North Dakota — Measure 5 (1996)

Overview

North Dakota voters considered Measure 5 (1996), proposing a system of voter instruction directing Members of Congress to support a constitutional amendment establishing congressional term limits.

The measure included provisions authorizing informational ballot statements identifying candidates who declined to support the voter instruction.

The proposal formed part of the ballot-instruction phase of congressional term-limits reform that followed U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995).

The measure was defeated.

Measure Identification

• Measure name: Measure 5

• Year: 1996

• Adoption method: Citizen initiative

• Election date: November 5, 1996

• Result: Defeated

Ballot Language

Measure 5 proposed instructing North Dakota’s Members of Congress to support a constitutional amendment establishing congressional term limits.

The proposed amendment specified limits of:

• three terms for Members of the House of Representatives

• two terms for Members of the Senate

Institutional Architecture

Voter Instruction Mechanism

The initiative proposed a voter instruction directing North Dakota’s congressional delegation to support a constitutional amendment establishing congressional term limits.

The instruction would have expressed the position of North Dakota voters regarding the proposed amendment.

Ballot Information Architecture

Measure 5 authorized informational statements to appear on election ballots identifying candidates who did not support the voter instruction concerning congressional term limits.

These statements were intended to communicate candidate positions regarding the proposed amendment.

Candidate Declaration / Pledge Mechanism

Candidates could declare whether they supported the proposed constitutional amendment establishing congressional term limits.

Candidates declining to support the instruction could be identified through informational ballot statements.

Election Administration

Ballot Implementation

Because the measure was defeated, no ballot informational statement system was implemented.

Administrative History

No administrative system was established following the defeat of Measure 5.

Litigation History

No significant litigation arose from the initiative.

Relationship to Cook v. Gralike (2001)

North Dakota’s Measure 5 proposed informational ballot statements similar to those later addressed by the Supreme Court in Cook v. Gralike.

Because the initiative was defeated, the informational statement system was never implemented and did not produce litigation.

Institutional Design Observations

North Dakota’s proposal illustrates the instruction plus ballot informational statement architecture used in several ballot instruction initiatives proposed in 1996.

The initiative combined voter instruction to Members of Congress with informational ballot statements identifying candidates who declined to support the proposed amendment.

Sources

• North Dakota Secretary of State — Measure 5 (1996) ballot materials and election records
  https://www.sos.nd.gov/elections-voting

• North Dakota Secretary of State — 1996 General Election Results
  https://results.sos.nd.gov/

• Ballotpedia — North Dakota Congressional Term Limits Instruction Initiative (Measure 5, 1996)
  https://ballotpedia.org/North_Dakota_Congressional_Term_Limits_Instruction_Initiative,_Measure_5_(1996)