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.