The North Dakota Legislature isn't done trying to reshape approval requirements for future ballot questions that cover constitutional amendments. The latest attempt seeks to go beyond a "simple majority." Last fall, voters across the state rejected the idea of increasing the signature requirement for getting initiated measures on the ballot. That plan had also called for these measures to be successful in a primary and general election before becoming final. Despite the failure, there's now a plan to bump the approval threshold for a ballot question to 60%.

Amy Jacobson, executive director of the group Prairie Action, said a "super-majority" approach hurts grassroots level efforts.

"We really see it as kind of being designed to silence the voters by raising the voter threshold. It makes it much more difficult for everyday citizens to use something that is a protected right within our state constitution," she explained.

The Legislative sponsor and other supporters argue that compared with other states, North Dakota makes it too easy for constitutional amendments to cross the finish line. They also cite the influence of out-of-state interest groups. If the Legislature greenlights the proposal, North Dakota voters would then decide whether the higher threshold should become the standard.

Backers of the change often describe the state constitution as a "sacred" document.

Dustin Gawrylow, managing director of the North Dakota Watchdog Network, said at a recent committee hearing that lawmakers wanting this move are being selective in who should have a say when changes are involved.

"Is it all sacred or is it just some of it sacred? Because Article Three is the powers reserved to the people," he continued. "What does reserved mean? Does that mean unless the Legislature disagrees? Or, does it mean that they're truly reserved?"

Gawrylow would like to see reforms dealing with out-of-state interest groups spending money on ballot campaigns. But he thinks that should be dealt with separately. Other opponents say raising the threshold actually gives those entities a bigger voice over citizens.

Idaho lawmakers have introduced a slate of bills which would put up greater hurdles for passing voter-initiated ballot measures.

Legislation this session includes bills to increase the threshold for passage to 50%, allowing the governor to veto passed measures and proposes a constitutional amendment that would require signatures from six percent of voters in all 35 districts.

Sen. James Ruchti, D-Pocatello, assistant Senate minority leader, said the measures come after years of attacks from Republicans on voter initiatives.

"They constantly live in fear that the people will tire of the Legislature not listening to them and will use the initiative process to get done that which the Legislature should do," Ruchti asserted.

Ruchti noted one instance in which lawmakers did not listen to Idahoans was on Medicaid expansion. In 2018, 60% of voters approved a measure to expand the program. Lawmakers have introduced a bill this session to repeal Medicaid expansion. Sponsors of ballot measure legislation argued out-of-state money drives the initiatives.

Rep. Bruce Skaug, R-Nampa, who sponsored some of the bills to increase initiative thresholds, said allowing the governor to veto measures would be similar to bills passed in the Legislature. He also contended it is "good protection for a misinformed electorate if they don't get the information like we get to have."

Ruchti countered lawmakers deal with people who have agendas.

"We are surrounded by special interest groups who are trying to get their particular bills passed and they use a variety of arguments, some of which are specious, some of which are accurate information," Ruchti observed. "It's just part of living in a democracy. So, the voters can figure this out and they do."

Senate Joint Resolution 101 would make the signature gathering process for voter initiatives harder, increasing the number of districts where six percent of voters have to sign from 18 to all 35. The resolution would need approval from voters to amend the constitution. Lawmakers proposed the amending resolution because in 2021, the Idaho Supreme Court blocked a similar bill, calling it unconstitutional.

Ruchti added attempts like this are disrupting grassroots efforts.

"The signature gatherers, for example, as a general rule and maybe even almost entirely are volunteers who are just taking their time to do something that they feel is really important," Ruchti pointed out. "That certainly was the way it was with Medicaid expansion."


get more stories like this via email

The Nevada Legislature has kicked off this week and progressive groups are sharing their top priorities.

Many are asking Gov. Joe Lombardo to work with Democrats to get important legislation over the finish line.

Mathilda Guerrero Miller, government relations director for the group Native Voters Alliance Nevada, said the climate crisis is only worsening in Nevada. Whether record-breaking temperatures in the summer or cold winters forcing family decisions about how to afford home heating, she argued more should be done.

"We're fighting for stronger outdoor worker protections and an end to utility shut-offs during extreme heat and cold," Guerrero Miller outlined. "This isn't about policy. It is about basic survival and the ability to thrive. This is also not about party lines. It's about doing what is right."

Nevada approved a regulation mandating businesses with more than 10 employees conduct a "job hazard analysis," and write up a safety program with solutions to potentially harmful working conditions. The Extreme Weather Working Conditions Bill in 2023 would have revised existing workplace safety and health law to require more worker protections but failed. Advocates said they will try again.

Ben Iness, coalition Coordinator for the Nevada Housing Justice Alliance, said housing security and affordability are also top of mind. One of the priorities he and others would like to see reformed is about summary evictions. In Nevada, when a renter receives an eviction notice, they have to file a response in court to prevent the eviction from escalating. If not, Iness noted, it could lead to them being kicked out.

"We're the only state in the country where the tenant has to file first against themselves," Iness pointed out. "They're effectively suing against themselves because their landlord has an issue. And so, folks struggle to navigate that process. They might self-evict, out of fear or hopelessness."

Landlords allege before an eviction is finalized, there are multiple attempts to communicate with a tenant about the resources and services available to help. Iness countered the tenant protections they are fighting for would address the power imbalance between landlords and renters.

The Utah Legislature has been in session for almost two weeks and one nonprofit research organization contended in order for state lawmakers to be effective and responsive to the needs of Utahns, they need to address two key topics: cost of living and political dysfunction.

Shawn Teigen, president of the Utah Foundation, said through its Utah Priorities Project conducted last year, it found Utahns are concerned about being able to afford housing and other costs, such as groceries and taxes. Teigen reported many said they also do not feel listened to by politicians and are tired of hyper-partisanship.

He argued the information they provide is crucial for communities to be educated and engaged.

"The reason why we are doing that is so that policymakers can make better decisions," Teigen explained. "But it is also that civic leaders can be informed about topics that maybe policymakers are going to be making decisions on."

Teigen encouraged everyone to use the information to have constructive conversations, especially as leaders start to make decisions about what to prioritize this legislative session. It could prove to be a challenge because the foundation discovered more than 70% of Utah voters feel the state's politicians are "beholden" to business, religious and other special-interest groups, subsequently ignoring the will of the people.

Stanley Rosenzweig, a retired business owner and a board member of the Utah Foundation, argued Utah should find a way to improve communication between legislators and constituents. Rosenzweig contended the answer could lie in policymakers doing a better job in explaining why they are pursuing certain legislative action and the potential outcomes.

"If you talk with them individually, what you will find is that they are all people with big hearts," Rosenzweig observed. "In my opinion, they all want to do the best for the people who elected them to serve, but they just don't read it the same way and that is the problem."

The Utah Foundation has found regardless of party affiliation, Utahns agree more than they disagree, especially as it relates to housing affordability, government overreach, having enough water resources and K-12 education.