Update On The Ballot Language For The Tax Cut Measure

• September 7, 2008

Here are some interesting quotes from around North Dakota about the controversy surrounding the ballot language for the initiated measure to cut state income taxes (you can catch up here).
First up, state Senate Majority Leader Bob Stenehjem comes down in favor of the tax cut activists:

Senate Majority Leader Bob Stenehjem, R-Bismarck, said the Legislature would likely address the errors if the measure is passed this fall, calling them an “obvious numbers mistake.”
“The people that put it on the ballot, I think they all believed, thought, knew they were signing a petition that would reduce income tax by 50 percent,” Stenehjem said. “And hidden in all those words were some errors and I don’t know why those can’t be corrected.”

Glad to know Senator Stenehjem is on the side of the tax cutters, and would support tax cuts in the legislature.
Next, state Secretary of State Al Jaeger says it isn’t his job to “proofread” the language on the petition.

Americans for Prosperity said in a news release Friday that Jaeger should have used the same ballot language he approved for their petition in July 2007. Dustin Gawrylow of AFP said Jaeger should defer to what the intent was of the original ballot language that appeared on petition.
Jaeger disagrees. First of all, he said, he had no authority under state law, nor obligation, to proofread the entire text of the measure that sponsors wrote when they started their petition drive in 2007.

The problem with Jaeger’s assertion is that it is, in fact, his job to proofread the petitions.
The petition that was circulated in support of this measure included ballot language on it that was written by state Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem and approved by the Secretary of State’s office. If the SoS’s office isn’t going to read the petition, why even bother to have them approve the ballot language?
AFP made a typo in the petition. There’s no doubt about that. But neither the state Attorney General’s office nor the Secretary of State’s office caught the error despite being legally obliged to review petitions, and the two offices jointly wrote and/or approved the ballot language that petition signers read before signing the petition.
This is a comedy of errors, and I think the only practical thing to do is to go with the ballot language the Secretary of State’s office originally approved for the petition.

Tags: Domestic Issues, North Dakota News, Politics

http://Array Tax Cuts Now

BS …AFP screwed up the language. Not Jaeger.

Yep. AFP screwed up.

The AG screwed up by not catching it and issuing a ballot title that was wrong.

The Secretary of State screwed up by certifying the petition and giving permission to circulate.

Now Jaeger has screwed up by changing the ballot language from what the petition said.
gilbyguy

No. Jaeger’s job is not to blindly copy the title, it is to explain in layman’s terms what the.effect of the measure is.on the general public.

He did his job.
Puzzlefeet

Absolutely, Jaeger is not allowed to try and figure out what the AFP meant to do. You screwed up on the tax table, this is all on the AFP.

You are all just pissed that you now can’t claim that everyone will get a 50% tax cut when that isn’t what the measure says or does. It doesn’t matter what you intended. If you intended 50% then you should have had someone competent make sure you math was done correctly. It wasn’t, so Jaeger has to give the explanation to the voters which accurately reflects the actual wording of the measure. that is the law.

I also think it is so funny that you don’t trust the legislaturere to do the right thing when it comes to taxes,but when the AFP screws up royally, then you want that same legislature to come to your rescue.

LOL.
Puzzlefeet

Absolutely, Jaeger is not allowed to try and figure out what the AFP meant to do. You screwed up on the tax table, this is all on the AFP.

You are all just pissed that you now can’t claim that everyone will get a 50% tax cut when that isn’t what the measure says or does. It doesn’t matter what you intended. If you intended 50% then you should have had someone competent make sure you math was done correctly. It wasn’t, so Jaeger has to give the explanation to the voters which accurately reflects the actual wording of the measure. that is the law.

I also think it is so funny that you don’t trust the legislaturere to do the right thing when it comes to taxes,but when the AFP screws up royally, then you want that same legislature to come to your rescue.

LOL.
http://www.valleydeals.com/cgi-bin/board2/YaBB.pl Kevin

Why wouldn’t everyone want a tax cut unless they are living off of taxes and have an irrational fear that a tax cut for others would mean a smaller check from the government for themselves?
gilbyguy

Why wouldn’t everyone want a tax cut unless they are living off of taxes and have an irrational fear that a tax cut for others would mean a smaller check from the government for themselves?

I want to cut taxes as much as anyone and am a strong supporter of the measure!

I just don’t think it’s right to blame Al Jaeger for someone else’s screw up.
gilbyguy

Al Jaeger is lazy

BS …AFP screwed up the language. Not Jaeger.
gilbyguy

No. Jaeger’s job is not to blindly copy the title, it is to explain in layman’s terms what the.effect of the measure is.on the general public.

He did his job.
http://www.valleydeals.com/cgi-bin/board2/YaBB.pl Kevin

Al Jaeger is lazy.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

I just don’t think it’s right to blame Al Jaeger for someone else’s screw up.

Jaeger screwed up when he signed off on the ballot language that was on the petition.

Nobody’s hands were clean.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Update On The Ballot Language For The Tax Cut Measure

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments