Latest news with #NorthDakotaConstitution
Yahoo
10-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Resolution raising constitutional ballot measure threshold to 60% passes North Dakota Senate
Voters cast ballots at the Hillside Aquatic Complex in Bismarck on Election Day, Nov. 5, 2024. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor) A bill raising the public vote threshold to 60% to approve constitutional ballot measures in North Dakota passed the Senate Wednesday on a 33-13 vote. House Resolution 3003, sponsored by Rep. Robin Weisz, R-Hurdsfield, would require a 60% threshold to pass both constitutional ballot petitions initiated by the people and constitutional resolutions from the Legislature. 'It's quite likely that we all agree that it should be possible to change our state's foundational document, however it should be more difficult than it currently is,' said Sen. Jeff Barta, R-Grand Forks, who voted in favor of the resolution. Barta said the North Dakota Constitution has been amended 167 times compared to the U.S. Constitution, which has been amended 27 times with stricter rules that include approval from three-quarters of all 50 states. Sen. Dick Dever, R-Bismarck, voted in favor of the bill and said North Dakota voters will still have the final say on the new potential threshold at the ballot box. He added he believes there is a segment of the population that has an agenda to sow division against lawmakers in state government to further an agenda of dissatisfaction. 'I think we should preserve the republic rather than attacking it,' Dever said. Sen. Jeff Magrum, R- Hazelton, voted against the resolution and warned lawmakers that not only would it become harder to pass constitutional measures in the future, but it would be harder to change parts of the constitution already in place. Term limits changes revived for possible statewide vote in North Dakota 'We passed a resolution that is intending to change the constitution on term limits, so when you raise the threshold, you are making it harder to change things that were passed that you think weren't good,' Magrum said. Sen. Sean Cleary, R-Bismarck, voted against the bill and told lawmakers the current ballot petition process serves as an important check on the Legislature. 'Every time the state Legislature has proposed limiting the powers reserved to the people, the voters have wisely rejected that,' Cleary said. Twenty-three pieces of testimony were submitted on the resolution with all but three opposed to raising the threshold. The League of Women Voters of North Dakota was among the opponents, pointing out the defeat last November of Measure 2, which contained several proposed changes to the constitutional ballot measure process. 'For over 100 years, North Dakotans have used direct democracy to shape state policy,' Barbara Headrick, League of Women Voters of North Dakota president, said in a statement Wednesday. 'With the passage of House Concurrent Resolution 3003, the North Dakota Legislature is attempting again to weaken the power of the people to amend our state constitution. … They need to stop trying to limit the voice of the people in the governance of our state.' The resolution passed the House in January on a 65-28 vote. If approved by the Secretary of State's Office, the resolution will be put to the voters during the 2026 general election. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
18-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Lawmakers approve ballot measure putting single subject rule to statewide vote
Staff count packets of signed petitions in the Secretary of State's Office on Feb. 9, 2024, in Bismarck. (Mary Steurer/North Dakota Monitor) The House of Representatives on Tuesday approved a proposed constitutional amendment that, if approved by voters, would require all future amendments to the state constitution to only have one subject. The North Dakota Constitution holds that 'no bill may embrace more than one subject, which must be expressed in its title,' but proponents of Senate Resolution 4007 say this should be amended to include changes to the constitution. This includes those proposed by the Legislature and through voter-initiated petitions. More 2025 legislative session coverage 'It is important for people to know what they're voting on,' Rep. Steve Vetter, R-Grand Forks, said while speaking in support of the resolution. 'Having multiple subjects in one amendment can be misleading and confusing for voters.' Under the resolution, the Secretary of State's Office would have to certify that each proposed amendment complies with this rule. The Secretary of State's Office could only approve petitions to gather signatures for proposed amendments if the amendments do not contain more than one subject. Vetter said Secretary of State Michael Howe testified previously that he would consult with the Attorney General's Office on these decisions. Sponsors of the resolution include Senate Majority Leader David Hogue and House Majority Leader Mike Lefor. Rep. Austen Schauer, chair of the House Government and Veteran Affairs Committee, said his committee forwarded the bill to the floor because they trust the judgement of the secretary of state and attorney general. 'They are the subject matter experts for North Dakota when it comes to election language and election integrity,' he said. Critics have raised concerns that the amendment would give the officials a disproportionate amount of power to approve or deny changes to the constitution. It could also lead to more legislative and litigation-related costs to the state, opponents said. Voters in 2024 rejected Measure 2, which sought to limit future constitutional ballot measures to a single subject, along with other provisions including raising the voter threshold to 60% and requiring a measure to be passed with two votes. The North Dakota Supreme Court found that the Office of Management and Budget's 2023-2025 budget violated the North Dakota Constitution's single subject rule and vacated the law. The budget was challenged in court by the North Dakota Public Employees Retirement System board. The state held a special session in late 2023 to pass a new budget. The resolution previously passed the Senate. In order for the amendment to be adopted, it would need to be approved by voters on the 2026 general election ballot. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
