751: North Dakota Measure 2 Debate | Yes vs. No cover art

751: North Dakota Measure 2 Debate | Yes vs. No

751: North Dakota Measure 2 Debate | Yes vs. No

Listen for free

View show details
Should free breakfast and lunch be guaranteed to every North Dakota student under the state constitution, right alongside textbooks, yellow school buses and the basic right to a public education? That fundamental question drove our debate over Measure 2, putting outgoing state Rep. Zac Ista, a Grand Forks Democrat, and veteran Republican attorney and former party chair Bob Harms on opposite sides of the podium. "When it passes, it's going to do two things immediately: It's going to ensure a nutritious, healthy breakfast and lunch for every K-12 student in North Dakota, and it's going to take the cost of those lunches off the plates of families here in North Dakota to the tune of up to $1,000 per student," Ista said. He framed the measure as both a "value proposition" injecting up to $65 million annually back into family budgets and a "values proposition" aligning with the state constitution's existing guarantee of free public education. Harms countered that Measure 2 is the "wrong vehicle, wrong policy and wrong process." "The constitution represents our fundamental principles that manage our government. It's not there for fashioning day-to-day policy that the people are expected to vote on every two years," Harms said. He argued that mandating an estimated $134 million per biennium into the constitution is fiscally reckless at a time when the governor has requested 3% to 10% agency budget cuts. A core point of disagreement was whether school meal programs ought to be means-tested. Harms noted North Dakota already spends roughly $40 million annually — predominantly through federal funds — to feed low-income students up to 225% of the federal poverty line, or $74,250 for a family of four. "Why would we mandate that my kids get breakfast and lunch?" Harms asked, arguing the measure needlessly subsidizes wealthy families. "Where are mom and dad in all of this? ... We're meeting that need today. If we need to adjust it, we can do that, but we should do that in the legislative body rather than mandated in the constitution." Ista pushed back, comparing universal meals to other universal services provided inside school walls. "We provide books, Chromebooks, transportation, and we provide that to all students for free," Ista said, noting that families making just over the eligibility cap are squeezed by inflation and sudden economic disruptions. He also cited roughly $2 million in unpaid school meal debt lingering in districts statewide that often gets turned over to collections agencies. "This is a tax cut where we don't have to worry at all about how somebody is spending that tax cut, because the only thing you're allowed to spend it on is the school meals that will be reimbursed." That prompted a spirited debate over recent state fiscal policy. When asked why universal school meals are treated as an entitlement while the state's recent $1,600 primary residence property tax credit was celebrated by conservatives without any income testing, Harms dismissed the comparison as "apples and oranges". "That wasn't constitutional, number one," Harms said, adding that expanding state obligations for schooling opens a slippery slope. "If my kid is going to be in school and you're saying, well, he should have food, well, he should have clothing and boots as well. What's the difference?" The mechanics of funding also drew scrutiny. Under Measure 2, if lawmakers do not allocate funding from other sources, the cost is backstopped by Legacy Fund earnings. Harms argued this subverts the fund's original mission to insulate the state against an oil industry collapse, warning that current projections already show earnings falling short of past legislative spending. Ista maintained that the Legacy Fund provision is simply a backstop and that the price tag represents less than 1% of the total state budget. He argued that proponents took the constitutional route only after the Legislature repeatedly refused to fund universal meals in statute. "Voters are right to sort of be fed up by that," Ista said. "The Legislature has shown this is not a top priority for it, so the constitution provides protection so that it won't just be subject to the whims of individual legislators or an individual budget cycle." 00:00 - Introduction & Debate Overview 01:38 - The Affirmative Case for Measure 2 (Rep. Zach Ista) 03:23 - The Opposition Case to Measure 2 (Bob Harms) 07:03 - Legacy Fund vs. Alternative Funding Sources 08:15 - Amending the Constitution vs. Legislative Policy 18:07 - Universal Benefit vs. Means Testing 24:06 - Impact on Federal School Meal Reimbursements 28:40 - Mid-Show Sponsor Break 31:44 - School Meal Debt & Fulfilling State Mandates 36:24 - School Lunches vs. Textbooks & Tech Fees 39:18 - Eligibility for Private School Students 42:00 - Voter Will, Polling & Campaign Funding 50:38 - Data on Student Hunger in North Dakota 54:21 - Closing Remarks & Wrap-Up #northdakota
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
No reviews yet