Proponents say a proposed change to the way constitutional amendments are initiated would dampen the influence of monied out-of-state interests that have been trying to alter North Dakota’s governance. Opponents of the proposal call the change a power grab by legislators that must be blocked.

Measure 2 on the November 3 general election ballot states the Legislature must ratify constitutional measures initiated and approved by voters. If the Legislature declines to do so, the measure goes back to the voters, who have the final say.

Measure 2 was placed on the ballot by the Legislature.

Sen. David Hogue, R-Minot, who sponsored the legislative resolution for Measure 2, said the measure was prompted by a pattern of out-of-state-generated initiatives designed to change the state’s constitution for the benefit of special interest groups.

“We have had a number of constitutional amendments that have been on the ballot, going back to at least 2014, where the measure is funded by out-of-state special interest groups who don’t have to be governed by this law and are seeking to advance their own agendas,” Hogue said. “The fundamental weakness to the process is there’s no public input.”

Among recent measures with reportable funds that were predominantly or entirely from out of state have been creation of an outdoor fund, Marsy’s Law, an ethics commission and language change stating “only a citizen” can vote.

Hogue said Measure 2 doesn’t preclude constitutional amendments from being proposed and voted on, but it slows the process to allow for public hearings before the Legislature and a chance to determine whether tweaks or major changes are needed.

Measure 2 doesn’t give the Legislature the ability to amend a constitutional measure approved by voters, but if legislators reject the measure, voters will have additional information in deciding whether to vote for the measure a second time or consider something different, he said. The Legislature also could put a revised constitutional measure on the ballot along with the original measure, enabling voters to adopt the one they prefer, he said.

Opponents say voters must protect the powers granted to them in Article 3 of the constitution.

“Measure 2 is the Legislature’s attempt to save the people from themselves. They believe that the voters are being hoodwinked by all this out-of-state money, and that the voters are not educated enough to vote the right way,” said Dustin Gawrylow, Bismarck, with Protect ND, a coalition campaigning against the measure. “We think that the voters who put those very legislators in office are more than capable of figuring out what’s going on with the various measures, and that the desire for the Legislature to have a veto over the will of the people is contrary to our state constitution as it stands, because it would change the way that our ‘powers reserved to the people’ are actually truly reserved.

“There shouldn’t be exceptions. We don’t want to see it become ‘powers reserved to the people,’ and then in parentheses, ‘unless the Legislature disagrees,'” he said. “Instead of tackling campaign finance issues and out-of-state money, or the overall issues directly, they are trying to simply change the process, inject themselves into the process, give themselves a veto over the will of the people after the voters say yes to a measure.”

The ability to override the veto comes two years later, dragging out a process that already is about 18 months for most measures, he said.

“It’s actually going to cause more money to be needed to have a successful measure campaign because when you are doubling the amount of time necessary to run a campaign, you double, if not triple, the amount of money that you need,” Gawrylow said.

“By making it more difficult for grassroots organizations that do not have a lot of money, they’re really going to be blocking those folks,” he added. “They’re going to actually create a situation where it’s beneficial to be an out-of-state organization with a lot of money because those will be the ones with the highest success rate.”

Hogue notes that North Dakota’s constitution was amended in 1914 to enable citizens to initiate constitutional amendments through a process that looked much like Measure 2. Citizens could collect signatures equal to 25% of voters in a majority of counties to get an amendment on the ballot and, if passed by the electorate, the measures went to the Legislature for approval. If rejected by the Legislature, measure went back to the voters, who determined the outcome. Failed measures couldn’t be revived for six years.

The procedures changed again in 1918 to eliminate the need for legislative ratification and reduce the signature requirement to 20,000. The current process, adopted in 1978, sets the signature requirement at 4% of the resident population.