News

North Dakota Gubernatorial Candidates Clash Over Measure 2 and Ethical Standards

In a lively debate held at the Bismarck Event Center, North Dakota’s gubernatorial candidates tackled the contentious Measure 2, which proposes significant changes to the process for voter-initiated amendments to the state constitution. The discussion, moderated by BEK TV, featured Republican Kelly Armstrong, Democratic-NPL candidate Merrill Piepkorn, and independent candidate Michael Coachman, drawing an audience of over 100 engaged citizens.

Measure 2: A Divisive Proposal

The candidates expressed starkly different views on Measure 2, which aims to limit ballot initiatives to a single subject, increase signature requirements, and mandate that such measures be voted on during both primary and general elections. Piepkorn, a state senator, firmly opposed the measure, arguing that it would complicate the process for citizens seeking to amend the constitution.

  • Key Points from the Debate:
    • Merrill Piepkorn: Criticized the measure as unnecessary and burdensome, stating, “It will just make things more difficult.”
    • Kelly Armstrong: Expressed uncertainty about his vote, advocating for caution in constitutional changes while acknowledging the need for easier statutory amendments.
    • Michael Coachman: Argued that the Legislature lacks the authority to dictate the initiated ballot measure process, emphasizing adherence to the constitution.

The candidates’ differing perspectives reflect broader concerns about the balance of power between the Legislature and the electorate, with Piepkorn advocating for the current system and Coachman warning against legislative overreach.

north-dakota-governor

Energy Policy: A Hot Topic

The debate also delved into North Dakota’s energy policies, particularly regarding tax incentives for the oil industry. Piepkorn criticized past legislation that reduced oil extraction taxes, claiming it favored corporations at the expense of the state’s revenue. He highlighted the ongoing requests from oil companies for further tax exemptions.

  • Merrill Piepkorn’s Stance:
    • Criticized the trend of lowering taxes for energy companies.
    • Advocated for a fairer tax structure that benefits all North Dakotans.

In contrast, Armstrong defended the incentives, arguing they were crucial for developing the Bakken oil field and creating wealth for the state. He stated, “We had smart policy that allowed people to come in here and invest,” framing the incentives as a necessary strategy for economic growth.

Ethical Concerns: Accountability in Governance

Ethics emerged as a significant theme during the debate, particularly regarding the Republican supermajority in the Legislature. Coachman expressed concerns about lawmakers prioritizing their interests over those of the public, suggesting a culture of protectionism among legislators.

  • Key Ethical Discussions:
    • Merrill Piepkorn: Asserted that the supermajority has fostered a sense of entitlement among lawmakers.
    • Michael Coachman: Stated he would resign if found guilty of a conflict of interest, emphasizing the need for accountability.

The candidates were also questioned about state Rep. Jason Dockter, who was convicted of a misdemeanor conflict of interest but continues to serve. While Coachman and Piepkorn pledged to resign under similar circumstances, Armstrong’s response was more cautious, indicating he would need to understand the situation fully before making a decision.

Commerce and Transparency: Future Directions

The candidates concluded the debate by addressing the role of the state Department of Commerce. Coachman proposed an audit of the department to ensure fiscal responsibility, suggesting that excessive spending could lead to its elimination. Piepkorn echoed the need for vigilance against corporate interests, warning that unchecked influence could undermine the state’s governance.

  • Merrill Piepkorn’s Insights:
    • Advocated for scrutiny of corporate interests in state affairs.
    • Emphasized the importance of investment without compromising public welfare.

Armstrong focused on the need for transparency and accountability within the department, arguing that the state should prioritize workforce development and affordable housing before embarking on large infrastructure projects. He stated, “We don’t need a bunch of trillion dollar infrastructure projects in the state of North Dakota right now.”

As the candidates prepare for the upcoming election, the debate highlighted the critical issues facing North Dakota, from voter initiatives to energy policy and ethical governance. With contrasting views and a commitment to addressing the concerns of their constituents, the candidates are poised to shape the future of the state.

Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *