More testimony was heard yesterday about term limit reforms in North Dakota, an issue voters around the state might have to decide again.

In 2022, North Dakota voters approved imposing term limits for state lawmakers and the governor. Legislators can no longer serve more than eight years in the House and Senate.

But a handful of bills this session call for another ballot question, to raise state lawmakers' term limit to 12 years.

Sen. Justin Gerhardt, R-Mandan, sponsor of one bill, said the new framework threatens the value of experience at the State Capitol.

"Our citizen-led Legislature meets for only 80 days every two years," Gerhardt pointed out. "By the time a new legislator gets a handle on the budget process, legislative rules and the needs of their district, they're already on their way out the door."

He added his bill also addresses the issue of lawmakers who are appointed to fill a seat. Opponents said the moves undermine the will of the voters.

A separate bill proposing a new statewide vote on the prospective changes will be heard this morning. If one of the measures advances to the ballot, it likely would come up in the 2026 general election.

Those who want term limits said they foster fresh voices in policymaking.

Kevin Herrmann, a resident of Beulah, is one of the many people to testify against the new reform efforts.

"This resolution is a way for legislators to get back their legislative power over the citizens of North Dakota," Herrmann contended.

Another thorny element to this debate is, the 2022 ballot question included language prohibiting state lawmakers from trying to force the issue down the road. One of the bills in question repeals the language in trying to get the question back on the ballot. Backers of the proposals acknowledge they are likely to draw court challenges over constitutional arguments.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email

Despite voter approval in November, Missouri lawmakers are moving to undo part of Proposition A, specifically, the clause requiring employers to provide paid sick leave.

The Missouri House passed the repeal legislation last month by a 96-51 vote. The provision was approved by nearly 60% of voters, who also supported raising the state's minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2026.

Prop A proponents said repealing any part of the measure so soon after its approval undermines the will of the voters.

John Davis, partner at the bipartisan polling firm Red America, Blue America Research, said its latest survey showed 75% of respondents oppose efforts to repeal the legislation.

"Legislators who are thinking about what voters had approved just this past November should be concerned that there's such a strong response in opposition to that particular type of proposal," Davis noted.

Supporters of the repeal contended the sick-leave mandate is too rigid and burdensome, warning it could lead to reduced hiring or even business closures. The bill is now in the Senate, which has two weeks to act before the mandate takes effect May 1.

Business groups have filed lawsuits claiming Proposition A violates Missouri's single-subject rule by linking minimum wage hikes with paid sick leave. Supporters of the repeal also argued the Legislature can amend the law without a public vote since it changed state law, not the constitution.

Davis highlighted the importance of public opinion surveys.

"Some of the decisions made at statehouses are of extraordinary consequence," Davis pointed out. "What we have tried to do is just establish sort of baselines, to take a look over time how folks are feeling about a variety of topics, because state laws really do impact people very, very directly."

If the Missouri Senate approves the bill, it will move to Gov. Mike Kehoe's desk, where he can sign it into law, veto it, or allow it to become law without his signature.


get more stories like this via email

Final action is expected soon on a plan that would prevent North Dakota cities and counties from using alternative voting methods for local elections.

Both chambers of the Legislature have approved a bill that focuses on two options - ranked-choice voting and approval voting.

In recent election cycles, Fargo has used approval voting when local candidates appear on the ballot. It became the first U.S. city to do so, after residents showed support for the idea.

Bismarck resident Andrew Alexis Varvel testified against banning these options.

"The rest of the state does not need to follow everything that Fargo does," said Varvel, "but we do need to have a certain amount of respect for what people at the local level decide."

Other bill opponents also said they don't want the state micromanaging local elections.

The Fargo-endorsed option, approval voting, allows voters to choose more than one candidate. Backers say it reduces polarization by prompting candidates to appeal to more people.

But some lawmakers believe these approaches are ineffective, and want the whole state to use the same voting method.

Gov. Kelly Armstrong hasn't indicated whether he'll sign the bill when it reaches his desk.

North Dakota Secretary of State Michael Howe supports the proposed ban on alternative voting methods.

In his testimony, he noted that Fargo's use of approval voting hasn't created any issues, but he said he worries other cities will follow suit.

"Multiple election methods implemented across the state," said Howe, "would have an impact on the administration of a statewide election."

But a Fargo City Commissioner argues that across North Dakota, there are already many variations - including at-large candidates.

A similar proposed ban was vetoed by former Gov. Doug Burgum two years ago.




get more stories like this via email

A number of lawsuits have been filed in opposition to President Donald Trump's executive order which could reshape how U.S. elections are run and the League of Women Voters of Arizona is one of the groups fighting back.

Pinny Sheoran, president of the group, said democracy is not just on the line, it is actively being broken. Trump's executive order would usher in new requirements, such as having voters provide in-person documentary proof of citizenship and identity. Sheoran called the president's action unconstitutional and illegal.

"Even the states serving as a buttress against the breaking of democracy is greatly under threat, in Arizona, specifically," Sheoran stated.

The White House has defended the president's executive order and called the measures "common sense," and all objections "insane." But Sheoran contends the executive order will suppress voters and enact "unnecessary hoops," making it harder for Arizonans to make their voices heard.

Sheoran argued the directive from the White House will disproportionately affect Arizonans across the board, including people of color, those in rural communities, those with disabilities and women.

She pointed out more than 1.5 million women in the state have changed their last name after marriage, which means many will not have a birth certificate matching their legal identity. Nationwide, the issue grows exponentially.

"For those 61-plus million women, we are talking about many of them, (a) not having a passport; (b) having to now prove why their ID has got a different name than the ID that they registered in," Sheoran outlined.

Sheoran stressed the importance of highlighting the narrative of how the "disastrous" order will affect everyday Arizonans.

"What makes sense to the general public, to the women who don't watch Fox News or MSNBC, is, 'Oh, I can't vote with my voter ID?' 'What, I've been voting, I am 70 years old, I've been voting for almost 50 years, and now you're telling me I can't vote?'" Sheoran underscored. "Think about those conversations."