House rejects bills that aimed to change how North Dakota candidates get on the ballot
Rep. Mike Nathe, R-Bismarck, speaks on the House floor on Feb. 25, 2025. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor)
Two bills that would have reshaped how candidates get on the North Dakota ballot failed in the House late Tuesday.
House Bill 1446, sponsored by Rep. Mike Nathe, R-Bismarck, would have eliminated the option of getting on the ballot through a political endorsement. Instead, candidates for statewide and legislative offices would be required to gather signatures to get on the primary or general election ballot.
Currently, candidates can get on the ballot through either a political endorsement or by gathering signatures. However, several incumbent lawmakers skipped district endorsing conventions last year, citing concerns about the process. And two candidates endorsed at the Republican Party state convention went on to lose in the primary.
'The system, we all know, is not working,' Nathe said.
Under the proposal, legislative candidates would be required to obtain signatures for 1% of the district's total population, about 167, while statewide office holders would need to acquire 2,000 signatures.
Competing bills would change how candidates get on North Dakota ballot
During floor debate, Nathe said some districts are pushing candidates away if they don't meet the 'litmus test' for the perceived values of the political party. Others are being harassed and booed at meetings if they say anything that could go against party doctrine, he said.
Lawmakers opposing the bill suggested it would put more candidates on the primary ballot and would fundamentally change the endorsing process.
Rep. Vicky Steiner, R-Dickinson, acknowledged that some districts have issues, but said it's up to the state party to correct the behavior. She said some districts take their endorsements and processes seriously and are consistently trying to improve them.
'The system works,' Steiner said. 'Endorsing a candidate gives the voter a chance to understand that that person has been vetted by a group of people who have a set of principles.'
Rep. Ben Koppelman, R-West Fargo, said there would be no way to verify that the signatures submitted by a candidate are from people of the same party.
'Many court cases have suggested that a party, through law, cannot be deprived of the ability to choose their candidate,' Koppelman said.
Nathe's bill failed on a 58-32 vote.
House Bill 1424, sponsored by Koppelman, would have required candidates to obtain a political party's endorsement. Candidates who submit signatures to get on the ballot could not have a political party next to their name.
After the debate on Nathe's bill, Koppelman urged lawmakers to vote against his proposal.
'I think that we all are reacting to what our experiences are in the last two, maybe four years,' he said. 'I think if cooler heads prevail, and we go back and try to build the best districts that we can, that we'll be successful in our respective parties and hopefully we'll get more people involved.'
Koppelman's bill failed on an 86-3 vote.
House Minority Leader Zac Ista, D-Grand Forks, said people listening to the floor debate may get the wrong impression that getting into politics is 'messy' and 'nasty.'
'I can't speak for your districts or party, maybe that's true, but I want people watching to know that that's not the case in the minority party,' Ista said. 'I sure hope you all will figure this out so we can move forward productively.'
Senate Bill 2252, sponsored by Sen. Chuck Walen, R-New Town, also would have prohibited ballot access to the primary election for candidates not endorsed by a political party. Walen's bill failed on the Senate floor Monday on a 41-6 vote.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
36 minutes ago
- The Hill
Johnson brushes off Musk campaign spending threats: ‘It doesn't concern me'
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) in an interview Friday brushed off Elon Musk's campaign spending threats in light of the tech billionaire's public fallout with President Trump, suggesting he isn't worried. The spat between Trump and Musk began with the latter's criticism of the president's legislative agenda making its way through Congress. Johnson said he built a closer relationship with the then-special government employee and that the tech mogul has been led astray regarding the 'big beautiful' spending package. 'Look, it doesn't concern me. We're going to win either way because we're going to win on our policies we're delivering for hardworking Americans and fulfilling those promises,' Johnson told Fox News's 'Jesse Watters Primetime.' 'But look, I like Elon and respect him. I mean, we became friends in all this process,' he continued. 'I've been texting with him even this week … in trying to make sure that he has accurate information about the bill. I think he has been misled about it.' Musk, who contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to assist in Trump's win in the 2024 presidential election, was the biggest donor during the White House race. Amid his recent spat with Trump, which broke out in public as the two traded insults and threats, Musk argued that without his political expenditures, Trump would have lost to former Vice President Harris, Republicans would lose the majority in the House and the GOP would have failed to flip the majority in the Senate. Trump then threatened to have all federal contracts associated with the billionaire's companies to be cut off. As the fight between the two intensified, the tech executive floated the idea of forming a third party and accused the president of being named in the late Jeffrey Epstein's files. Trump has denied close ties to the disgraced financier. Musk's opposition to the GOP megabill — which he called a 'disgusting abomination' — is largely tied to deficit spending. The billionaire argued the legislation would balloon the national debt and fails to slash enough spending. The package faces an uphill battle in the Senate. While Musk, who recently left his position as the top adviser to Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), seemed open to repairing ties on Friday, the president appeared to be OK with moving on. Johnson in the interview Friday defended the spending bill and commended Trump for his handling of the squabble. 'We're going to make good on this… I like the president's attitude. You know, he is moving on. He has to,' he told the host. 'He's laser-focused on delivering for the people. And House and Senate Republicans are as well. So, we've got our hand at the wheel.' 'We're going to get this done just like we told the people,' the Speaker continued. 'And if you are a hardworking American that is struggling to take care of your family, you are going to love this legislation.' The Louisiana Republican added, 'I'm telling you, all boats are going to rise and everybody's going to be in a much better mood before we go into that midterm election in 2026.'
San Francisco Chronicle
40 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump's big bill also seeks to undo the big bills of Biden and Obama
WASHINGTON (AP) — Chiseling away at President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act. Rolling back the green energy tax breaks from President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act. At its core, the Republican 'big, beautiful bill' is more than just an extension of tax breaks approved during President Donald Trump's first term at the White House. The package is an attempt by Republicans to undo, little by little, the signature domestic achievements of the past two Democratic presidents. 'We're going to do what we said we were going to do,' Speaker Mike Johnson said after House passage last month. While the aim of the sprawling 1,000-page plus bill is to preserve an estimated $4.5 trillion in tax cuts that would otherwise expire at year's end if Congress fails to act — and add some new ones, including no taxes on tips — the spending cuts pointed at the Democratic-led programs are causing the most political turmoil. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said this week that 10.9 million fewer people would have health insurance under the GOP bill, including 1.4 million immigrants in the U.S. without legal status who are in state-funded programs. At the same time, lawmakers are being hounded by businesses in states across the nation who rely on the green energy tax breaks for their projects. As the package moves from the House to the Senate, the simmering unrest over curbing the Obama and Biden policies shows just how politically difficult it can be to slash government programs once they become part of civic life. "When he asked me, what do you think the prospects are for passage in the Senate? I said, good — if we don't cut Medicaid," said Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., recounting his conversation last week with Trump. 'And he said, I'm 100% supportive of that.' Health care worries Not a single Republican in Congress voted for the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, in 2010, or Biden's inflation act in 2022. Both were approved using the same budget reconciliation process now being employed by Republicans to steamroll Trump's bill past the opposition. Even still, sizable coalitions of GOP lawmakers are forming to protect aspects of both of those programs as they ripple into the lives of millions of Americans. Hawley, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and others are wary of changes to Medicaid and other provisions in the bill that would result in fewer people being able to access health care programs. At the same time, crossover groupings of House and Senate Republicans have launched an aggressive campaign to preserve, at least for some time, the green energy tax breaks that business interests in their states are relying on to develop solar, wind and other types of energy production. Murkowski said one area she's "worried about' is the House bill's provision that any project not under construction within 60 days of the bill becoming law may no longer be eligible for those credits. 'These are some of the things we're working on,' she said. The concerns are running in sometimes opposite directions and complicating the work of GOP leaders who have almost no votes to spare in the House and Senate as they try to hoist the package over Democratic opposition and onto the president's desk by the Fourth of July. While some Republicans are working to preserve the programs from cuts, the budget hawks want steeper reductions to stem the nation's debt load. The CBO said the package would add $2.4 trillion to deficits over the decade. After a robust private meeting with Trump at the White House this week, Republican senators said they were working to keep the bill on track as they amend it for their own priorities. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said the president 'made the pitch and the argument for why we need to get the bill done." The disconnect is reminiscent of Trump's first term, when Republicans promised to repeal and replace Obamacare, only to see their effort collapse in dramatic fashion when the late Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, voted thumbs down for the bill on the House floor. Battle over Medicaid In the 15 years since Obamacare became law, access to health care has grown substantially. Some 80 million people are now enrolled in Medicaid, and the Kaiser Family Foundation reports 41 states have opted to expand their coverage. The Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid to all adults with incomes up to about $21,500 for an individual, or almost $29,000 for a two-person household. While Republicans no longer campaign on ending Obamacare, advocates warn that the changes proposed in the big bill will trim back at access to health care. The bill proposes new 80 hours of monthly work or community service requirements for able-bodied Medicaid recipients, age 18 to 64, with some exceptions. It also imposes twice-a-year eligibility verification checks and other changes. Republicans argue that they want to right-size Medicaid to root out waste, fraud and abuse and ensure it's there for those who need it most, often citing women and children. 'Medicaid was built to be a temporary safety net for people who genuinely need it — young, pregnant women, single mothers, the disabled, the elderly,' Johnson told The Associated Press. 'But when when they expanded under Obamacare, it not only thwarted the purpose of the program, it started draining resources.' Initially, the House bill proposed starting the work requirements in January 2029, as Trump's term in the White House would be coming to a close. But conservatives from the House Freedom Caucus negotiated for a quicker start date, in December 2026, to start the spending reductions sooner. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer has said the changes are an Obamacare rollback by another name. 'It decimates our health care system, decimates our clean energy system,' Schumer of New York said in an interview with the AP. The green energy tax breaks involve not only those used by buyers of electric vehicles, like Elon Musk's Tesla line, but also the production and investment tax credits for developers of renewables and other energy sources. The House bill had initially proposed a phaseout of those credits over the next several years. But again the conservative Freedom Caucus engineered the faster wind-down — within 60 days of the bill's passage. 'Not a single Republican voted for the Green New Scam subsidies,' wrote Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, on social media. 'Not a single Republican should vote to keep them.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Breaking down 20 years of election data that shows how the two parties have evolved in the Trump era
President Donald Trump's second election win was different from his first in one big, important way: He won the popular vote, just the second time in the last two decades that Republicans had done so. And in the time between those two victories, from 2004 to 2024, there have been dramatic shifts in the nation's politics along geographic, racial, educational and economic lines. Trump is operating in a very different Republican Party than George W. Bush was 20 years earlier. A look at where the vote has shifted most in that time tells an eye-catching story. Over the last 20 years, the counties where Republicans have improved their presidential vote share by the largest margins are predominately centered in Appalachia and the surrounding areas. The 100 counties that saw the largest shifts include: 11 of West Virginia's 55 counties, 27 of Tennessee's 95 counties, 18 of Arkansas' 75 counties and 17 of Kentucky's 120 counties. These counties, on the whole, are much more heavily white than average, according to census data, with white residents making up at least 90% of the total population in about two-thirds of these counties. All but 12 of those counties are at least 75% white. The unemployment rate across these counties is about twice the national average. Residents are more likely to be reliant on food stamps and less likely to have moved in the last year. Residents of these counties, on average, also are significantly less likely to have a bachelor's degree or higher. While the national average in the American Community Survey's most recent five-year estimate is that 35% of Americans have a bachelor's degree or higher, the average in these counties is just 14%. In short, the shifts show how Trump has brought more white working-class voters into the GOP, causing spectacular changes in some localities. Elliott County, Kentucky, with about 7,300 people, shifted the most over this time period. While Democrat John Kerry carried the county over Bush 70%-29%, the county shifted significantly to the right by Democrat Barack Obama's 2012 re-election, when Obama narrowly outran Republican Mitt Romney 49%-47%. The county continued to shift with Trump on the ballot, ultimately with Trump winning a higher vote share in 2024 (80%) than Kerry did in 2004. It's a similar story in many of these other counties — particularly those in states like West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee, where rural voters that once voted Democratic have been leaving the party, especially at the presidential level. A different