North Dakota Measure 1, Ethics Commission, Foreign Political Contribution Ban, and Conflicts of Interest Initiative (2018)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
North Dakota Measure 1
Flag of North Dakota.png
Election date
November 6, 2018
Topic
Elections and campaigns
Status
Approveda Approved
Type
Constitutional amendment		Origin
Citizens

North Dakota Measure 1, the Ethics Commission, Foreign Political Contribution Ban, and Conflicts of Interest Initiative, was on the ballot in North Dakota as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018. It was approved.

A yes vote supported the ballot initiative to establish an ethics commission, ban foreign political contributions, and enact provisions related to lobbying and conflicts of interest.
A no vote opposed the ballot initiative to establish an ethics commission, ban foreign political contributions, and enact provisions related to lobbying and conflicts of interest.

Election results

North Dakota Measure 1

Result Votes Percentage

Approved Yes

169,676 53.63%
No 146,709 46.37%
Results are officially certified.
Source


Aftermath

House Bill 1521

On May 1, 2019, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum (R) signed into law House Bill 1521. House Bill 1521 was introduced by Rep. Chet Pollert (R-29) and Sen. Rich Wardner (R-37). The measure was designed to implement provisions of Measure 1. Ellen Chaffee, vice president of Measure 1 support campaign North Dakotans for Public Integrity, opposed HB 1521. Chaffee said that under HB 1521, the proposed fine for using campaign money for personal purposes is too low at $100 that it would not act as much of a deterrent.[1] Jim Shaw, writing for The Jamestown Sun on May 25, 2019, wrote that "all the lawmakers had to do last session was implement the measure. Sorry to say they gutted it. The Legislature was unethical."[2] More information and the full text of HB 1521 is available here.

Senate Bill 2148

Senate Bill 2148, introduced by Sen. Tim Mathern (D-11), was signed into law by North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum (R) on April 30, 2019. The bill provides for a legislative management study regarding Measure 1 and its implementation. According to SB 2148, the study would be required to include "a review of existing laws and laws enacted to implement article XIV and consideration of whether the civil and criminal sanctions for violations of the constitutional provisions and the statutes are appropriate; whether legislative action regarding article XIV is necessary or desirable; and an effective means to educate public officials, lobbyists, and the public on the requirements of Article XIV and other laws regarding government ethics." The legislative management would be required to report its findings and recommendations to the 67th legislative assembly during the 2021-2022 legislative session.[3] More information on SB 2148 can be found here.

Overview

Measure design

Measure 1 amended the constitution to enact the following provisions:[4][5][6]

  • establish a five-member ethics commission with members selected through agreement by the governor, the leader of the majority party in the state Senate, and the leader of the minority party in the state Senate;
  • ban political contributions from foreign government entities, foreign individuals, and foreign corporations;
  • create restrictions on lobbyists;
  • create provisions designed to prevent conflicts of interest for government officials; and
  • require campaign finance information to be publicly accessible.

Who was behind the campaigns surrounding Measure 1?

One committee was registered in support of the measure: North Dakotans for Public Integrity Inc. The committee reported contributions totaling $1.02 million and expenditures totaling $843,884.75 (including $165,734.47 in in-kind services). The top three donors in support of the initiative provided 63.85 percent of the total contributions to the support campaign: Represent.Us ($268,030); Voters Right to Know (270,628); and End Citizens United Non-Federal ($114,467).[7]

North Dakotans for Sound Government was registered to oppose Measure 1. The committee had raised $457,225 and had spent $452,268. The largest donors were Greater North Dakota Chamber ($100,000); Americans for Prosperity ($90,000); and North Dakota Petroleum Council ($60,000).[7]

Measure design

Click on the arrows (▼) below for details about the provisions of Measure 1.

Campaign finance disclosures: Provisions regarding campaign finance disclosures

Section 1 of the measure was designed to direct the state legislature to enact laws requiring the disclosure of funds for any statewide election, an election for the state legislature, ballot issue, or other money spent to influence state government. The disclosures need to be electronically accessible and easily comprehensible to the public. The disclosure requirements apply only to funds greater than $200.

