Measure 1 Yes/No

[Rowdie]

A lot of good points to consider. I always thought it was more than 50% and was shocked when I learned about this measure. One of the first elections in ND I voted in was the one where we added the ammendment to guarantee the right to hunt, fish, and trap. I know it passed but don't know what the percentage was.

I guess I'm in the camp where the constitution should require more than 50%. 60 seems too low

 

[Sluggo]

Rowdie made me wonder what percentage has been passing amendments in the past so I AI-ed the last 10.

 

[MSA]

Who started/what instigated measure 1, and why?

 

[Colt45]

https://northdakotamonitor.com/2026...dakota-ballot-measure-to-change-constitution/

Vote yes on measure one, 60% threshold is not hard to achieve as per sluggos previous post.
Free lunch for kids has no business being a constitutional change either, in my opinion

 

[Wally World]

Other reasons I lean towards Yes on Measure 1.
Armstrong is for it, I trust him more than I distrust him.
The commercials on TV to vote No on 1 are very shady. They imply it could impact gun rights, implies more power going to the legislature, implies the minority rules. All spin and the gun rights one is flat out a scare tactic directed at the ill-informed. Plus someone is spending a ton of money on them as they are constantly being shown. Also makes me suspicious.

You trust Armstrong? You need to do some research on his tactics in keeping and recruiting RINO's. Big out of state money (Dark Money) is supporting Measure 1. Please Vote NO on both measures to save and protect the ND taxpayers and Freedoms.

 

[Mike Fretty]

You trust Armstrong? You need to do some research on his tactics in keeping and recruiting RINO's. Big out of state money (Dark Money) is supporting Measure 1. Please Vote NO on both measures to save and protect the ND taxpayers and Freedoms.

I see your argument as supporting a yes vote. We are much more likely to lose freedoms with a 50%+1 scenario imo

 

[Rowdie]

If it doesn't pass it won't bother me, but I'm voting yes unless it changes the percentage on nonconstitutional measures. Always read them fully and carefully.

I'm hearing people say look who's supporting it. Or look at who funding it. That's worth considering but doesn't influence me much on this.

 

[lunkerslayer]

Best answer yet. The founders absolutely didn't want a democracy because they feared the tyranny of the majority, especially a small majority. That is why we have the electoral college, that is why it takes 75% of states to ratify an amendment to the federal constitution, and that is why we have a senate where each state gets the same say. I said this in the lunch program thread but I'll say it again here, just imagine what this country would look like if we were a straight democracy with a 50% +1 rule. It would be a scary place and you would have virtually no rights.

Some have said we need it because they believe we have a crappy legislature. Well, it only takes a majority to vote someone out of office and you have that chance on Tuesday, so if you don't like your representation, go vote for someone different.

^^^^^ this no matter what vote or this

 

[lunkerslayer]

No matter what you NEED TO VOTE, showing up every 4 years isnt going to work.

 

[labhunter66]

If you wonder how crazy some of these Washington based groups are, listen to the amicus brief on the Vermont v. Cook County submitted by the Washington based group The Enlightenment Project. These people are crazy and don’t care about your rights. I don’t know for certain but I would not be surprised is there was substantial dual membership in The Enlightenment Project and The Fairness Project, who is a big funder of no on Measure 1 and yes on 2.

 

[gonefshn]

Personally, I’m struggling with Measure 1. Never would have thought that’d happen. Normally, it’d be a slam dunk YES. But with what’s going on in politics and the party or the highway crap the two sides have become, it’s really hard for me to make it harder for us citizens to override them when they fail to do what’s best for us over their few owners. I’ll probably vote yes, but it’s hard to say which box the pen’s going pick.

 

[SerchforPerch]

Other reasons I lean towards Yes on Measure 1.
Armstrong is for it, I trust him more than I distrust him.
The commercials on TV to vote No on 1 are very shady.

There is important distinction between telling someone how to vote and influencing how they think about an election. I agree Armstrong seems to have a good head on him. Although, how are you being influenced in the worksplace? Seems like employers get involved in one way or another - meaning do you receive repeated communications from an employer on its preferred political positions but always caveat it with they'll "never tell you how to vote"?

 

[Obi-Wan]

the reason to vote NO on #1 is look at who proposed it.

Constitutional Measure No. 1 was placed on the ballot by the North Dakota Legislature, not through a citizen initiative. Specifically, the Legislature passed House Concurrent Resolution 3003 during the 2025 legislative session, which referred the measure to voter

They want to limit what we the people can vote into law. they are still butt hurt by both the Marijuana and term limit votes. The proof is they tried to change both of these

 

[Colt45]

Last post on this as I feel like I'm beating a dead horse at this point, but I believe there is still confusion about the measures:

Measure 1 > a constitutional amendment proposed by North Dakota’s Republican-led legislature that would require a 60% vote threshold to pass future constitutional ballot measures. Chief sponsor is Speaker of the House Rep. Robin Weisz, R-Hurdsfield. Main opposition is the The Fairness Project, an progressive organization based in Washington, D.C. which has spent millions trying to defeat this measure, for many nefarious reasons.

Measure 2 > chief sponsor is Together for School Meals committee, headed Amy Jacobson. Jacobson is executive director of Prairie Action ND, a progressive policy group.
Measure 2 is a constitutional amendment that would provide free breakfast and lunch to K-12 students attending public schools and charter schools. The state would reimburse school districts for the cost of the meals and adjust the cost annually for inflation. This will cost an estimated $124.3 million to $134.3 million every two years, beginning in the 2027-29 budget cycle, according to analysis by the Department of Public Instruction. I believe this will be a low estimate, but since it will be part of our constitution it MUST and WILL be funded for all eternity. Repeal is historically and statistically unlikely.

