Bob Ide

The lawmaker opposes the bill because it creates another government program, increases dependence on federal funding from a debt-ridden government, and facilitates half a billion dollars in spending.

The lawmaker expresses struggle with supporting the bill due to concerns that it could devolve into mob rule or a tyranny of the majority, despite acknowledging valid intentions.

The lawmaker opposes the bill because they believe it legislates trespass and creates a slippery slope for abuses regarding property lines.

The lawmaker supports concurrence because it removes redundant language from page three of the bill that is already covered by existing statute.

The lawmaker supports the bill because post-election audit transparency is needed to restore lost public trust following recent election issues.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because it tightens liability standards, but opposes the bill itself as they believe it undermines property rights without landowner permission.

The lawmaker opposes referencing federal laws in the bill because some may be unconstitutional and inconsistent with state sovereignty.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because they believe government intervention is inappropriate for projects that should be handled by individuals and private corporations.

The lawmaker opposes the bill because existing laws already handle possession with intent to deliver and felony eluding, making this new statute an odd disparity that does not effectively address retail theft.

The lawmaker supports the bill because it incorporates testimony from stock growers and helps clarify regulations for both the state land office and farmers.