Lobbying and conflicts of interest: Provisions regarding lobbying and conflicts of interest

Section 2 of the measure created the following restrictions on lobbyists:

  • A ban on lobbyists offering, giving, or facilitating a gift to a public official;
  • A ban on public officials accepting a gift from a lobbyist;
  • A prohibition against elected officials becoming lobbyist while holding office, or for two years after holding office
  • A ban on lobbyists knowingly delivering, physically or electronically, a campaign contribution from another individual or entity; and
  • A ban on statewide candidates, candidates for the legislature, or public officials knowingly using a campaign contribution for personal use.

Directors, officers, commissioners, heads, or other agency executives need to avoid the appearance of bias and disqualify themselves in any quasi-judicial proceeding when there is an appearance of bias under Measure 1. To allow for the adoption of such legislation or rules, this provision was designed to take effect three years after the effective date of the measure if approved.

Foreign political contributions: Bans foreign political contributions

Under the measure, the following are prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in connection with any statewide election, election for the legislative assembly, or statewide ballot-issue election:

  • Governments of foreign countries;
  • Foreign nationals that have not been legally admitted for permanent residence in the United States; and
  • Corporations that have their principal place of business in a foreign country.

Ethics commission: Provisions regarding the North Dakota Ethics Commission

Section 3 of the measure created the North Dakota Ethics Commission. The ethics commission will adopt rules related to corruption, ethics, lobbying, and transparency. The commission was designed to maintain a confidential whistleblower hotline where anyone could submit relevant information. The legislature is required to provide funds for the commission to operate and carry on its duties under Measure 1.

The commission was designed to consist of five members, appointed for four-year terms by mutual agreement of the governor, Senate majority leader, and Senate minority leader. No commission member can be a political party official, candidate for office, officeholder, or lobbyist.


Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Measure 1 was as follows:[8]

“

This initiated measure would add a new article to the North Dakota Constitution establishing a North Dakota ethics commission. The commission, using funds provided by the legislature, would be responsible for adopting rules related to corruption, elections, and lobbying and for reporting and investigating alleged violations of those rules and related state laws. The measure would provide for prohibitions for lobbyists related to gift giving and delivery of campaign contributions and prohibitions for public officials against lobbying, use of campaign contributions, and conflicts of interest in certain proceedings. The measure would direct the legislative assembly to enact laws that require electronically accessible public disclosure of the source of funds spent (in any medium and in an amount greater than two hundred dollars) to influence statewide and legislative elections and statewide ballot measures or to lobby or otherwise influence state government action. In a conflict between this article and any other provision in the North Dakota Constitution, the provisions of this article would control.easures or to lobby or otherwise influence state government action.[9]

”

Constitutional changes

See also: North Dakota Constitution

The measure added a new article to Article XIV of the North Dakota Constitution. The following underlined text was added:[4] Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the below text to see the full text.

Section 1. Transparency.

1. The people of North Dakota need information to choose candidates for office, vote on ballot measures, and ensure that their representatives are accountable. This transparency must be sufficient to enable the people to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages. The people therefore have the right to know in a timely manner the source, quantity, timing, and nature of resources used to influence any statewide election, election for the legislative assembly, statewide ballot-issue election, and state government action. This right is essential to the rights of free speech, assembly, and petition guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and shall be construed broadly.

2. The legislative assembly shall implement and enforce this section by enacting, no more than three years after the effective date of this article, laws that require prompt, electronically accessible, plainly comprehensible, public disclosure of the ultimate and true source of funds spent in any medium, in an amount greater than two hundred dollars, adjusted for inflation, to influence any statewide election, election for the legislative assembly, statewide ballot-issue election, or to lobby or otherwise influence state government action. The legislative assembly shall have an ongoing duty to revise these laws as necessary to promote the purposes of this section in light of changes in technology and political practices. The legislative assembly shall vest by law one or more entities with authority to implement, interpret, and enforce this section and legislation enacted thereunder. If the laws or rules enacted or an implementation, interpretation, or enforcement action taken under this section fail to fully vindicate the rights provided in this section, a resident taxpayer may bring suit in the courts of this state to enforce such rights.

Section 2. Lobbyists and Conflicts of Interest.

1. A lobbyist may not knowingly give, offer, solicit, initiate, or facilitate a gift to a public official. A public official may not knowingly accept a gift from a lobbyist. These prohibitions do not apply if the lobbyist is an immediate family member of the public official. "Gift," as used in this subsection, means any item, service, or thing of value not given in exchange for fair market consideration, including gifts of travel or recreation. However, “gift” does not mean any purely informational material, campaign contribution, or, in order to advance opportunities for North Dakota residents to meet with public officials in educational and social settings inside the state, any item, service, or thing of value given under conditions that do not raise ethical concerns, as determined by rules adopted by the ethics commission. Such rules must be adopted within two years after the effective date of this article. So as to allow for the adoption of these rules, these prohibitions shall take effect two years after the effective date of this article. Appropriate civil and criminal sanctions for violations of this subsection shall be set by the legislative assembly.

