North Dakota
Port: Measure 2 is needed reform for North Dakota's initiated measure process
MINOT — You readers of this column are, on average, well-informed and politically literate, but I would not be surprised if most of you couldn’t give me a description of Measure 2, on which we will be asked to cast our ballots in November.
It’s
a constitutional amendment initiated by the Legislature
that, if approved by voters, would limit future ballot measures to no more than a single subject, bar people who aren’t North Dakota residents from circulating petitions in support of a ballot measure, and for constitutional measures, require two votes for approval — one on the June primary ballot, and once again on the November ballot. Oh, and for constitutional amendments, the required number of signatures would go up, from 4% of the statewide population to 5%.
These are weighty, consequential changes to the initiated measure process. You probably know little about them, because our lawmakers have a terrible habit of putting proposals like this one on the ballot and then doing next to nothing to make the case for them. This proposed amendment was passed in the state House and Senate with large supermajorities — 73-18 in the former, 44-2 in the latter — yet where are those majorities now to explain the merits of this measure to voters?
They’re nowhere to be found, perhaps because they lack confidence that voters will support it.
According to the North Dakota Poll,
sponsored by the North Dakota News Cooperative, just 36% of voters supported the proposal in November, while 46% said they opposed it.
Those aren’t good numbers for the measure’s proponents, but they also don’t paint a picture of an unwinnable argument. They communicate a need for persuasion, but this measure will fail if nobody organizes the affirmative argument.
So, in the spirit of Don Quixote tilting at a windmill, allow me to make the case.
Let’s concede that our initiated measure process is deeply broken. Supporters of the status quo (who are, if you look carefully, usually paid political professionals) would have you believe that the petitioning process is some exercise in pure citizen activism. It is not. It has become a playground for deep-pocketed interests who pay temp workers hundreds of thousands of dollars to hound North Dakotans for enough signatures to get their pet projects on the ballot.
Signature fraud is almost routine, and what little lawmakers have done to try to close the loopholes that allow this fraud has been furiously opposed by the aforementioned paid activists because they like the loosey-goosey status quo that allows them to bulldoze their way onto the ballot.
Still, the public has made clear that they want this process to exist despite the apparent problems attendant to approving complicated legislation at the ballot box. So, Measure 2 is a compromise. It preserves the process but makes some necessary tweaks — no more complex proposals aimed at bamboozling voters or armies of out-of-state mercenaries to harass you for signatures at the farmers market or street fair. And amendments to our constitution would get extra scrutiny. Two votes, instead of one, and a higher signature threshold.
These proposals will not fix what ails the initiated measure process, but they will at least improve it. I hope you’ll vote yes.
FARGO, N.D. (KELO) — The Sioux Falls Stampede staved off elimination with a 2-1 overtime win over the Fargo Force in game four of the USHL Western Conference Finals Saturday night.
Thomas Zocco scored the game-winner 12 minutes into the extra period. Arseni Marchenko put Fargo on the board first in the first period. Noah Mannausau tied the game for the Herd in the second period.
Sioux Falls outshot Fargo 53-49, including 9-5 in overtime. Linards Feldbergs made 48 saves.
Three of the four games of the series have gone to overtime. The winner-take-all game five is Tuesday at the Premier Center.
New ballot measure guide to be mailed to North Dakota voters ahead of election
Kxnet.com
Welcome to the KXMB/KXMC YouTube channel, your home for all news, sports, and weather in western North Dakota. Subscribe to our channel for the latest information, breaking news, and weather updates.
Submit your photos, videos, and news tips to https://www.kxnet.com/report-it/. You can also message us on Facebook.
Visit KX News: https://www.kxnet.com/
Stream our shows here: https://www.kxnet.com/live-streaming/
Download our mobile app: https://www.kxnet.com/apps/
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/KXNewsND?sub_confirmation
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/kxnews
X: https://twitter.com/kxmb
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/kx_news/
Get our new KXNews+ app on Roku, Apple TV, or Fire TV. Learn more here: https://www.kxnet.com/kx-news-plus/
BISMARCK (North Dakota Monitor) — A federal district court judge indicated he will nullify a nearly $28 million judgment against the federal government related to costs North Dakota incurred during the Dakota Access Pipeline protests so the parties can reach a settlement.