As in both measures, it doesn't matter who sponsors or initiates a constitutional amendment, any amendment has to be approved by the voters. The legislature cannot pass an amendment on their own, they can only sponsor one and then get it on the ballot so we the people can decide. We the people decide every singe constitutional amendment.

That being said, in my opinion measure 2 is the exact reason we need measure 1. Free breakfast and lunch for kids has no business being part of our state constitution, and I believe the sponsors of measure 2 know it, and passage of measure 2 will lead to more ridiculous proposed amendments which could include free healthcare for all or select "groups", minimum wage increases, abortion rights, and even gun control rights. Its really just to easy to change our constitution.

I support a yes vote on measure 1, and a no vote on measure 2.

Either way, I hope everyone that is eligible to vote gets out and actually votes.

 

[Colt45]

the reason to vote NO on #1 is look at who proposed it.

Constitutional Measure No. 1 was placed on the ballot by the North Dakota Legislature, not through a citizen initiative. Specifically, the Legislature passed House Concurrent Resolution 3003 during the 2025 legislative session, which referred the measure to voter

They want to limit what we the people can vote into law. they are still butt hurt by both the Marijuana and term limit votes. The proof is they tried to change both of these

Marijuana is not part of ND constitution, it is handled through statutory law (the North Dakota Century Code), I really don't see the legislature being "butt hurt" over marijuana as a motivating factor for measure one. Marijuana has nothing to do with our state constitution, nor should it.

Term limits is part of our constitution. Voters approved the constitutional amendment via Constitutional Measure 1 in November 2022 election cycle. I don't agree with term limits of our state representatives or governor, but it passed. You think we have dummies right now representing us, just wait until we term limit the good ones, and there are some good people in our state government believe it or not, it may come back to haunt us. We'll see how it shakes out down the road.

I do support term limits for our federal congress representatives, it would not break my heart to see many of the entrenched career politicians forced out of office by term limits, including John Hoeven.

 

[gonefshn]

I’d kinda like us to vote in a digital property rights bill where no one can use or sell any info about us before we up the percentage. Because you know the Legislature’s owners will never let that happen thru legislation.

 

[Obi-Wan]

Marijuana is not part of ND constitution, it is handled through statutory law (the North Dakota Century Code), I really don't see the legislature being "butt hurt" over marijuana as a motivating factor for measure one. Marijuana has nothing to do with our state constitution, nor should it.

Term limits is part of our constitution. Voters approved the constitutional amendment via Constitutional Measure 1 in November 2022 election cycle. I don't agree with term limits of our state representatives or governor, but it passed. You think we have dummies right now representing us, just wait until we term limit the good ones, and there are some good people in our state government believe it or not, it may come back to haunt us. We'll see how it shakes out down the road.

I do support term limits for our federal congress representatives, it would not break my heart to see many of the entrenched career politicians forced out of office by term limits, including John Hoeven.

were they butt hurt over term limits ?

In June 2026, the North Dakota Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Legislature did not have the constitutional authority to propose changes to the voter-approved term limits because the amendment reserved that power to the initiative petition process. The court ordered the measure removed from the November 2026 ballot.

I have a problem when voter-approved measures are later altered by elected officials, which I view as disregard for voter intent

Why are term limits good for one and not the other ? Are not many of the existing ND legislators "Entrenched" ?

 

[ale]

https://kfgo.com/2026/10/09/a-challenge-to-strongnd-funding-measure-1/

 

[Pheasant 54]

Kind of like our legislature telling ND voters they really didn't know what they were voting for when we passed term limits. I trust any of them as far as I can throw them NO vote for me. Plus I think this has been tried 5 or 6 times before

 

[Colt45]

were they butt hurt over term limits ?

In June 2026, the North Dakota Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Legislature did not have the constitutional authority to propose changes to the voter-approved term limits because the amendment reserved that power to the initiative petition process. The court ordered the measure removed from the November 2026 ballot.

I have a problem when voter-approved measures are later altered by elected officials, which I view as disregard for voter intent

Why are term limits good for one and not the other ? Are not many of the existing ND legislators "Entrenched" ?

I believe there was voter confusion regarding whether the 2022 measure term limit applied to state or federal offices.
Just as there is confusion with measure 1 and 2 right now, both are constitutional changes and I think most people don't really understand that. Maybe I'm wrong about that, its just my opinion.

Was the legislature butt hurt? I really don't know but yes it seems like they were, they tried to change it and were struck down by the supreme court like you said, and rightfully so.

Usual arguments for term limits is to curb political corruption, break up entrenched power,
and force a regular rotation of citizens into the system. All very good reasons for term limits.

I think the federal government wins the state vs federal argument in all three of those categories hands down, and its not even close. But alas we have no term limits at the federal level for congress and probably never will.

You are of the opinion we have the same issue at our state level that we do at the federal, at
least that's what I assume is your opinion or argument. I don't believe that's the case,
but we do have corruption and fraud at the state level and it does seem to be getting worse.
Is term limits the answer? I guess we will find out in a few years when we start forcing people
out of office because of term limits. I do indeed hope you are right, call me skeptical I guess.

Like I said before, I am on the fence state term limits as I just don't think all our legislatures are dummies, and we may term limit out the good ones to soon, whose replacement you might be even more disappointed with.

Thanks for your honest feedback.