13-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
North Dakota Legislature close to asking US Supreme Court to undo landmark same-sex marriage ruling
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — North Dakota lawmakers are on the verge of making their state the first to tell the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn its decade-old ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Similar efforts — which would not have any direct sway with the nation's top courts — have been introduced in a handful of states this year. North Dakota's resolution passed the Republican-led House in February but still requires Senate approval, which is not assured. 'The original Supreme Court ruling in 2015 went totally against the Tenth Amendment, went totally against the North Dakota Constitution and North Dakota Century Code (state laws),' sponsor Republican Rep. Bill Tveit said. 'Why did I introduce it? Every one of us in this building took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the state.' See for yourself — The Yodel is the go-to source for daily news, entertainment and feel-good stories. By signing up, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy. When the Legislature considers such resolutions, attorney and North Dakota National Guard member Laura Balliet said she wonders why she stays in her home state. The measure makes her feel unwanted, unwelcome and judged because of who she is, she said. She married her wife in 2020. 'I don't know what this resolution does other than to tell people like myself, my friends and my family that we're not welcome here, and I'm angry about that because I want to be welcome here. This is my home,' Balliet told the Senate panel that heard the measure on Wednesday — one in a stream of opponents who testified against it. A push across states Massachusetts-based MassResistance, which describes itself as an 'international pro-family group' but has been labeled "anti-LGBTQ hate group' by the LGBTQ+ advocacy organization GLAAD, is pushing the resolution across the country. Massachusetts became the first state to recognize same-sex marriage, in 2004. Over the next 11 years, most states began to recognize it through laws, ballot measures or court decisions before the Supreme Court made it legal nationwide. Outside of Idaho and North Dakota, the measures have not progressed far, according to an analysis of legislation collected by the bill-tracking service Plural. By contrast, there have been additional protections for same-sex marriage over the years, including a federal law in 2022. Since 2020, California, Colorado, Hawaii and Nevada have repealed old constitutional amendments that defined marriage as being allowed only between a man and a woman, and Virginia lawmakers advanced a similar measure this year. It could be on the ballot there in 2026. Differing views The North Dakota measure states that the Legislature 'rejects' the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision and urges the U.S. Supreme Court 'to overturn the decision and leave unaddressed the natural definition of marriage as a union between one man, a biological male, and one woman, a biological female.' In the court's 2022 ruling that overturned the constitutional right to an abortion, Justice Clarence Thomas said the court should reconsider its precedents in the marriage decision and other past cases. Soon after the measure passed the North Dakota House last month, several Republican state reps who voted for it stated they meant to vote no or regretted voting yes. Republican Rep. Matt Ruby said he wished he had voted against the measure, saying his yes vote was for a different intent he realized wasn't going to happen. The vote sent a bad message 'that your marriage isn't valid and you're not welcome,' Ruby said. He said he supports the right for same-sex couples to be married. Republican Rep. Dwight Kiefert said he voted for the resolution because of his Christian faith and that the institution of marriage was established in the Bible in the Garden of Eden between Adam and Eve. 'Slap in the face' The measure is a slap in the face to North Dakotans who are happily married and invested in their state, said Democratic Sen. Ryan Braunberger, who is gay and sits on the Senate panel that heard the resolution. The measure sends a dangerous message as North Dakota wants to grow its population and expand economically, he said. 'We want to make sure that we bring everybody in the best of the crop, and that runs the gamut of all sorts of different races, ethnicities, sexual orientations through that,' Braunberger said. The measure is a declaration, if passed, that lawmakers would want to define marriage through what is arguably a religious lens, which dangerously gets close to infringing upon the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, said Cody Schuler, advocacy manager for the American Civil Liberties Union's North Dakota chapter. 'Marriage defined as 'one man, one woman' is a particular religious view. It is not held by all religions, all societies or by nonreligious people, and so therefore it is dangerous to be making that kind of statement because it puts legislators on record as to how they might vote on law, on a binding law versus this nonbinding resolution,' Schuler said. ___ Associated Press writer Geoff Mulvihill contributed from Cherry Hill, New Jersey.
