Resolution proposes to change constitutional ballot measure vote threshold to 60%

BISMARCK, N.D. (North Dakota Monitor) — Ballot measures to amend the North Dakota Constitution could have a steeper climb in the future.

Members of the House Government and Veteran Affairs Committee held a public hearing on House Concurrent Resolution 3003 Thursday that would raise the bar for future ballot initiated changes to the state constitution from a simple majority vote to a 60% vote threshold.

Rep. Robin Weisz, R-Hurdsfield, called it “a very simple resolution.”

“All it does is amend the constitution to say that it takes a 60% vote to amend the constitution,” Weisz said. “That’s all it does.”

He added it wouldn’t change any signature requirements or require multiple votes, like Ballot Measure 2, which failed with 56% of North Dakota voters opposed to the measure in November. It also doesn’t include a single-subject rule.

Weisz told lawmakers he holds the state constitution in the same regard as the U.S. Constitution — as a “sacred” document that should require more than a simple majority to change.

And while he values individuals and the state’s ability to bring forth ballot measures to change the state’s preeminent document, Weisz said it should be “difficult.”

Speaker of the House Robin Weisz, R-Hurdsfield, prepares to gavel the House into session on Jan. 16, 2024. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor)

Rep. Steve Vetter, R-Grand Forks, said the purpose of the constitution is to protect the rights of the minority and he supports the measure.

“Is the will of the people more important than the rights of the minority?” Vetter said. “Most states that have the initiated process to change the constitution, they have a little more stricter rules.”

He added changing the U.S Constitution requires ratification from three-quarters of all the states, which is a strong protection for the rights guaranteed to every American, and much stronger than even a 60% vote threshold.

Testifying in opposition, Dustin Gawrylow, managing director for the North Dakota Watchdog Network, said Article III of the state constitution refers to “powers reserved to the people,” which protects the public’s right to change the state’s governing document.

“We hear about how the constitution is sacred. Which parts though?” Gawrylow said. “Is it all sacred? Or is it just some of it sacred?”

He added some people want to change the threshold for passage to limit out-of-state influence behind ballot measures in the state. Gawrylow suggested that lawmakers can pass laws that govern out-of-state money in state politics without changing approval threshold.

“If we’re really concerned about the out-of-state money issue, why don’t we do something about it?” he said.

The League of Women Voters of North Dakota submitted testimony opposing the increase in vote threshold for constitutional measures.

Carol Sawicki, a member of the League’s board, wrote the current initiated measure process should be protected because it “promotes civic engagement, increases government accountability, and provides a channel for North Dakotans to elevate an issue that might otherwise not be addressed.”

No action was taken by the committee after the public hearing.

Even if the resolution is approved by lawmakers, the proposal would still go to voters for approval.

(Story written by Michael Achterling – North Dakota Monitor)