2. An elected public official may not be a lobbyist while holding office or for two years after holding office. Appropriate civil and criminal sanctions for violations of this subsection shall be set by the legislative assembly.

3. A lobbyist may not knowingly deliver a campaign contribution made by another individual or entity. “Deliver,” as used in this subsection, means to transport, transfer, or otherwise transmit, either physically or electronically. This prohibition does not apply to a person who delivers a campaign contribution to the person’s own campaign, or to the campaign of the person’s immediate family member. This prohibition shall not be interpreted to prohibit any person from making a campaign contribution or from encouraging others to make a campaign contribution or to otherwise support or oppose a candidate. Appropriate civil and criminal sanctions for violations of this subsection shall be set by the legislative assembly.

4. A statewide candidate, candidate for the legislative assembly, or public official may not knowingly use a campaign contribution for personal use or enrichment. Appropriate civil and criminal sanctions for violations of this subsection shall be set by the legislative assembly.

5. Directors, officers, commissioners, heads, or other executives of agencies shall avoid the appearance of bias, and shall disqualify themselves in any quasi-judicial proceeding in which monetary or in-kind support related to that person’s election to any office, or a financial interest not shared by the general public as defined by the ethics commission, creates an appearance of bias to a reasonable person. The legislative assembly and the ethics commission shall enforce this provision by appropriate legislation and rules, respectively. So as to allow for the adoption of such legislation or rules, this subsection shall take effect three years after the effective date of this article.

6. Governments of foreign countries, foreign nationals not lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States, and corporations organized under the laws of or having their principal place of business in a foreign country, are prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in connection with any statewide election, election for the legislative assembly, or statewide ballot-issue election.

Section 3. North Dakota Ethics Commission.

1. In order to strengthen the confidence of the people of North Dakota in their government, and to support open, ethical, and accountable government, the North Dakota Ethics Commission is hereby established.

2. The ethics commission may adopt ethics rules related to transparency, corruption, elections, and lobbying to which any lobbyist, public official, or candidate for public office shall be subject, and may investigate alleged violations of such rules, this article, and related state laws. The ethics commission shall maintain a confidential whistleblower hotline through which any person acting in good faith may submit relevant information. The legislative assembly shall provide adequate funds for the proper carrying out of the functions and duties of the commission.

3. The ethics commission shall consist of five members, appointed for four-year terms by consensus agreement of the governor, the majority leader of the senate, and the minority leader of the senate. No member of the ethics commission may hold other public office or be a lobbyist, candidate for public office, or political party official.

Section 4. General Provisions.

1. This article is self-executing and all of its provisions are mandatory. Laws may be enacted to facilitate, safeguard, or expand, but not to hamper, restrict, or impair, this article. This article shall take effect sixty days after approval.

2. For the purposes of this article, “public office” or “public official” means any elected or appointed office or official of the state’s executive or legislative branch, including members of the ethics commission, or members of the governor’s cabinet, or employees of the legislative branch, and “agency” means each board, bureau, commission, department, or other administrative unit of the executive branch of state government, including one or more officers, employees, or other persons directly or indirectly purporting to act on behalf or under authority of the agency.

3. If any provision of this article is held to be invalid, either on its face or as applied to any person, entity, or circumstance, the remaining provisions, and the application thereof to any person, entity, or circumstance other than those to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby. In any case of a conflict between any provision of this article and any other provision contained in this constitution, the provisions of this article shall control.[9]

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018
Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The North Dakota Secretary of State wrote the ballot language for this measure.


The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 19, and the FRE is 13. The word count for the ballot title is 173, and the estimated reading time is 46 seconds.

In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here.

