Bismarck Tribune - North Dakota News - 3 ballot measures have been somewhat low-key

3 ballot measures have been somewhat low-key

Oct 22, 2006 - 02:05:35 CDT

By DALE WETZEL
Associated Press Writer

Campaigns for North Dakota's lineup of three statewide ballot measures have been generally low-key, even though two initiatives affect private property rights and child custody laws.

A few billboards and yard signs have been put up on both sides of the proposed child-custody law, which would give divorcing parents joint custody of their children unless one parent was able to prove the other was unfit.

The property initiative, which is intended to block the state and local governments from forcing the sale of land for economic development projects, has touched off some arguments from city and county organizations, and little else.

The most obscure ballot measure was put there by the Legislature - a constitutional amendment that would allow changes in the state Land Department's management of 13 trust funds, including a $760 million-plus fund that benefits North Dakota's schools.

At present, the North Dakota Constitution's language treats interest payments and some other types of earnings differently from investment gains on sales of stock and other assets, said Gary Preszler, the state land commissioner.

The restrictions have caused more money to be funneled into the permanent trust funds, and less is distributed to beneficiaries, Preszler said.

In the last 10 years, trust assets have risen about 80 percent, while distributions have only increased about 6 percent, he said. Under the proposed change, payments would rise in sync with the growth of a trust fund's assets.

"With this change, it doesn't matter where the money comes from," Preszler said. "A dollar is a dollar."

Advocates on both sides of the property-rights proposal (Measure No. 2) and the child-custody measure (No. 3) have relied mostly on Web sites to spread their message.

The Web site for Measure 3, which supporters call the Shared Parenting Initiative, includes links to documents outlining the measure's objectives, a dispute about its potential cost, and to videos supportive of joint custody in divorces.

The North Dakota Children's Caucus, which is opposing the measure, includes the image of a billboard showing a drawing of a child next to a suitcase, accompanied by the message, "Where Do I Sleep Tonight?"

The caucus contends that the measure will result in the shuttling of children between divorced parents, to their detriment.

News > State

Printer friendly version 3 ballot measures have been somewhat low-key

Comments

anonymous wrote on Jul 26, 2007 4:30 PM:

" Fathers should be given just as much of an opportunity to state there case as does the mother. When you actullay have a father who cares about his children and wants to be there for them, that is when they get the bad had of it alland the children are stuck in an environment that could have been better if the court system looked past the fact that there are good dads out there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

Lisa wrote on Oct 29, 2006 2:37 PM:

" Vote Yes!!! Children need both parents and both parents should have the opportunity to be equally involved in their child's upbringing. The current system favors the mother--what about the father?? A good father should also be able to be involved in his/her child's life. Custody battles do nothing but hurt our children!! "

very concerned wrote on Oct 28, 2006 4:22 PM:

" I have just read up on this measure and feel it would be very harmful to our children. how can you make them go back and forth 50/50 schools are not always on the same mateiral and what about kids that haven't had the dads in there life at all.one day a dad decides he wants to be there and thay have to go.(wrong) as for support matters we all know that would really be bad come on we all know that dads alot of times feel things are unnessarsy that may be very much so to the kids. so we choose not to protect them from that.i'm looking at what this will do to our children.I am divorced and my child lives with me and sees dad every weekend, also may i point out dad can come anytime during the week to have child but never does and never calls just to see how is doing.maybe i'm one of the forchanate people that belive in putting my child first and do try very hard to keep a good repore with my ex because of my child but i still think this would be very harmful to all children. so please remember that each case is diffrent and vote no on measure #3. "

Jay R wrote on Oct 27, 2006 5:51 PM:

" Much of the impact of this proposition affects what happens BEFORE the parents divorce. With the current system, each parent goes into court knowing that one parent will get custody and child support, while the other parent will receive a demotion to "visitor" and a monthly bill for child support. This causes each side to dig in and embark on a smear campaign against the other parent, to show that the other is the worse parent. Now these parents are automatic adversaries, enemies. This is the worst situation possible for a child. With shared parenting, the playing field is level going in. Both parents know that they will receive approximately equal amounts of time with their child, and child support is largely removed from the picture. The incentive to attack and smear the other parent is removed leaving a much greater chance that they will have a civil, cooperative relationship going forward. This the best outcome for children, who hate nothing more than conflict and animosity between their parents. Vote YES on 3. "

a mother wrote on Oct 27, 2006 4:39 PM:

" You guys that are not around and have not been in the child life at all think you should all of a sudden have the same right as the parent that has been there for the child. That child is going to be so confused. What right do you think you have? NONE! I think each case should be looked at diffrently and not treated all equal.One parent could be using drugs and a drunk. Does that parent have the right to be around that child. NO!! You better really look into what kind of harm that could and can be done to the childern who have family members like that. And One parent have spent thousands of dollars fighting for their child. "

JW wrote on Oct 23, 2006 5:50 PM:

" So how does this all come in to play with parents that live in different states? How will they have "Joint Physical Custody" and "Visitation"? "

MJD wrote on Oct 23, 2006 1:55 PM:

" I myself am disgusted with Measure 3. The child support part of it is ridiculous--how do you figure out how much to raise a child? I feel every divorced couple should be made to attend children of divorce classes, counseling with just the ex spouses and with the ex spouses and the child or children. The parenting plan is a good idea though--these children are already confused about what is going on without having to worry about which rules they have a each home. Instead of measures that waste our time such as this one, why not address these judges that make wishy washy rulings and don't force either parent to carry health insurance? I for one am a parent struggling to raise a son on my own and have no health insurance available to me, but yet the judge refuses to make my ex husband enroll him in his works insurance program. Lets take care of the more necessary of the evils here folks!! "

James wrote on Oct 23, 2006 8:31 AM:

" Under current laws, children go back and for just as much, if not more, than under Shared Parenting. Vote YES! "

Joel wrote on Oct 22, 2006 10:26 PM:

" It is ridiculous that someone would even bring up this point that Very Concerned brought up about a step-parent being a potential sex-offender. That could go either way, is there less risk of a child being exposed to a sex-offender by living with just one parent? Absolutely not! As a matter of fact, having the other parent as an important part of their life could lower that risk. JK, I can only assume that you are one of the majority of mothers that has custody of your children. This initiative is not about child support, funny that a custodial parent would even bring that up, demonstrating your only concern about the well being of your children that obviously has a parent that is allowed less time than yourself. You only get along because you allow it, which is wrong, and many non-custodials do not get that luxury. They and their children suffer at the hands of a vindictive and controlling custodial parent. There is only one way to vote - vote yes "

Frankly wrote on Oct 22, 2006 5:11 PM:

" Your hysteria is hilariously over the top. It gets pretty old to hear about your irrational fear in every news paper and every news cast, all days of the week. Especially, since it doesn't even apply to a significant portion of the population. As if anyone cares that you cannot properly raise your brats, and must try the impossible - controlling the public, instead of your own. "

very concerned wrote on Oct 22, 2006 12:42 PM:

" to you guys: where is the risk? living in the same home with them for one place. yes, we may be obsessed with sex offenders but have you been paying atention to the rapes, children living with this going on in their homes or how many are in the nubs that are repeat offenders? have you paid any attention to dru sjodin's case? about time someone is being obsessed with it. our system seems to think they can be cured but our statistics are proving differently. i for one, am more obsessed with keeping our children safe. "

You Guys wrote on Oct 22, 2006 11:59 AM:

" Are seriously obsessed with sex offenders. Per capita wise, you probably have never crossed paths with one. Why behave like reactionary sheep, and get all upset about a risk factor that barely applies to any of you. If you don't let your kids wander around aimlessly, or leave them in the care of unknown persons, then where is the risk? At any given moment you could be struck by a meteor, but I don't see you all trying to outlaw the sky, space and stars. Quit running governmental costs up over irrational fears! "

JK wrote on Oct 22, 2006 11:14 AM:

" I live in a family of "Yours, Mine, and Ours" and am having negative feelings regarding Ballot Measure 3. Children of Divorced Parents have enough stressors in their lives without being moved back and forth. I feel that would disrupt the wellbeing of the kids. I do feel that ND tends to favor with the mother in custody fights, and I say that as I am a mother. I do feel that the child support in ND should be revamped, but not by supporting measure #3. I am lucky to have a situation where all of us get along & work together for the best interest of the 6 kids we have. I think that 50/50 custody would be detremental to today's children who already are facing so many challenges growing up. "

very concerned wrote on Oct 22, 2006 7:59 AM:

" if you've read the article on "sex offender allowed to visit step child in school", measure 3 should be a clear NO vote. this stepchild could be your child or granchild being forced to live in a home that the x-wife or x-husband has chosen to marry a sex-offender. the law cant stop them from marrying them and only a long court session to try to prove them unfit will keep your children/granchildren from having to go live with them on a 50/50 basis. while that's going on and before settlement, they would have to go live there if this measure passes! vote NO!!!!!!! "

Post Your Own Comment

All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.