ND Constitutional measure

[NDSportsman]

Am I missing something? The text from the first link says that the measure to be voted on would restrict initiated measures to 1 single topic per measure..... Isn't that a good thing? Do we not all bitch about the us congress spending bills and their "gotta pass it to see whats in it" mentality?

Personally I would think this would be a good measure to pass just to keep confusion to a minimum for voters....

I haven't read the full text of the measure yet, so I'm sure there is something sneaky in there.... Seems to me there was something like this on the docket for the last go around but the measure itself was addressing multiple different topics in a single vote.... seemed a bit hypocritical if I remember right. Im gonna take the time to read the full text of the measure sometime soon.
I can agree that Constitutional measures should absolutely be put to a vote during the general election...

Yep like I said not enough people bother to educate themselves about these measures.

 

[guywhofishes]

Constitutional Measure No. 1 (from Senate Concurrent Resolution 4007) is a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on the North Dakota June 9, 2026 primary election ballot. It requires a simple majority (50% + 1) to pass and would change the state constitution if approved.30


What It Does


It amends Article III, Section 9 (initiative petitions) and Article IV, Section 16 (legislative proposals) of the North Dakota Constitution to require that every constitutional amendment — whether citizen-initiated or referred by the Legislature — must address only a single subject.45

• For citizen initiatives: The Secretary of State reviews petitions and can reject them for circulation if they cover more than one subject (with potential input from the Attorney General).
• For legislative referrals: The Legislature must limit its proposed amendments to one subject.
• Goal (per supporters): Prevent “logrolling” (bundling unrelated issues), reduce voter confusion, and avoid “bait-and-switch” tactics where popular provisions hide controversial ones.20
• Fiscal impact: None.45

How it appears on the ballot (official summary): “This constitutional measure would amend and reenact section 9 of article III and section 16 of article IV of the Constitution of North Dakota, relating to requiring each resolution adopted by the legislative assembly proposing a constitutional amendment and each initiative petition and measure proposing a constitutional amendment be comprised of a single subject. … constitutional amendments would be limited to one subject. The Secretary of State shall not approve an initiative petition for circulation if the Secretary determines that the proposed amendment comprises more than one subject. Additionally, the legislative assembly is required to limit proposed amendments to the constitution to one subject.”48


YES = Approve the single-subject requirement (changes the Constitution).
NO = Reject it (no change; multi-subject amendments remain possible).


This is narrower than the broader 2024 Measure 2 (which included signature increases and double-approval requirements and failed).46


Pros (Arguments in Favor)

• Clarity for voters: Makes measures easier to understand and vote on without unrelated provisions complicating things.20
• Prevents deception: Stops “bait-and-switch” tactics (e.g., popular ideas like helping veterans paired with unrelated policy changes).46
• Common practice: Many states with initiative processes already use single-subject rules successfully; North Dakota’s Legislature already follows a similar rule for bills.20
• Focus and accountability: Forces sponsors to keep amendments targeted and transparent.46

Cons (Arguments Against)

• Potential barrier to initiatives: Could be used to block or complicate legitimate citizen-driven changes; enforcement by the Secretary of State/AG raises concerns about bias or overreach.20
• Unclear criteria: What counts as “one subject” may be subjective, adding bureaucratic hurdles and possible legal challenges.20
• Limits voter power: Critics (e.g., League of Women Voters, some Democrats) worry it could “handcuff” grassroots efforts, especially complex reforms like ethics commissions.46
• Timing concerns: Placed on the lower-turnout primary ballot rather than the general election.20

Note: This measure only affects constitutional amendments (not statutory initiated measures). A separate measure on the November 2026 ballot would change legislative term limits.5


For the full official guide, check the ND Secretary of State’s site or vote.nd.gov. Local discussions or forums in Fargo may provide more ND-specific perspectives as the election nears.

 

[guywhofishes]

Constitutional Measure No. 1 (SCR 4007) originated in the North Dakota Legislature during the 2025 session as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment. It was not a citizen-initiated petition.0


Primary Sponsor and Key Backers in the Legislature

• Senate Majority Leader David Hogue (R-Minot) was the main sponsor. He introduced it to prevent “bait-and-switch” tactics in constitutional amendments and make them easier for voters to understand.0
• Co-sponsors included Senators Dick Dever (R) and Jerry Klein (R), plus Representatives Lawrence Klemin (R), Mike Lefor (R), and Robin Weisz (R).35

It passed the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support (only one “no” vote) and the House 57-36 (more divided, with most Democrats and some Republicans opposing).0


Political Backing and Opposition


Support (primarily from Republican legislative leadership):

• Aimed at promoting clarity, transparency, and preventing logrolling in both citizen initiatives and legislative referrals.
• No major external PACs or big-money groups are heavily involved yet (campaign finance reports show minimal to zero spending so far for this low-profile measure).5
• Aligns with broader Republican-led efforts in the 2025 session to reform the ballot initiative process (e.g., alongside the 60% threshold measure).

