Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections And Ballot Initiative Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee Hears Support and Opposition for Single‑Subject Requirement for Constitutional Amendments
Summary
Supporters told the House Government and Veterans Affairs Committee the proposed Senate Concurrent Resolution 4,007 would reduce voter confusion by limiting future constitutional amendments to a single subject. Opponents warned the measure would invite litigation and shift interpretive power to officials and courts.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 4,007, a proposed constitutional amendment to require each future constitutional amendment to address a single subject, drew both backing and opposition at a hearing of the House Government and Veterans Affairs Committee.
Senator David Hogue, R‑Minot, told the committee that the amendment would “limit a constitutional amendment to a single subject” and reduce what he called bait‑and‑switch measures that bundle unrelated provisions under attractive headlines. He noted other states that allow initiated constitutional amendments typically have a single‑subject rule and said North Dakota’s current practice — in which voters often see only a brief ballot summary — makes longer, multi‑topic constitutional changes hard to evaluate.
"The majority of states that permit constitutional amendments by initiated measure ... do have a single subject rule," Hogue said, and argued the change would reduce voter confusion when long measures appear on ballots.
Former Gov. Ed Schafer, testifying in support, said lengthy measures with summaries can obscure substantive changes and urged the committee to advance SCR 4,007. "A short summary of the legislation does appear but it can't come close to defining everything contained in the proposed amendments," Schafer said.
Organizations including the Greater North Dakota Chamber also filed written testimony in support, saying a single‑subject requirement would improve clarity for voters.
Opponents, led by Carol Sawicki of the League of Women Voters of North Dakota, warned that single‑subject rules have produced thousands of court decisions elsewhere and could produce uncertainty and costly litigation in North Dakota. "Single subject rules have been the subject of thousands of court's decisions," Sawicki said, arguing courts would be asked repeatedly to interpret what counts as a single subject. She also urged that, if the legislature advances the measure, it should be placed on a general election ballot rather than a primary because primary turnout is typically much lower.
Committee members asked how a single subject would be defined and who would make the call. Hogue said his proposal vests discretion in the secretary of state — the official who already prepares ballot titles and handles petition signatures — and anticipated that the secretary would consult the attorney general. Secretary of State Michael Howe testified later in the hearing that his office currently drafts ballot titles in consultation with the attorney general under existing Century Code procedures and that significant disputes over a single‑subject determination would likely end up before the North Dakota Supreme Court.
The committee later voted to send SCR 4,007 to the floor with a recommendation (motion carried 8‑6), after an amendment changing the ballot from the primary to the general election was adopted in committee.
What happens next: The resolution will be carried forward to the full chamber as recommended by the committee, with committee members and outside groups already lining up for and against the measure.
