As Herald readers know, Measure 4 -- the Fighting Sioux Nickname measure -- on today's ballot day is set up in a way that could be confusing. That's because a "yes" vote on the measure affirms a law that repeals a law that ... oh, never mind.
The bottom line (and this is clearly spelled out on the ballot): A "yes" vote on Measure 4 would let UND discontinue the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo. A "no" vote would require the university to use the nickname and logo.
But Measure 1, some Herald readers have pointed out, also could be confusing. That's because while Measure 1 eases a restriction of long standing in the North Dakota Constitution, its ballot language echoes the constitution's restrictive wording.
So, while the measure includes the seemingly blunt phrase "This measure would prohibit the appointment of ...", a "yes" vote actually would ease or liberalize an existing prohibition, not toughen one or add a brand-new one (as the language might make you think).
In the interest of clarity, here's a quick explanation.
ADVERTISEMENT
Since statehood, Article IV, Section 6 of the North Dakota Constitution has laid down the law on whether legislators can be appointed to state office (such as a post in the governor's Cabinet). The clause reads this way:
"During the term for which elected, no member of the legislative assembly may be appointed to any full-time office which has been created, or to any office for which the compensation has been increased, by the legislative assembly during that term."
Notice that if the salary or benefits of the post have been increased at all during the lawmaker's term, the lawmaker cannot be appointed to that post.
Measure 1 relaxes that rule. If voters approve the measure, then lawmakers will be able to accept state posts whose salary or benefits recently were increased -- as long as the rest of the state workforce also got the same raise.
In other words, a "yes" vote would loosen the current restriction and make it easier for lawmakers to accept appointments.
The amended constitution still would be restrictive. It just wouldn't be as restrictive as the constitution is today.
That's why Measure 1's language on today's ballot reads this way:
"This constitutional measure would amend and reenact section 6 of Article IV of the North Dakota Constitution. This measure would prohibit the appointment of a member of the Legislative Assembly to a state office for which the compensation was increased in an amount greater than any general legislative increase provided to full-time state employees during the member's term of office.
ADVERTISEMENT
"YES -- means you approve the measure as summarized above.
"NO -- means you reject the measure as summarized above."
Compare that summary with the current text of Article IV, Section 6 (quoted above in this editorial). You'll see that while the amended constitution still would "prohibit the appointment of a member" under certain circumstances, those circumstances actually would be looser than they are today.
Measures 1, 2, 3 and 4 now await North Dakotans' decisions, as do many local and state candidates for office. Take pride in this great right handed down by our ancestors, and vote!
-- Tom Dennis for the Herald
