Plain Talk

We are 31 days away from election day and, here in North Dakota, the hottest race in the state probably isn't for the U.S. Senate, or the U.S. House, or even the governor's seat. It is, arguably, Measure 4 which, if passed, would eliminate taxes on property values and order the Legislature to compensate local governments for that loss of revenue at 2024 levels.

It's such a hot issue that when Prairie Public recently hosted a debate between U.S. Senate candidates Kevin Cramer and Katrina Christiansen, they asked the candidates about Measure 4, even though that issue really has nothing to do with the federal office they're running for.

Aaron Birst joined this episode of Plain Talk to discuss Measure 4, and what's driving both the support for it and opposition to it. Aaron is the executive director of the North Dakota Association of Counties.

"The only tax people like is the one somebody else pays," he told Chad Oban and I.

Birst isn't arguing that there are no problems with local taxing and spending. "Do we need to have a conversation about how much we spend at the local level? Sure," he said, though he argued that Measure 4 just isn't the right fix.

"We can try something different. I'm just not sure we're going to find something better," he said. He also argued that passing Measure 4 could create legal and policy-making chaos that would be with North Dakota for a long time. "If this passes...we're probably going to have a decade of court cases to figure out what this means."

Also on this episode, Oban and I discuss the recently-released polling in North Dakota's statewide races, and some intrigue at the North Dakota Industrial Commission.

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

Todd Reisenauer says he'd like to get elected to the North Dakota House of Representatives so that he can take Fargo-area District 46 in a new direction. He said he'd like to focus on issues like housing, healthcare, childcare, and property taxes.

What he doesn't want to do, he says, is emulate the approach taken by one of incumbents in that district, state Rep. Jim Kasper, who has been in the center of debates over social issues like book bans and issues surrounding our transgender neighbors.

"We can't have District 46 be the front lines of a culture war," Reisenauer told Chad Oban and I on this episode of Plain Talk.

The legislative races in District 46 are worth watching. The jurisdiction represents one of the few purple districts in North Dakota and has a history of mixed-partisan leadership.

Reisenauer said he admired the work done by another of the Republican incumbents in the district, outgoing Rep. Shannon Roers, who opted not to run for reeelction. He said he got interested in the race when he heard Roers was retiring, and that he wants to continue her work of making District 46 "a bipartisan, get things done kind of district."

"We're burning people out," Reisenauer said, addressing the polarized nature of politics in 2024. "I'm not an activist," he added, saying he has no interested in playing partisan politics and "selling fear."

"I don't want to be a part of that," he said, adding that he's "not afraid to say conservatives have good policy ideas, and that sometimes Demcorats overshoot."

Also on this episode, Oban and I discuss the vice presidential debate between Sen. J.D. Vance and Gov. Tim Walz, and the news of a North Dakota man, the son of a Republican legislative candidate in District 24, getting arrested for his alleged participation in the January 6 attack on Congress.

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

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.

In November, North Dakota voters will be asked to decide the fate of Measure 4. If approved, it would amend the state constitution to prohibit taxes on property values. It would also lock in an obligation for the state legislature to replace current property tax revenues to local government with other revenues, but only at 2024 levels, with no mechanism to change that level in the future.

On this episode of Plain Talk, we had a debate about that proposal. Making the affirmative case for it is former Fargo City Commissioner Tony Gehrig. Making the case against it is Robert Harms, a former chair of the North Dakota Republican Party who also served in the administrations of former governors Ed Schafer and John Hoeven.

Former state lawmaker Rick Becker, the chair of the committee sponsoring the measure, declined to participate in the debate, saying the Plain Talk podcast is the only place where he won't speak about the proposal.

Both Harms and Gehrig agree on some key issues. They say that property taxes are a problem in North Dakota in need of a solution. They both also agree that taxing property values is problematic. As property values rise, they drive almost automatic increases in tax burdens that aren't tied to local needs.

Where they differ is the nature of the solution. Harms argues that abolishing property taxes would shift too much power over local spending to lawmakers in Bismarck. He also said that it "freezes some unfairness" in the state constitution by locking in funding for local governments at 2024 levels. A local government that made a big bond payment in 2024 would continue to be compensated for it by state taxpayers well into the future, even after the bond is paid off. A local government that kept property taxes low, on the other hand, would be punished for their conservative budgeting.

For his part, Gehrig argued that eliminating property taxes would be an economic boon to the state, drawing new investment. During his time in office, Gehrig was an outspoken opponent of policies that seek to incent economic development by easing or eliminating property tax burdens, but he used that stance as an argument for Measure 4. "If you believe those policies work, then you have to believe in Measure 4," he said.

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.

"The property tax is a good tax," Jared Walczak told Chad Oban and I on this episode of Plain Talk. "You may not love it, but you will not like the alternatives better."

Walczak is the state projects director for the Tax Foundation, a right-of-center think tank that focuses on -- you guessed it -- tax policy. His organization recently published an article critical of Measure 4, a constitutional amendment that would prohibit taxes on property values. Walczak has also presented his group's arguments to state lawmakers.

Walczak's argument is not that North Dakotan's shouldn't feel upset about their property taxes. "There's legitimate frustration," he said. The problem is that eliminating the property tax would produce "real economic upheaval" by shifting tax burdens from a tax that "has very little economic drag" to others, like income taxes or sales taxes, which do.

Eliminating the billions collected locally in property taxes would mean replacing those revenues with tax dollars collected state wide. "You're talking about essentially doubling your other taxes at the state level," Walczak argued.

"No one else has done this for pretty good reasons," he said, and he's not just talking about state governments in America. He said that no other country in the developed world has eliminated its property taxes.

What should North Dakota do to address the genuine public consternation over property taxes? He says state policymakers should look at caps on how much locals can raise through property taxes, coupled with some pressure relief valves that would allow the taxing jurisdictions to exceed those caps in specific circumstances, like if the voters ok the increase on the ballot.

Also on this episode, Chad and I discuss the presidential debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, including everything from Harris's facial expressions to Trump's blood libel attack on immigrants.

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.

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.