North Dakota is still set to receive a payment Attorney General Drew Wrigley described as satisfactory, but attorneys would not disclose the amount during a Friday hearing.
Attorneys for the United States and North Dakota said the settlement would allow the parties to avoid litigating the case in appeals court,putting the nearly seven-year-old lawsuit to rest.
“We’re hoping we really don’t need to fight any further,” Department of Justice attorney Jonathan Guynn said during the hearing.
The lawsuit, filed in 2019, concerns demonstrations against the construction of the crude oil pipeline, also known as DAPL, that took place in rural south-central North Dakota in 2016 and 2017.
North Dakota claims the federal government caused the protests to grow in size and intensity by unlawfully allowing demonstrators to camp on federal land. The state says it had to pay millions of dollars on policing and cleaning up the encampments as a result. The United States denies the state’s allegations.
North Dakota U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Traynor in April 2025 sided with the state and ordered the executive branch to pay North Dakota the $28 million sum, a decision the U.S. Department of Justice later appealed to the 8th Circuit.
If the settlement moves forward, North Dakota would receive a “substantial monetary payment” from the United States, attorneys said Friday. As a condition of the agreement, the Department of Justice wants Traynor’s judgment and three other orders in which he ruled against the United States to be voided. That includes the court’s 120-page ruling from April 2025.
Both parties said Friday that having the rulings nullified wouldn’t have a significant negative impact on the public, since the documents could still be cited even if they no longer hold the weight of court orders.
At the same time, Guynn said the Department of Justice wants the orders vacated because it doesn’t want the legal conclusions Traynor made to influence the outcome of future lawsuits.
“The downstream consequences of keeping these on the books is troublesome for the United States,” he said during the hearing. If Traynor does not agree to axe the rulings, the United States would likely no longer be willing to settle and move forward with its appeal instead, Guynn added.
Traynor’s orders make findings about the federal government’s responsibility under the Federal Tort Claims Act — the law North Dakota filed the suit under — which the state noted previously in court filings “could have utility holding the federal government to account” in the future.
Still, attorneys for the state said they believe this trade-off is outweighed by the time and money the public would save by not going through the appeals process. North Dakota would also avoid the risk of having Traynor’s judgment overturned by higher courts.
Wrigley said the settlement will be made public once it’s finalized.
The United States’ appeal of Traynor’s decision has been on hold since last summer, when the state and federal government informed the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals they had started settlement negotiations and wished to pause the case.
The 8th Circuit will have to first send the case back to Traynor before he could grant the parties’ requests.
The case went to trial in Bismarck in early 2024. During the four-week trial, the court heard from witnesses including former governors Doug Burgum and Jack Dalrymple, Native activists, federal officials and law enforcement.
The Dakota Access Pipeline carries crude oil from northwest North Dakota to Illinois. It crosses the Missouri River just north of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, which prompted the tribe to begin protesting the pipeline on the grounds that it poses a threat to its water supply and sovereignty.
North Dakota’s lawsuit originally requested $38 million in damages from the federal government. Traynor ordered the executive branch to pay $28 million since the U.S. Department of Justice previously gave the state $10 million as compensation for costs it spent related to the protests.
-
Delaware2 minutes agoDelaware State Police investigation shooting in Laurel – 47abc
-
Georgia14 minutes agoLSU Falls to Georgia in Series Finale
-
Hawaii20 minutes agoTourist yells ‘I’m rich’ after beachgoers beg him to stop attacking endangered seal — before he’s detained
-
Idaho26 minutes agoLocal non-profit fills Mother’s Day baskets for NICU moms across Idaho
-
Illinois32 minutes agoThousands of birds could migrate over the Chicago area this week, and here’s how to protect them
-
Indiana38 minutes agoIndiana Pacers exec apologizes to fans after losing first-round pick
-
Iowa44 minutes agoTop Iowa High School Football Prospect Makes His Decision
-
Kansas50 minutes agoFour teens hurt in southeast Kansas rollover – AOL