Opposition (focused on risks to citizen initiatives):

• League of Women Voters of North Dakota — Strongly against it. They testified in opposition, arguing the vague language could be weaponized against grassroots efforts and add bureaucratic hurdles enforced by the Secretary of State/Attorney General.42
• Democratic lawmakers, such as House Minority Leader Zac Ista (D-Grand Forks), who called it a potential “handcuff” on voter initiatives.20
• Groups like the North Dakota Watchdog Network (Dustin Gawrylow) have criticized it as poorly defined and part of a pattern of legislative restrictions on direct democracy (they also opposed the failed 2024 multi-part measure).65
• Broader concerns from initiative supporters who see it as limiting complex but legitimate reforms (e.g., ethics or multi-faceted policy changes).

This is a lower-turnout primary election measure, which some critics argue favors the status quo/legislative side. No major out-of-state or big-money involvement stands out—it’s largely an inside-the-Capitol fight. For the latest, check the ND Secretary of State’s voter guide or Ballotpedia.

 

[Wallyworld]

Vote NO.......F-CK NO on this bill to take away the citizens voice. The sleezy legislature is suing the State, trying to overturn the Term Limits the people voted on and passed in 2022.

The 2022 initiative, which passed with 63% voter support, implemented 8-year term limits for both the North Dakota House and Senate. That initiated measure included a specific clause explicitly stating that the Legislature does not have the authority to alter or repeal the term limits.

North Dakota Monitor +4

• The Conflict: The 2026 measure (SCR 4008) is a resolution introduced by the legislature to loosen these rules and allow up to 16 years of service.
• The Challenge: Petitioners argue that by putting this on the ballot, the legislature is doing exactly what the 2022 amendment forbids them from doing.
  
  
  KFYR-TV +2

2. Failure to Meet Constitutional Vote Threshold
Lawyers for the petitioners argue that under the North Dakota Constitution, any attempt by the legislature to change an initiated measure within seven years of its passage requires a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers.

North Dakota Monitor

• The Challenge: SCR 4008 did not meet this threshold, passing the Senate 24-23 and the House 53-39.
  
  
  North Dakota Monitor

3. Separation of Powers
Supporters of the 2022 initiative feel that the legislature is bypassing the "people’s power to govern themselves".

North Dakota Monitor

• The Concern: The 2022 initiative was a citizen-initiated measure, not a legislative referral. The lawsuit argues that the legislature is attempting to undo a law passed directly by the people, which they feel is an act of "legislative meddling".
  
  
  North Dakota Monitor +2

4. "Single Subject" or "Unconstitutional" Contentions
The 2026 measure proposes to both change the term lengths and allow partial terms not to count toward the limit. The lawsuit argues that this legislative referral is generally unconstitutional due to the 2022 prohibition on changes, but also that it violates the spirit of a single subject by attempting to overhaul the existing structure of the voter-passed law, rather than creating a new initiative.

North Dakota Monitor +4

---

Status: The case is currently before the North Dakota Supreme Court, with hearings having occurred in April 2026. The high court is reviewing whether to remove the measure from the November 2026 ballot, with a ruling expected by June.

North Dakota Monitor +1
The Legislative Position: Lawyers representing the Legislature argue that the legislature has the constitutional authority to propose amendments to the constitution, and that a clause in the 2022 initiative cannot bind future legislatures, stating that the new resolution also includes a provision to repeal that restrictive 2022 clause.

North Dakota Monitor

 

[Duckslayer100]

Whether you want it or not, free school meals are overwhelmingly supported by North Dakotans -- it's not even close.

Everything in school is covered -- transportation, learning materials, salaries, etc. -- because, by law, you need to educate the kids. Yet meals aren't. I dunno. You can feed a guy on death row for decades and it's like, meh, whaddaya do. But meals for kids spirals into some sort of socialist/communist squabble every time it's brought up.

We're spending billions of dollars to bomb other countries. A few mill for student meals is peanuts.

 

[Colt45]

If free lunch programs are limited to low income families, including the fraudsters, it avoids unnecessarily subsidizing kids whose parents/families can afford to pay for their for their own breakfast and lunch. Its just that simple.
If this passes I hope there is media coverage of the massive food waste that will occur, along with the quality of the "free" food, its a scam that will just be another taxpayer rip off. We need LESS government, not more. NOTHING IS FREE!
Stop the insanity!

 

[guywhofishes]

You can feed a guy on death row for decades and it's like, meh, whaddaya do. But meals for kids spirals into some sort of socialist/communist squabble every time it's brought up.

slayer - the kids are being fed currently. That's irrefutable. Why are you insisting on guilting those who oppose making more laws to solve a problem that's not an actual problem in ND?

I'm genuinely perplexed.