BISMARCK – North Dakota voters would need to muster a 60% majority to pass initiated constitutional measures under a resolution heard by the House Government and Veterans Affairs Committee Thursday.

“People should be able to bring it forward if they want to change the constitution, but I think it should be difficult,” said Rep. Robin Weisz, R-Hurdsfield, sponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 3003.

Constitutional measures currently require a simple majority to pass once placed on the ballot by the Legislature or the initiative process.

“There’s no question that North Dakota, because of our small size and, basically, the limited amount of dollars it takes to influence the vote, we are very susceptible to outside interests to come in and change our constitution, and that’s one of the reasons for the 60 percent,” Weisz said.

“Would we not be better to go after the outside money and get rid of that, rather than go after the threshold?” asked Rep. Christina Wolff, R-Minot. “North Dakota is pretty unique in the aspect that it is so citizen led, and I would hate to lose that.”

“I would argue this is a good idea even if we had a wall around the state and nobody could influence what we’re doing in the constitution,” Weisz responded. “You want a supermajority to say this is a major step. We’re not just changing a law. This is going to be permanent in the constitution.”

North Dakota is one of only 10 states that allows constitutional changes on a simple majority vote by the electorate, Rep. Steve Vetter, R-Grand Forks, said in testifying in support of HCR 3003. Most states that allow constitutional changes through initiatives have provisions that make passage more difficult, he said, citing Florida and Illinois as states that require a 60% majority vote.

Kevin Herrmann, Beulah, said the resolution runs counter to the constitution’s Article 3, related to powers reserved to the people.

“The citizens of North Dakota have always been taught, in voting for any issue, a majority of 50 plus one is part of democracy. But legislators continue to go after Article 3, even though the outcome of two constitutional measures that passed previous legislative sessions were defeated in general elections,” he said.

Voters defeated a measure placed on last November’s ballot by the Legislature that would have increased the number of signatures required to place a constitutional initiated measure on the ballot from 4% to 5% of North Dakota’s population and would have required voters to approve constitutional measures twice – at a primary election and again at the following general election.

In 2020, voters rejected a measure placed on the ballot by the Legislature that would have required initiated constitutional amendments passed by voters to be submitted to the Legislature for approval. If the Legislature rejected them, voters would have needed to pass them again at a second election.

Dustin Gawrylow, managing director of North Dakota Watchdog Network, suggested the Legislature apply the 60% threshold to voter passage of a constitutional change asking voters to raise the threshold to 60%.

“Without that, you’re actually creating a hypocritical approach to protecting the constitution,” he said. “I agree that the out of state money issue is definitely real, but why can’t we get the Legislature to address that?”

“I’m really torn, because I can see the sentiment in raising it,” Rep. Lori VanWinkle, R-Minot, said of the proposed 60% threshold. “We do need to take a different approach to this, and we do need to deal with outside money.”

However, she added, having worked on an initiated constitutional measure, she sees the grassroots are up against astronomical challenges, from tax-funded groups working against them to opposition within the Secretary of State’s Office.