Associated Press
12-03-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
North Dakota Legislature close to asking US Supreme Court to undo landmark same-sex marriage ruling
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — North Dakota lawmakers are on the verge of making their state the first to tell the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn its decade-old ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Similar efforts — which would not have any direct sway with the nation's top courts — have been introduced in a handful of states this year. North Dakota's resolution passed the Republican-led House in February but still requires Senate approval, which is not assured. 'The original Supreme Court ruling in 2015 went totally against the Tenth Amendment, went totally against the North Dakota Constitution and North Dakota Century Code (state laws),' sponsor Republican Rep. Bill Tveit said. 'Why did I introduce it? Every one of us in this building took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the state.' When the Legislature considers such resolutions, attorney and North Dakota National Guard member Laura Balliet said she wonders why she stays in her home state. The measure makes her feel unwanted, unwelcome and judged because of who she is, she said. She married her wife in 2020. 'I don't know what this resolution does other than to tell people like myself, my friends and my family that we're not welcome here, and I'm angry about that because I want to be welcome here. This is my home,' Balliet told the Senate panel that heard the measure on Wednesday — one in a stream of opponents who testified against it. A push across states Massachusetts-based MassResistance, which describes itself as an 'international pro-family group' but has been labeled 'anti-LGBTQ hate group' by the LGBTQ+ advocacy organization GLAAD, is pushing the resolution across the country. Massachusetts became the first state to recognize same-sex marriage, in 2004. Over the next 11 years, most states began to recognize it through laws, ballot measures or court decisions before the Supreme Court made it legal nationwide. Outside of Idaho and North Dakota, the measures have not progressed far, according to an analysis of legislation collected by the bill-tracking service Plural. By contrast, there have been additional protections for same-sex marriage over the years, including a federal law in 2022. Since 2020, California, Colorado, Hawaii and Nevada have repealed old constitutional amendments that defined marriage as being allowed only between a man and a woman, and Virginia lawmakers advanced a similar measure this year. It could be on the ballot there in 2026. Differing views The North Dakota measure states that the Legislature 'rejects' the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision and urges the U.S. Supreme Court 'to overturn the decision and leave unaddressed the natural definition of marriage as a union between one man, a biological male, and one woman, a biological female.' In the court's 2022 ruling that overturned the constitutional right to an abortion, Justice Clarence Thomas said the court should reconsider its precedents in the marriage decision and other past cases. Soon after the measure passed the North Dakota House last month, several Republican state reps who voted for it stated they meant to vote no or regretted voting yes. Republican Rep. Matt Ruby said he wished he had voted against the measure, saying his yes vote was for a different intent he realized wasn't going to happen. The vote sent a bad message 'that your marriage isn't valid and you're not welcome,' Ruby said. He said he supports the right for same-sex couples to be married. Republican Rep. Dwight Kiefert said he voted for the resolution because of his Christian faith and that the institution of marriage was established in the Bible in the Garden of Eden between Adam and Eve. 'Slap in the face' The measure is a slap in the face to North Dakotans who are happily married and invested in their state, said Democratic Sen. Ryan Braunberger, who is gay and sits on the Senate panel that heard the resolution. The measure sends a dangerous message as North Dakota wants to grow its population and expand economically, he said. 'We want to make sure that we bring everybody in the best of the crop, and that runs the gamut of all sorts of different races, ethnicities, sexual orientations through that,' Braunberger said. The measure is a declaration, if passed, that lawmakers would want to define marriage through what is arguably a religious lens, which dangerously gets close to infringing upon the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, said Cody Schuler, advocacy manager for the American Civil Liberties Union's North Dakota chapter. 'Marriage defined as 'one man, one woman' is a particular religious view. It is not held by all religions, all societies or by nonreligious people, and so therefore it is dangerous to be making that kind of statement because it puts legislators on record as to how they might vote on law, on a binding law versus this nonbinding resolution,' Schuler said. ___