Support

North Dakotans for Public Integrity led the campaign in support of Measure 1.[10]

Supporters

Arguments

  • North Dakotans for Public Integrity was co-chaired by Ellen Chaffee—a 2012 Democratic candidate for Lieutenant Governor of North Dakota—and Dina Butcher—who was appointed by former Governor John Hoeven (R) to serve as the North Dakota Human Rights Division Director. Chaffee said, “We’ve worked with North Dakotans from across the political spectrum on this amendment to hold public officials accountable and reduce corruption in government. The political system is broken, so this amendment is needed to ensure that government and politicians put the people of North Dakota first.”[13]
  • North Dakotans for Public Integrity featured the following arguments on its website:[14]
“
  • We have a fundamental right to know who is spending money to influence our elections. This measure brings transparency to all major political spending so North Dakotans know who is funding campaigns. We must protect the integrity of our elections from the corrupting influence of secret money
  • This measure is about making government in North Dakota work for you and your family, not just the well-connected and powerful.
  • North Dakota has no impartial source of information, expertise, advice, or investigation on ethical behavior in state government. All but seven states have an ethics commission. It's just common sense to hold politicians accountable and increase transparency.[9]
 ”
  • Former North Dakota Lieutenant Governor Lloyd Omdahl (D) wrote, "There is no doubt that a definition of 'conflict of interest' in the Legislature should be clearly defined so legislators know the parameters. Needless to say, lobbyists are getting more adept at concealing their methods of influence. The ethics commission is an important addition to the electoral picture. It will receive and hear out whistleblowers. There is little doubt that if corruption is occurring, the people in the agencies will be the first to know. Having a location for reporting abuses will go a long way in protecting the integrity of the workforce. ...matters regulating legislative ethics must be outside the control of the Legislature. That means we need a constitutional amendment designed for the people and not the officeholders."[15]

Opposition

North Dakotans for Sound Government led the campaign in opposition to Measure 1.[16]

Opponents

Arguments

  • North Dakotans for Sound Government chairman Geoff Simon, said, "You're talking about religious organizations, you're talking about charities - even individuals. I mean, the example I use is someone who jumps in the farm truck to drive to Bismarck to speak on a bill, maybe about something to do with controlling Palmer amaranth or who knows whatever agriculture issue they're concerned about - but they spend $100 on gas, they stay in a hotel, they eat in a restaurant. Lo and behold, they spend over $200 trying to influence public policy. And that's just the legislative process - this goes beyond the legislature, it's any border commission, any regulatory agency. If you engage in that process, as a private citizen, you could be compelled to report your true source of funds."[16]
  • Heather Smith of the North Dakota ACLU said, "As citizens, we have an obligation to become informed about public issues, to express our own opinions and interests. Measure 1 has the potential to limit this. Our First Amendment rights are too important to let this constitutional mandate pass."[17]
  • President and CEO of the Greater North Dakota Chamber of Commerce, Arik Spencer, said, "Our specific concern with Measure 1 is related to section 1.2 of this constitutional amendment, which requires a disclosure of the ultimate and true source of any funds spent over $200, spent in any medium, to influence an election, ballot measure, or an action of state government."[16]
  • Rob Port wrote the following about Measure 1:[16]
“

[The] proposed amendment isn't "anti-corruption" so much as anti-free speech... It contains no exception to this reporting requirement for individuals spending their own money to express their personal point of view on a given campaign or piece of public policy. A private citizen who buys an ad in their local newspaper to criticize the mayor or the city council or the Legislature would also be subject to regulation if the ad buy is over $200. There's not even an exemption for the media. Talk radio hosts like me, newspaper columnists like me, bloggers like me, would probably be subject to the regulations implemented by this measure because we spend our days influencing politics and policy with analysis, opinion and original reporting.[9]

”

Media editorials

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials in support of Measure 1. If you are aware of one, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Opposition

  • Inforum said: "We're troubled by the creation of an appointed commission whose mission, fortified by its enshrinement in the constitution, is not well defined — so vague, in fact, that budget officials were unable to estimate its fiscal impact. Measure 1's vague wording leaves open the possibility that state officials could require citizens to disclose any expenditures of more than $200, conceivably having to report gas, meals and lodging for a trip to Bismarck to testify before a legislative committee, according to an analysis by the American Civil Liberties Union. Although well intentioned, it's a fatally flawed proposal. We'd like to see greater transparency of money in politics, but this isn't the answer. Vote no on Measure 1."[18]

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for North Dakota ballot measures
Total campaign contributions:
Support: $1,022,941.66
Opposition: $457,225.00

