawrylow, an activist who has worked on initiated measure campaigns for over a decade, argued that changing the threshold upends the core function of the citizen petition process. "The constitution exists to limit government, not to limit the people," Gawrylow, who was selected by the anti-Measure 1 campaign to represent their views in this debate, said. "When you increase the threshold from a simple majority to 60%, you are empowering the minority—the 40% plus one—to have a filibuster over the 59%." This debate was part of a series of Plain Talk debates between candidates for U.S. House, superintendent, agriculture commissioner, public service commissioner, as well as proponents and opponents of Measures 1 and 2. All of the debates will be available as they release on WDAY Xtra, the Plain Talk YouTube channel, as well as podcast platforms including Spotify and Apple Podcasts. A major clash in the debate centered on out-of-state political spending. Kerian pointed to the millions of dollars pouring in to defeat Measure 1 from The Fairness Project, a Washington, D.C.-based progressive organization. "They tell us in their fundraising letters to their own donors that constitutional ballot measures are how the progressives, how their left-wing agenda, stays on offense in red states," Kerian said, arguing the group has targeted states like Missouri, Montana, and Nebraska and is now eyeing North Dakota. "Voters should ask themselves: Why is all this money coming from an out-of-state organization to attack Measure 1?" Gawrylow agreed that out-of-state money in ballot campaigns is a legitimate concern, but argued Measure 1 does nothing to stop it. If anything, he argued, raising the threshold to 60% will simply require campaigns to raise even more outside cash to run statewide TV air wars, while freezing out regular North Dakotans who lack national funding networks. He also claimed that Strong ND is operating as a dark-money fund backed by establishment political leaders. "The folks that were behind those property tax elimination measures didn't have a bunch of money coming in from out of state," Gawrylow said. "We're going to punish the people that are not part of that process because of the bad actors." When asked whether the measure was a solution in search of a problem, the participants reviewed historical election results. Over the past 20 years, North Dakota voters have approved 19 constitutional amendments, and 15 of them passed with more than 60% of the vote—including the 2022 term limits measure. Kerian argued that data shows 60% is a reasonable and proven bar for popular, broad-consensus policy. "Good ideas, as your reporting demonstrated, can easily clear that number," Kerian said. "That's not some change that makes it impossible to change the constitution." Gawrylow countered that the push is the latest in a 15-year pattern of the Republican-controlled Legislature trying to insulate itself from voter accountability. He cited legislative efforts to impose single-subject rules, create legislative vetoes over citizen measures, and require constitutional amendments to pass across two separate elections. "The Legislature does not like the citizens telling them what to do," Gawrylow said, describing the citizen initiative process as a crucial "pressure-relief valve" for voters. The debate also addressed whether Measure 1 is driven by social issues like abortion. Kerian acknowledged that outside groups have used constitutional amendments to expand abortion access in other red states, but maintained that Measure 1 is about fundamental stability rather than a single policy topic. Gawrylow argued that proponents are leaning heavily on culture-war advertisements regarding abortion and transgender issues to convince conservatives to surrender their own initiative rights. If you want to participate in Plain Talk, just give us a call or text at 701-587-3141. It's super easy — leave your message, tell us your name and where you're from, and we might feature it on an upcoming episode. To subscribe to Plain Talk, search for the show wherever you get your podcasts.

We began this debate over Constitutional Measure 1 between Grafton businessman James Kerian and North Dakota Watchdog Network director Dustin Gawrylow by asking why voters should—or shouldn't—raise the threshold required to amend the state constitution. "The whole point of having a constitution in our form of government is to have something that is a little more stable, a little more firm at the foundation of our state government," Kerian, who was selected by the pro-Measure 1 group Strong ND to represent the affirmative side, said. "Measure 1 protects our constitution and those constitutional rights by ensuring that, going forward, any changes to the state constitution will have the support of at least six out of every 10 voters." Gawrylow, an activist who has worked on initiated measure campaigns for over a decade, argued that changing the threshold upends the core function of the citizen petition process. "The constitution exists to limit government, not to limit the people," Gawrylow, who was selected by the anti-Measure 1 campaign to represent their views in this debate, said. "When you increase the threshold from a simple majority to 60%, you are empowering the minority—the 40% plus one—to have a filibuster over the 59%." This debate was part of a series of Plain Talk debates between candidates for U.S. House, superintendent, agriculture commissioner, public service commissioner, as well as proponents and opponents of Measures 1 and 2. All of the debates will be available as they release on WDAY Xtra, the Plain Talk YouTube channel, as well as podcast platforms including Spotify and Apple Podcasts. A major clash in the debate centered on out-of-state political spending. Kerian pointed to the millions of dollars pouring in to defeat Measure 1 from The Fairness Project, a Washington, D.C.-based progressive organization. "They tell us in their fundraising letters to their own donors that constitutional ballot measures are how the progressives, how their left-wing agenda, stays on offense in red states," Kerian said, arguing the group has targeted states like Missouri, Montana, and Nebraska and is now eyeing North Dakota. "Voters should ask themselves: Why is all this money coming from an out-of-state organization to attack Measure 1?" Gawrylow agreed that out-of-state money in ballot campaigns is a legitimate concern, but argued Measure 1 does nothing to stop it. If anything, he argued, raising the threshold to 60% will simply require campaigns to raise even more outside cash to run statewide TV air wars, while freezing out regular North Dakotans who lack national funding networks. He also claimed that Strong ND is operating as a dark-money fund backed by establishment political leaders. "The folks that were behind those property tax elimination measures didn't have a bunch of money coming in from out of state," Gawrylow said. "We're going to punish the people that are not part of that process because of the bad actors." When asked whether the measure was a solution in search of a problem, the participants reviewed historical election results. Over the past 20 years, North Dakota voters have approved 19 constitutional amendments, and 15 of them passed with more than 60% of the vote—including the 2022 term limits measure. Kerian argued that data shows 60% is a reasonable and proven bar for popular, broad-consensus policy. "Good ideas, as your reporting demonstrated, can easily clear that number," Kerian said. "That's not some change that makes it impossible to change the constitution." Gawrylow countered that the push is the latest in a 15-year pattern of the Republican-controlled Legislature trying to insulate itself from voter accountability. He cited legislative efforts to impose single-subject rules, create legislative vetoes over citizen measures, and require constitutional amendments to pass across two separate elections. "The Legislature does not like the citizens telling them what to do," Gawrylow said, describing the citizen initiative process as a crucial "pressure-relief valve" for voters. The debate also addressed whether Measure 1 is driven by social issues like abortion. Kerian acknowledged that outside groups have used constitutional amendments to expand abortion access in other red states, but maintained that Measure 1 is about fundamental stability rather than a single policy topic. Gawrylow argued that proponents are leaning heavily on culture-war advertisements regarding abortion and transgender issues to convince conservatives to surrender their own initiative rights. If you want to participate in Plain Talk, just give us a call or text at 701-587-3141. It's super easy — leave your message, tell us your name and where you're from, and we might feature it on an upcoming episode. To subscribe to Plain Talk, search for the show wherever you get your podcasts. #northdakota