look — at the counties with the largest pro-Republican shifts between Trump's three elections, from 2016 to 2024 — shows some major differences in the types of places that have moved to the right specifically within the Trump era. On average, the 100 counties that shifted most toward Republicans in the Trump era are significantly more Hispanic than the national average. These counties are also wealthier and more educated compared to the counties that moved most from 2004 to 2024, although they are still below the national average. While the biggest Republican-shifting counties from 2004 to 2024 are largely concentrated around Appalachia, the counties that shifted the most to the right in the Trump era are more spread out and predominantly in the South and West. Twenty-nine Texas counties show up in the list of 100 counties that saw the greatest gain in GOP presidential vote margin between 2016 and 2024, and 12 of those are among the 20 that saw the biggest shifts. All of these Texas counties are majority-Hispanic, and some are more than 90% Hispanic, emblematic of Trump's dramatic improvement among Hispanic voters in 2024 as well as his success in heavily Hispanic areas along the border in 2020. Another heavily Hispanic county, Miami-Dade County, saw the 15th-largest shift in margin toward Republicans between 2016 and 2024 out of more than 3,000 counties nationwide. Other major population centers in New York City — including the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens — are in the top 100 too. And the 14 counties in Utah are typical of another trend: Many Republicans initially skeptical of Trump in 2016 (including Mormons, who make up a significant part of the electorate in Utah) largely fell in line eight years later. Democrats have seen their own shifts — the flip side of those GOP gains in a country that has remained tightly divided even as the two party coalitions have shifted significantly from 20 years ago. While the counties that saw the largest GOP gains over the last two decades were predominantly rural and small, the counties where Democrats improved the most are much larger, primarily in suburban and urban areas. The 100 counties where the GOP presidential vote margin grew most over the last two decades cast just 782,000 votes in 2024. The 100 counties that saw the most improvement in the Democratic presidential vote margin cast almost 20 million votes all together in 2024. Those Democratic-trending counties include key constituencies that have become more important to the party's coalition in recent years. On average, they are more heavily Black, more wealthy, more educated and more urban, an unsurprising mix of voters mobilized in the Obama era and those who have fled the Republican Party in the Trump era. They're also broadly more likely to have more newer residents — according to census data, those Democratic-trending counties have higher-than-average shares of residents who have recently moved to the county. Many of those major trends intersect in exurban and suburban Georgia, particularly in the Atlanta metro area. Seven Georgia counties are among the top eight that saw the most movement toward Democrats the two decades since 2004: Rockdale, Henry, Douglas, Gwinnett, Newton, Cobb and Fayette counties. All but Newton are in metro Atlanta, all are at least one-quarter Black, and most have higher incomes and education rates than the national average. Extremely wealthy and highly educated areas in northern Virginia, as well as counties like Teton County, Wyoming — home to the ritzy Jackson Hole ski resorts as well as major national parks — and Los Alamos County, New Mexico — home to the Department of Energy laboratory that helped develop the atomic bomb — are also among the counties that swung most toward Democrats over this period. Los Alamos County is particularly symbolic: It has the highest share of Ph.D.s among residents of any county in the country. Two more notable counties included in this list are Sarpy and Douglas counties in Nebraska, which make up the vast majority of the state's 2nd Congressional District — the 'blue dot' that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris carried in the last two presidential elections, securing one electoral vote even as Trump carried the state. The counties that shifted most toward Democrats between 2016 and 2024, the Trump era, are significantly whiter and slightly older than those that moved most over the last two decades. Twenty are in Colorado and nine are in Utah, but there are a handful of important counties in the Midwest too. The two counties that saw the biggest Democratic shifts in the last eight years are both in Utah: Utah and Davis counties, around Provo and Salt Lake City, respectively. There's an important caveat here: In 2016, independent candidate Evan McMullin won 21% of the vote, deflating both parties' vote shares. Looking at more competitive states, almost one-third of Colorado's counties were among the 100 with the largest Democratic shifts in the Trump era, as were 11 in Georgia. Grand Traverse County, Michigan, and Ozaukee County, Wisconsin, have also seen more recent shifts, emblematic of how some educated, suburban Republican strongholds have been moving toward Democrats with Trump on the ballot. But those gains have been more moderate, an increase of 7 percentage points in the Democratic margin between 2016 and 2024 in Ozaukee, and 8 percentage points in Grand Traverse. This article was originally published on