One committee was registered in support of the measure: North Dakotans for Public Integrity Inc. The committee reported contributions totaling $1.02 million and expenditures totaling $843,884.75 (including $165,734.47 in in-kind services). The top three donors in support of the initiative provided 63.85 percent of the total contributions to the support campaign: Represent.Us ($268,030); Voters Right to Know (270,628); and End Citizens United Non-Federal ($114,467).[7]

North Dakotans for Sound Government was registered to oppose Measure 1. The committee had raised $457,225 and had spent $452,268. The largest donors were Greater North Dakota Chamber ($100,000); Americans for Prosperity ($90,000); and North Dakota Petroleum Council ($60,000).[7]

Note: North Dakota ballot measure committees are not required to report details on contributions or expenditures of $100 or less, so information about who gave the donation, to whom the expenditures were made, or whether those contributions were in-kind or cash is unknown for contributions or expenditures of $100 or less and is only available for contributions or expenditures exceeding $100. Campaign finance reports in North Dakota do not distinguish between cash and in-kind contributions, so Ballotpedia is tracking all contributions as cash.

Support

Committees in support of Measure 1
Supporting committeesCash contributionsIn-kind servicesCash expenditures
North Dakotans for Public Integrity Inc$857,207.19[19]$165,734.47$678,150.28
Total$857,207.19$165,734.47$678,150.28
Totals in support
Total raised:$1,022,941.66
Total spent:$843,884.75

Top donors

Following are donors that provided $15,000 or more to the support campaign:

Donor Amount
Represent.Us $$268,030.00
Voters Right to Know $270,627.74
End Citizens United Non-Federal $114,466.53

Opposition

Committees in opposition to Measure 1
Opposing committeesCash contributionsIn-kind servicesCash expenditures
North Dakotans for Sound Government$457,225.00[20]$0.00$452,268.26
Total$457,225.00$0.00$452,268.26
Totals in opposition
Total raised:$457,225.00
Total spent:$452,268.26

Top donors

Following are donors that provided $70,000 or more to the support campaign:

Donor Amount
Greater North Dakota Chamber $100,000.00
Americans for Prosperity $90,000.00
North Dakota Petroleum Council $60,000.00
Great River Energy $40,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Polls

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls and 2018 ballot measure polls

Below are poll results for the measure:

North Dakota Measure 1
Poll Support OpposeUndecidedMargin of errorSample size
KFYR, KVLY, and Strategic Research Associates poll
10/12/18 - 10/19/18		 42%34%24%+/-3.8650
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.


Background

As of 2018, 39 states have an independent ethics commission with authority over the state legislature. Seven states had an ethics commission without authority over the state legislature. Six states had no independent commission; with four of these relying on legislative ethics committees. Wyoming did not have an ethics commission or an ethics committee within the legislature. North Dakota had an interim Legislative Ethics Committee which was a part of the Legislative Procedure and Arrangements Committee.[21]

Past attempts to establish ethics commission

There have been at least two past attempts by the North Dakota Legislature to establish a state ethics commission: House Bill 1442 and House Concurrent Resolution 3060.

House Bill 1442 was introduced on January 21, 2013, and failed during the second reading of the bill in a vote of 24 yeas to 70 nays. The bill's primary sponsors were Corey Mock (D-42), Joshua Boschee (D-44), Ed Gruchalla (D-45), Ron Guggisberg (D-11), Nancy Johnson (R-37), Kenton Onstad (D-4), Mac Schneider (D-42), John M. Warner (D-4).[22]

House Concurrent Resolution 3060 was introduced on February 25, 2015, and failed during the second reading of the bill in a vote of 25 yeas to 68 nays. The resolution's primary sponsors were Corey Mock (D-42), Thomas Beadle (R-27), Eliot Glassheim (D-18), Ron Guggisberg (D-11), Kathy Hawken (R-46), Nathan Toman (D-34), Erin Oban (D-35), John M. Warner (D-4).[23]

Election policy on the ballot in 2018


Election Policy Logo.png
Electoral system
Electoral systems by state
Ranked-choice voting (RCV)
Academic studies on RCV
Election dates
Election agencies
Election terms
Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker
Public Policy Logo-one line.png

Voters considered ballot measures addressing election policy in 15 states in 2018.

Redistricting:

See also: Redistricting measures on the ballot
  • Missouri Amendment 1, Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting Initiative (2018) Approveda - The PAC Clean Missouri collected signatures to get the initiated amendment on the ballot. The measure made changes to the state's lobbying laws, campaign finance limits for state legislative candidates, and legislative redistricting process. The position of nonpartisan state demographer was created. Amendment 1 made the demographer responsible for drawing legislative redistricting maps and presenting them to the House and Senate apportionment commissions.

