North Dakota Decides Single Subjects Rule
September 30, 2026
By Ethan Thomas
As the midterms quickly approach, not only will voters nationwide determine the balance of power in Congress, but voters in several states will also decide critical policy issues at the ballot box. From restoration of voting rights in Virginia to new thresholds for passing constitutional amendments in the Dakotas, November will likely bring a host of new changes to election laws across the country. But while voters will have to wait until November to make their voices heard on those issues, back in June, voters in North Dakota approved a ballot measure that will shape every ballot initiative going forward.
Single-Subject Rules
The measure, approved by nearly two-thirds of voters, was for a single-subject rule to be added to the North Dakota Constitution. This rule will prohibit any constitutional amendment proposed by citizens or the legislature from addressing more than one subject. Additionally, the measure will give the North Dakota Secretary of State the power to determine whether a proposed measure complies with this rule.
North Dakota now joins the majority of states that allow ballot initiatives to adopt single-subject rules for ballot initiatives. Of the 24 states that allow ballot initiatives, 18 (now 19 with North Dakota) prohibit ballot measures from addressing multiple topics. But why do this?
Proponents of single-subject rules point to reductions in voter confusion. Making measures narrow allows voters to understand what they are voting for. And as Virginia’s redistricting referendum showed, language matters. Voters in Virginia complained that the question on redistricting was leading and confused voters as to what they were voting for. Thus, keeping measures focused on a single subject reduces the possibility of confusion.
Opponents of single-subject rules argue they make it harder to pass citizen-initiated measures and that determining if a measure has only one subject is highly subjective. Furthermore, it takes the ability to propose changes to a constitution out of the hands of citizens. Constitutions are by nature complex and address a wide range of subjects, thus limiting amendments to a single subject vastly limits the ability to make important changes.
Deciding the Subjective Questions
Arguably the most significant impact of this change in North Dakota will be the new power wielded by the Secretary of State. Holding the power to decide whether a measure is single-subject, and thus whether it can even make the ballot, is significant. And putting aside personal bias, even applying a consistent standard as to what is single subject is tricky.
In 2024, the Nevada Supreme Court in Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom v. Washington overturned a lower court decision that prevented the Nevada Secretary of State from placing an abortion measure on the ballot. The lower court held the measure, which sought to establish a constitutional right to reproductive freedom, was not single subject given that it covered two subjects: abortion and abortion care. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed deciding that all the parts of the measure were “functionally related and germane to each other” and thus held that the measure met the single-subject rule.
But in 2016, the Oklahoma Supreme Court in Burns v. Cline, using an analogous standard that provisions of legislation must be “germane, relative, and cognate” to constitute a single subject, struck down a law that sought to regulate children’s ability to get abortions, statutory rape protocols, inspection of abortion facilities, and criminal penalties for violating abortion statutes. The court held that each of those provisions were unrelated. While Burns addressed legislation (since many states have an analogous single-subject rule for legislation in state legislatures), the underlying principles are the same, yet courts applying a similar standard to similar facts come out differently. Thus, for voters in North Dakota seeking to get ballot measures certified going forward, even if similar standards are adopted, there remains plentiful ambiguity as to how those standards might be applied.
Furthermore, addressing the bias issue, while the current Secretary of State, Michael Howe, told the legislature he will rely on the North Dakota Attorney General’s Office to make determinations on whether measures are limited to a single subject, this potentially creates more problems than it solves. Say, for example, citizens in North Dakota propose a ballot measure decriminalizing marijuana and reclassifying sentences for other drug crimes. Would the Attorney General’s Office have a vested interest in the outcome of that measure? Almost certainly. And could they stop the measure by deciding the measure addresses two subjects and thus violates the rule? Absolutely. Thus, personal bias and politics could undeniably influence whether a ballot measure gets certified.
Going Forward
Given that the measure passed in June, how North Dakota and its officers will implement this new requirement remains to be seen. But as the latest state to adopt the single-subject rule, perhaps North Dakota will pave a new path for how to determine what single subject means.