Yahoo
06-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
North Dakota Supreme Court denies petition to move Greenpeace trial to different court
Exterior of the Morton County Courthouse in Mandan on Feb. 27, 2025. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor) The North Dakota Supreme Court on Wednesday denied a petition by Greenpeace to move its legal battle with Energy Transfer out of Morton County. Attorneys for Greenpeace argued that the jury in the lawsuit, which concerns the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, will not be able to deliver a fair verdict since many Morton County residents were directly impacted by the demonstrations. It cited survey data as well as statements made by prospective jurors during the jury selection process. The environmental group also raised concerns that jurors may have been targeted with pro-fossil fuel content, including political mailers and advertisements, leading up to the trial. More Dakota Access Pipeline coverage Greenpeace suggested moving the case to Cass County. Energy Transfer has said that its own survey data indicates that Morton County residents would not be biased jurors in the case, and that moving the lawsuit to a different court would be cumbersome. The Supreme Court did not explain its reasoning in denying Greenpeace's petition. On Wednesday, the North Dakota Supreme Court also denied a request by a group of news outlets, which included the North Dakota Monitor, for expanded access to the trial. The high court did not provide a reason for that denial, either. The group had asked the Supreme Court to review Southwest Judicial District Judge James Gion's decision not to allow any photography, video or livestreaming of the trial. While media and other members of the public may attend the trial, they aren't allowed to use phones or other electronic devices in the courtroom. In an order denying requests for expanded access, Gion said he was worried about keeping witnesses sequestered as well as the possibility for the harassment of witnesses, jurors, attorneys and court staff. Media attorney Jack McDonald in the petition asked the court to order Gion to reverse his decision given the significant public interest in the trial. In the petition, McDonald cited the North Dakota Constitution, which holds that all courts shall be open, as well as the First and Fourteenth amendments of the U.S. Constitution. McDonald also argued that Gion didn't sufficiently explain the reasons behind his decision. North Dakota district judges commonly allow up to two photographers and up to two video cameras in the courtroom during proceedings. Some expanded media orders also allow journalists to bring audio recorders and cellphones. Some North Dakota judges have allowed media to view hearings remotely through Zoom, though not consistently. A private livestream is being provided to some attorneys for Greenpeace and Energy Transfer. Other media organizations that joined the petition were Forum Communications, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, KFYR-TV, KXMB-TV, The Bismarck Tribune, DRILLED, The Intercept, the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, News/Media Alliance, Society of Environmental Journalists and the Minnesota Newspaper Association. Media petition North Dakota Supreme Court for expanded access to Greenpeace trial In the lawsuit, Energy Transfer seeks roughly $300 million from Greenpeace for damages it claims the environmental organization caused in relation to the Dakota Access Pipeline protests. Energy Transfer alleges Greenpeace aided and abetted criminal behavior by protesters, and spread a misinformation campaign about the pipeline project in order to delay its construction and tarnish the company's relationships with banks. Greenpeace denies all the claims, and says Energy Transfer is unfairly targeting it in an attempt to harm the environmental group and intimidate other activist organizations. The high court last week also denied a petition for expanded livestream access submitted by a group of attorneys monitoring the case. The Supreme Court did not explain its reasoning behind that decision. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
