Initiated Measure Modernization Act Defeated
Initiated Measure Modernization Act Defeated
House also passes unconstitutional plan to repeal and replace voter-approved term limits, and votes to add 20 days to the length of legislative sessions.
House Decides Not To Make It Better With Vetter
Yesterday, the House voted by a vote of 29 Yeas to 63 Nays to reject the compromise amendment to the constitution that Representative Steve Vetter (R-Grand Forks) helped me introduce.
You can watch the floor debate here.
You can read about the development of this approach here.
The good news from this floor debate is that a provision may be added to the Secretary of State’s budget appropriation to allow for some sort of study. Hopefully, it is a mandatory study with enough funding to do the issue justice.
SCR 4013 Remains Threat To I&R Rights
Currently, SCR 4013 in its amended format is still alive.
Compared to the original version it is less bad:
the original 67% approval threshold has been removed, and replaced with the simple-majority in both the Primary and General Election (the provision I suggested to the Senate Committee on SCR 4013 and within HCR 3031).
the “single-subject” rule provision is in place, and leaves it up to the Secretary of State. I had requested that they clarify that provision in both SCR 4013 and HCR 3031 because it’s way too wide open for mischievous interpretation.
the provisions banning paid circulators entirely likely would have been challenged and determined to be unconstitutional, but thanks to a consultant (who will go un-named), who has helped with many campaigns and also does work for petitioning efforts, convinced certain members of the committee to remove those provisions.
the threshold for signatures requires on constitutional measures would go from 4% to 5% of the population.
Again, it is much less bad than the original version. But without a much more clear definition of “single-subject” it leaves way too much room for manipulation. Simply leaving up the determination to the Secretary of State is abdicating the legislature’s role as the law-making branch of government and giving it to an Executive Branch member of the government. That will be the exploited weakness of this approach if it makes it to the ballot.
If the legislature really wanted to pass this approach, it would fix the “single-subject rule” definition and attach a provision that gives the Secretary of State a few more years to figure out electronic signatures - say, by the year 2028. That would give the legislature and the Secretary of State two interims and two legislative sessions to get the system figured out. Maybe even include a review provision that allows the legislature to determine whether the electronic system is working, and if not revert back to the old rules and paper until the system can work.
If the legislature made those two changes and left the rest of the amendment as is, it would likely pass with the voters overwhelmingly.
House Approves Resolution That Is Unconstitutional Using Literal Reading Of The Measure Voters Passed In November
A few weeks ago, I wrote you about HCR 3019 which seeks to repeal and replace the term limits passed by voters in November.
Yesterday, the House voted the other way, 63 Yeas to 29 Nays to repeal and replace the majority of Article XV
You can watch the floor debate by clicking here.
In the debate, legislators discussed their belief that the Article IV Section 16 power to place measures on the ballot cannot be limited by the Article XV Section 4 provisions declaring the legislature does not have the power to propose changes to Article XV. (Which exposes a need for more clarification to Article IV)
Other legislators also played word-games with Article III, regarding “initiated measures” and whether the requirement of a 2/3rd majority of the legislature is required to change an “initiated constitutional measure” - splitting hairs over whether an “initiated measure” amending statute and a “constitutional initiated measure” amending the constitution have different protections against legislative manipulation.
Common sense would say that an “initiated constitutional measure” would be held to the same or greater standard as an “initiated [statutory] measure” - but many legislators do not think so. (Which exposes a need for more clarification to Article III.)
HCR 3019 now goes to the Senate for discussion, if approved it would be up to the Secretary of State to place it on the ballot, and almost surely be sued with the legislature, for violating the literal text of Article XV.
Legislature Wants More Days To Work
Since the mid-1960s, the legislature has been limited to an 80 day session - it was previously 60 days starting at statehood.
The House also decided they need 20 days every two years to get their work done and give themselves the option for 20 more days with a super-majority of both chambers, and exempt days back to over-ride vetos.
HCR 3020 passed by a vote of 74 Yeas and 18 Nays.
Click here to watch the floor debate.
In previous sessions, this would have never had a chance - and has defeated similar proposals many, many times. But the anger and fear over term limits has caused many Republicans, and many conservatives to change their minds on the issue of more days in session leading to more government.
Almost three-years ago, Ralph Mueke, one of the most fervent defenders of the Initiative and Referendum Process, passed away.
Every time Ralph testified on a bill relating to the initiated measure process, he would start off the speech by reading his favorite quote from Mark Twain.
“NO MAN’S LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY ARE SAFE WHILE THE LEGISLATURE IS IN SESSION.”
That pretty much sums up what the idea of letting the legislature have an extra 20-40 days to work will make many North Dakotans feel.
Initiated Measure Modernization Act Defeated