Ballot Discrimination In North Dakota

I was infuriated at seeing this item in the news. From the Forum of Fargo-Moorhead:

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit against Secretary of State Al Jaeger that was filed by three Libertarian candidates for the North Dakota Legislature who sought placement on the November ballot.

Richard Ames of Wahpeton, along with Grand Forks residents Thommy Passa and Anthony Stewart, argued that North Dakota’s ballot access requirements are unconstitutional because they require candidates to get a minimum number of primary election votes, even if they run unopposed.

It isn't a partisan outrage. If these were Socialist candidates, I'd feel the same way. I detest the judge's reasoning:

In an order issued today, District Court Judge Ralph R. Erickson wrote that states can require candidates to demonstrate a certain degree of support in a primary election.

Primary elections serve as a mechanism to “winnow out and reject all but serious candidates,” and ballot requirements allow states to avoid voter confusion, overcrowded ballots and frivolous candidates, Erickson wrote.

He concluded that North Dakota’s ballot requirements for the general election are “non-discriminatory and serve a compelling state interest.”

That's bullcrap. What exactly does an 'overcrowded ballot' look like? And, what is a frivolous candidate? That's for the voters to decide!

We have to work hard to make sure Mike Wherry gets his votes here in Indiana so that the Libertarian Party can maintain its ballot access for four more years. It isn't safe to leave the matter in the hands of judges, as this example in North Dakota shows, and as we're aware affected the Libertarian Party in Ohio for several years.

(h/t: Patriot Paul)

Big Surprise! IndyGo Does Want More Tax Money

To no surprise whatsoever, the bus system that requires some 80+ of its funding to come from taxpayers, now wants even more. From the Indy Star:

IndyGo, another agency dependent on property taxes, also adopted a 2011 budget Monday, and it, too, will pursue a shortfall appeal as expected.

If approved by the City-County Council, the appeals would bring in $1.8 million for the library and $1.5 million for IndyGo. But for most homeowners, the increase combined would be only a couple of bucks.

The one-time levy, which would not increase the actual tax rate, would increase taxes by $1.21 for a $100,000 property, said library Chief Financial Officer Becky Dixon. The IndyGo increase would be roughly $1 per $100,000.

And just as typical is the Republican response:

Angel Rivera, a Republican who initially expressed opposition to the move, said because the increase was small, he "would give it a lot more consideration," though the council is still exploring other options.

"I don't like tax raises," Rivera said. "But if it's $2.50 per parcel, I think we'd have to seriously consider it."

Republicans are against tax hikes, until they are for them.

There are too many other things the Library and IndyGo can still do to generate revenue. They can charge their users for the services they use. Hike the fares, charge more for overdue videos, and charge to use the internet. Is this so hard to figure out?

I suppose it's easier to simply claw at the community as a whole.

IndyGo "Could" Nick The Taxpayer?

Way to go Indy Star headline writer! You gave me the chuckle that will carry me through this Monday! It read, "Action by IndyGo and library could nick taxpayers".

No kidding! Could nick the taxpayer? Bwaaahahahaha! That's about the only thing IndyGo does with any consistency!

As pointed out many, many times on this blog, IndyGo is heavily subsidized, with taxpayers making up a minimum of 80% of the bus service's funding. Fares, on the other hand, make up less than 20%.

As pointed out many times before, this represents a transfer of wealth from those who don't ride to those who do. What's that old saw about the sum of good government being not picking my pocket or breaking my leg? How's that go? Not IndyGo, that's for sure.

So here's the trick, per the Indy Star:

Municipal corporations that receive less tax money than expected can file what's called a shortfall appeal with the Department of Local Government Finance. If approved, that will raise how much the corporations receive the next year, but it also will raise property taxes for those who are not paying the maximum under the tax cap.

It's time to scale back our empire building. No, I'm not talking foreign policy in this case. I'm talking the empire of government. The money is not there. When the property tax reassessments happened a few years back, we were not in the midst of a down economy. Hit people now, with a 10% unemployment rate? For buses people don't ride?

Here's an idea: Raise the fares. Let the people who use the services pay for the services. Either that, or scale them back just as surely as families have scaled back on eating out or grilling t-bone steaks.