North Dakota

Measure 2 opponents want ND’s initiative process protected

Published

1 year ago

October 23, 2024

Measure 2 opponents want ND’s initiative process protected

A constitutional measure designed to make it more difficult to amend the state’s constitution will hurt North Dakotans more than it will hamper the outside interests being targeted, according to a former governor leading the campaign to defeat Measure 2 on Nov. 5.

The goal to make it more difficult for out of state groups to meddle with the state’s constitution is a good one, said Ed Schafer, governor from 1992-2000 and spokesman for North Dakota Citizens Protecting the Constitution.

“This particular piece of proposed legislation attempts to deal with that, and in some cases does – in most cases, doesn’t – deal with the problem,” he said. “It puts barriers in front of people to be able to engage in the direction of their government.”

Constitutional Measure 2 was placed on the ballot by the 2023 North Dakota Legislature. The measure states future initiated measures, either constitutional or statutory, must be limited to one subject. The new language would require that all measure sponsors be qualified electors and that only qualified electors may circulate petitions.

However, more controversial language increases the number of signatures required to place a constitutional initiated measure on the ballot from 4% to 5% of North Dakota’s population and requires voters to approve constitutional measures twice. The measure states voters must vote on a constitutional measure in a primary election and, if approved by a majority, vote again at the following general election to determine passage.

David Hogue

“There’s a consensus that the bar is not high enough for amending our state constitution. It should be harder to amend our constitution than to pass a bill,” said Sen. David Hogue, a co-sponsor of the Senate resolution behind the measure. “The process now is you identify an out of state, sympathetic, not for profit group, and you get them to fund it.”

It is too easy to be manipulated by out of state groups, he said. It’s too easy for outside groups to impose their policies on North Dakota because the state’s standards for amending its constitution are so low, he said.

Hogue compared voting on the measure twice to having Senate and House votes on bills.

“That is a way to raise the bar,” he said.

For opponents, raising the bar raises a barrier.

“I don’t see why we need to place a stronger barrier for people to get involved in guiding or directing our government,” Schafer said. “I am a real champion of people being able to interact and direct the people’s government.”

In a two election process, outside interests opposed to a measure could wait to see if a measure makes it past the primary to the general election, and if so, swoop in at that time with millions of dollars to defeat it, Schafer said. Two election cycles makes it more difficult for local campaigns or local opposition groups to compete with wealthy special interests, he said.

He cited the case of Marsy’s Law, approved by North Dakota voters in 2016 after a wealthy California resident originated and pushed the concept.

“What does this particular piece of initiated measure do to stop that? Nothing,” Schafer said of Measure 2. “If Measure 2 gets defeated, we still have the problem. But if it passes, we still have the problem of the outside money. We need to have transparency. People need to know where the money is coming from.”

Financial closure statements with the North Dakota Secretary of State show North Dakota Citizens Protecting the Constitution has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from out of state groups.

Schafer said the donations from groups that back the initiative and referendum process were unsolicited. There had been limited dollars spent on the campaign initially, but the N.D. Citizens Protecting the Constitution was looking earlier this month at increasing its efforts in light of a poll showing support and opposition to Measure 2 were running close to even.

Schafer also objected to the increased signature requirement for constitutional measures in Measure 2. As population increases, so does the signature requirement, intensifying the impact of even a 1% increase, he said. The measure proposes to raise the number of signatures currently required to get a constitutional measure on the ballot from 31,164 to 38,955.

Schafer said the one subject rule in the measure is the one positive feature, and if the measure is defeated, he would help with efforts to make that change in a future measure.

Hogue said the single subject rule for an initiated measure is common among states with an initiated measure process. Sixteen states with some type of statewide citizen-initiated measure process have a single-subject rule, while 10 states that provide for an initiative process do not, according to Ballotpedia.