Voting requirements and ballot access:

  • Florida Amendment 4, Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative (2018) Approveda - The committee Floridians for a Fair Democracy collected more than the required 766,200 signatures to get Amendment 4 placed on the ballot. The measure was designed to automatically restore the right to vote for people with prior felony convictions, except those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, upon completion of their sentences, including prison, parole, and probation. It was approved.
  • North Carolina Voter ID Amendment (2018) Approveda - This amendment was referred to the ballot by the state legislature along party lines with Republicans voting in favor of it and Democrats voting against it. It created a constitutional requirement that voters present a photo ID to vote in person. It was approved.

Arkansas Issue 3, a legislative term limits initiative, was certified for the ballot but was blocked by an Arkansas Supreme Court ruling. The measure would have imposed term limits of six years for members of the Arkansas House of Representatives and eight years for members of the Arkansas Senate. The ruling came too late to remove the measure from the ballot, but the supreme court ordered election officials to not count or certify votes for Issue 3.

Campaign finance, political spending, and ethics:

  • Colorado Amendment 75, Campaign Contribution Limits Initiative (2018) Defeatedd - Proponents collected more than the required 136,328 valid signatures and met the state's distribution requirement to qualify this initiative for the ballot. The measure would have established that if any candidate for state office directs (by loan or contribution) more than one million dollars in support of his or her own campaign, then every candidate for the same office in the same primary or general election may accept five times the aggregate amount of campaign contributions normally allowed. It was defeated.


Reports and analyses

Note: The inclusion of a report, white page, or study concerning a ballot measure in this article does not indicate that Ballotpedia agrees with the conclusions of that study or that Ballotpedia necessarily considers the study to have a sound methodology, accurate conclusions, or a neutral basis. To read a full explanation of Ballotpedia's policy on the inclusion of reports and analyses, please click here.

Campaign Legal Center analysis

The Campaign Legal Center (CLC) published an analysis on September 25, 2018, titled "Transparency on the Ballot: North Dakota’s Initiative for the Disclosure of Money in Politics." The CLC is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization which describes its mission as to "protect and strengthen the U.S. democratic process across all levels of government" and "hold candidates and government officials accountable regardless of political affiliation."[24]

The CLC has endorsed Measure 1.[25]

The full brief can be read here.


Institute for Free Speech analysis

The Institute for Free Speech (IFS), formerly known as the Institute for Free Speech, published an analysis authored by Senior Fellow Eric Wang in August 2018 analyzing Measure 1. IFS is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization located in Alexandria, Virginia which describes its mission as to "promote and defend First Amendment rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government through strategic litigation, communication, activism, training, research, and education."

The executive summary of the report states that IFS does not have an official stance on the initiative as a whole and that the report should not be construed as endorsing or opposing the measure.


The full report can be read here.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in North Dakota

The state process

In North Dakota, the number of signatures required to qualify an initiated constitutional amendment for the ballot is equal to 4 percent of the population of the state. North Dakota is unique in using the population to determine signature requirements for initiatives and referendums. Petitioners may circulate a petition for one year following the secretary of state's initial approval. The signatures must be submitted at least 120 days prior to the election.

The requirements to get an initiated constitutional amendment certified for the 2018 ballot:

Once the signatures have been gathered, the secretary of state verifies them using a random sample method. Since North Dakota does not have a voter registration system, the secretary of state may use "questionnaires, postcards, telephone calls, personal interviews, or other accepted information-gathering techniques" to verify the selected signatures.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired Advanced Micro Targeting to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $260,000.00 was spent to collect the 26,904 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $9.66.[26]


Details about this initiative

  • Proponents submitted the initiative to the secretary of state on March 2, 2018.[5]
  • The secretary of state provided the proponents with a list of corrections for the petition text on March 13, 2018.[5]
  • The secretary of state cleared the initiative for circulation and signature gathering on March 20, 2018.[5]
    • This set the date on which the initiative expired to be March 20, 2019.[5]
  • On June 21, 2018, proponents reported submitting over 38,000 signatures to the secretary of state. To qualify for the November 2018 ballot, 26,904 valid signatures were required.[27]
  • On July 23, 2018, the North Dakota Secretary of State announced that the measure had qualified for the ballot.[28]

Related measures

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in North Dakota

Poll times

In North Dakota, voting hours at polling locations vary by county. According to statute, all polls must open between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., and they must close between 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. Hours for specific polling places are available online through the state's Polling Place Search. A voter who is standing in line at the time the polls close will be allowed to vote. North Dakota is divided between Central and Mountain time zones.[29][30]

Registration requirements

Check your voter information here.

North Dakota is the only state that does not require voter registration.[31][32]

“ Although North Dakota was one of the first states to adopt voter registration prior to the turn of the century, it abolished it in 1951. It is also worth noting that North Dakota law still provides cities with the ability to register voters for city elections. North Dakota is a rural state and its communities maintain close ties and networks. North Dakota's system of voting, and lack of voter registration, is rooted in its rural character by providing small precincts. Establishing relatively small precincts is intended to ensure that election boards know the voters who come to the polls to vote on Election Day and can easily detect those who should not be voting in the precinct.[31][9] ”
—North Dakota Secretary of State

Voter ID requirements

North Dakota requires voters to present identification while voting. Identification must include the voter’s name, current North Dakota residential address, and date of birth.[33]

Acceptable forms of voter identification include:

  • Driver’s license
  • Nondriver’s identification card
  • Tribal government-issued identification (including those issued by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for a tribe located in North Dakota, any other tribal agency or entity, or any other document that sets forth the tribal member’s name, date of birth, and current North Dakota residential address)
  • Long-term care identification certificate (provided by North Dakota facility)

If a voter does not have a form of identification that includes his or her current North Dakota residential address or date of birth, the voter can present the following supplemental documents:

  • Current utility bill
  • Current bank statement
  • Check or a document issued by a federal, state, local, or tribal government (including those issued by BIA for a tribe located in North Dakota, any other tribal agency or entity, or any other document that sets forth the tribal member’s name, date of birth, and current North Dakota residential address)
  • Paycheck
  • Student photo ID card from a North Dakota institution containing the student's photograph and legal name. A printed document on school letterhead containing the student’s name, address, and date of birth must also be presented.
  • North Dakota residents living outside of the United States can submit a U.S. Passport or Military ID if they do not have another valid form of identification.

According to the secretary of state's office, "An applicant without an acceptable form of identification may use an attester. The attester must provide his or her name, North Dakota driver’s license, nondriver’s, or tribal identification number, and sign the absentee/mail ballot application form to attest to the applicant’s North Dakota residency and voting eligibility."[33]

Voters who cast absentee ballots or vote by mail must include a valid form of identification with their ballot. A voter who has a disability that prevents them from leaving his or her home and is unable to obtain a valid form of identification "must provide his or her name, North Dakota driver’s license, nondriver’s, or tribal identification number, and sign the absentee/mail ballot application form to attest to the applicant’s North Dakota residency and voting eligibility."[33]

See also

External links

Support

Opposition

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Public News Service, "ND Lawmakers Could Hamstring New Ethics Measure, Supporters Say," accessed February 1, 2019
  2. ↑ The Jamestown Sun, "Shaw: The unethical implementation of the North Dakota ethics measure," accessed May 28, 2019
  3. ↑ North Dakota Legislature, "Senate Bill 2148 full text," accessed May 28, 2019
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 North Dakota Secretary of State, "Initiative petition text," accessed March 21, 2018
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 North Dakota Secretary of State, "Time Line for Constitutional Initiative," accessed March 21, 2018
  6. ↑ North Dakota Secretary of State, "Ballot Petitions Being Circulated," accessed March 21, 2018
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 North Dakota Secretary of State, "Committee Search," accessed November 12, 2018
  8. ↑ North Dakota Secretary of State, "Official ballot language for measures appearing on the election ballot," accessed October 14, 2018
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content
  10. ↑ The Seattle Times, "North Dakota group backs government ethics overhaul measure," January 31, 2018
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 U.S. News, "The Latest: ND Senate Hopefuls Agree on Pot, Voting Ban," October 31, 2018
  12. ↑ North Dakota Secretary of State, "North Dakotans for Public Integrity Inc," accessed March 21, 2018
  13. ↑ The Bismark Tribune, "Proposed ballot measured filed by North Dakotans for Public Integrity," January 31, 2018
  14. ↑ North Dakotans for Public Integrity, "WHY DO WE NEED THE AMENDMENT?" accessed August 21, 2018
  15. ↑ Grand Forks Herald, "Lloyd Omdahl: Measure 1 to fight corruption," accessed October 11, 2018
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 16.7 16.8 16.9 Prairie Republic, "North Dakotans for Sound Government, ACLU oppose Measure 1," accessed September 26, 2018 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "opp" defined multiple times with different content
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 17.3 Inforum, "2 groups oppose ND's anti-corruption Measure 1," accessed September 26, 2018
  18. ↑ Inforum, "Editorial: Vote no on ND Measure 1, 2, 3; yes on Measure 4," accessed October 18, 2018
  19. ↑ Total sums of individual contributions of $100 or less are counted here. North Dakota ballot measure committees are not required to report details on contributions or expenditures of $100 or less, so information on who gave the donation, to whom the funds were expended is unknown for contributions or expenditures of $100 or less and is only available for contributions or expenditures exceeding $100.
  20. ↑ Total sums of individual contributions of $100 or less are counted here. North Dakota ballot measure committees are not required to report details on contributions or expenditures of $100 or less, so information on who gave the donation, to whom the funds were expended, or whether those funds were in-kind or cash is unknown for contributions or expenditures of $100 or less and is only available for contributions or expenditures exceeding $100.
  21. ↑ North Dakota Legislature, "Legislative Procedure and Arrangements Committee, Interim Committee Studies and Assignments," accessed September 4, 2018
  22. ↑ Open States, "HB 1442," accessed Jun 24, 2018
  23. ↑ Open States, "HCR 3030," accessed June 24, 2018
  24. ↑ Campaign Legal Center, "About," accessed October 11, 2018
  25. ↑ Campaign Legal Center, "Transparency on the Ballot: North Dakota's Initiative for the Disclosure of Money in Politics," accessed October 11, 2018
  26. ↑ Ballotpedia staff, email communication with North Dakotans for Public Integrity, October 9, 2018
  27. ↑ Lexington Herald Leader, "Supporters of government ethics measure turn in signatures," accessed June 21, 2018
  28. ↑ West Fargo Pioneer, "Anti-corruption measure headed for North Dakota ballot," accessed July 23, 2018
  29. ↑ North Dakota Secretary of State, "Q: What are voting hours in North Dakota?" accessed April 24, 2023
  30. ↑ Justia, "2022 North Dakota Century Code, Title 16.1 - Elections, Chapter 16.1-01 - General Provisions," accessed April 24, 2023
  31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 North Dakota Secretary of State, “North Dakota….The Only State Without Voter Registration,” accessed April 24, 2023
  32. ↑ North Dakota Secretary of State, “Voter Registration in North Dakota,” accessed February 16, 2024
  33. ↑ 33.0 33.1 33.2 North Dakota Secretary of State, "ID Requirements for Voting," accessed April 24, 2023
v • e
2018 ballot measures
I&R States
 • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington
Non I&R States
Political topics
 • Abortion‎ • Administration of government‎ • Bond issues‎ • Business regulation‎ • Campaign finance‎ • Civil and criminal trials‎ • Civil rights‎ • Civil service‎ • Constitutional conventions‎ • Constitutional language‎ • County and municipal governance‎ • Definition of a corporation‎ • Direct democracy measures‎ • Education‎ • Elections and campaigns‎ • Energy‎ • Environment‎ • Federal constitutional issues‎ • Forests and parks‎ • Gambling‎ • Government accountability‎ • Healthcare‎ • Housing‎ • Hunting and fishing‎ • Labor and unions‎ • Law enforcement‎ • LGBT issues‎ • Marijuana‎ • Natural resources‎ • Pension‎ • Property‎ • Redistricting measures‎ • State and local government budgets, spending and finance‎ • State executive official measures‎ • State judiciary‎ • State legislatures measures‎ • Statehood‎ • Suffrage‎ • Supermajority requirements‎ • Taxes‎ • Term limits‎ • Tobacco‎ • Tort law‎ • Transportation‎ • Veterans‎ • Water‎ • Welfare‎
Other
Flag of North Dakota
v • e
State of North Dakota
Bismarck (capital)
Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=North_Dakota_Measure_1,_Ethics_Commission,_Foreign_Political_Contribution_Ban,_and_Conflicts_of_Interest_Initiative_(2018)&oldid=9240294"