Welcome to the Thursday, May 8, Brew.
By: Briana Ryan
Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:
- North Dakota could become the 17th state with an initiative process to establish a single-subject rule
- Montana Legislature passes legislative oversight bill
- On the Ballot gives you the rundown on cryptocurrency
North Dakota could become the 17th state with an initiative process to establish a single-subject rule
On June 9, 2026, North Dakota voters will decide on a constitutional amendment that would establish a single-subject requirement for constitutional amendments. Single-subject rules require ballot measures to focus on one topic.
The proposal follows a 2024 constitutional amendment that would have established a single-subject rule for all citizen initiatives, among other changes. Voters defeated that measure 56% to 44%.
Under the proposed 2026 constitutional amendment, the single-subject rule would apply to both initiated and legislatively referred constitutional amendments. The North Dakota Secretary of State would determine whether an initiative covers more than one subject. If so, the Secretary of State would not approve the initiative for signature gathering.
Twenty-six states have at least one type of statewide citizen-initiated measure. Of those 26 states, 16 have single-subject rules. Ten states with initiative processes, including North Dakota, do not have a single-subject rule. North Dakota allows citizens to initiate statutes and constitutional amendments. The single-subject requirement would not apply to initiative petitions amending state law.
The last time voters approved a ballot measure regarding a single subject rule for initiatives was in 2022, when Arizona voters approved Proposition 129, 55% to 45%.
Every state except Delaware requires voters to approve constitutional amendments on the statewide ballot. Of the 49 states that vote on legislatively referred constitutional amendments, 32 had provisions requiring constitutional amendments to embrace one subject or otherwise be voted on separately. North Dakota is one of 17 states that did not have such a requirement for amendments referred to the ballot by the state legislature.
On Feb. 24, the North Dakota Senate voted 46-1 to put the constitutional amendment on the ballot. The North Dakota House of Representatives amended the resolution to change the election date from the November 2026 general election to the June 2026 primary election. The Senate rejected the House’s amendment and appointed a conference committee. On April 21, the Senate passed the conference committee report, which included the election date change, by a voice vote. On April 24, the House passed the conference committee report 57-36.
State Rep. Steve Vetter (R), who supports the constitutional amendment, said, “It is important for people to know what they’re voting on. … Having multiple subjects in one amendment can be misleading and confusing for voters.” According to the North Dakota Monitor‘s Mary Steurer, “Critics have raised concerns that the amendment would give the officials a disproportionate amount of power to approve or deny changes to the constitution.”
From 1996 through 2024, the North Dakota Legislature put 40 amendments on the ballot. Voters approved 26 (65%) and rejected 14 (35%). During the same period, 19 citizen-initiated amendments appeared on the ballot. Voters approved 11 (58%) and rejected eight (42%).
Click here for more information on the 2026 constitutional amendment that would establish a single-subject rule for constitutional amendments in North Dakota. You can also check out more details about single-subject rules in other states here.
Montana Legislature passes legislative oversight bill
The Montana Legislature voted with bipartisan majorities to pass House Bill 592, which would modify the rulemaking process for state administrative agencies. The bill requires agencies to consult with legislative sponsors when making rules to implement the provisions of a law. The bill also requires small business impact statements for rulemaking and adds public hearing and commentary requirements, among other provisions. HB 592 is one of more than 300 bills about legislative control and oversight of agencies in our Administrative State Legislation Tracker. The administrative state refers to executive branch agencies at both the state and federal levels that unelected officials staff. These agencies have the authority to create, interpret, and enforce regulations.
The Montana Senate passed the bill 47-2 on April 17, and the Montana House of Representatives passed it 99-0. The bill now sits with Gov. Greg Gianforte (R) for signature. Montana has a Republican trifecta, where Republicans control the governorship and both legislative chambers.
Rep. Courtenay Sprunger (R), who sponsored the bill, cited the federal bill known as the REINS Act for inspiring the legislation. REINS-style state laws are state laws that increase legislative oversight of administrative agency rulemaking by requiring legislative approval or review of proposed agency regulations with certain financial or economic impacts before the regulations become effective. Four REINS-style state laws have been enacted this year in Kentucky, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.
Nine state legislatures acted in April on 33 bills with provisions related to legislative control and oversight of agency actions. So far this year, we’ve identified 304 bills related to legislative control and oversight. Legislative control is one of five pillars we use to understand and explain policies related to the administrative state. It focuses on the balance of power between administrative agencies and the legislative branch.
Additionally, in April, we identified significant legislative action in 23 states on 111 bills related to the administrative state. Fifty-five bills were enacted or adopted, 49 passed both chambers, and seven were vetoed. So far this year, we have identified 1,534 bills related to the administrative state.
Here are some other examples of notable bills related to the administrative state that were enacted in April:
- Kansas SB77 decreases agency authority by requiring agencies to notify the public, the Attorney General, and the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules and Regulations before revoking an administrative rule or regulation.
- Arkansas SB290 decreases agency authority by prohibiting state agencies from instituting moratoriums on issuing permits in watersheds and other bodies of water. The bill requires state agencies to gain the approval of the Legislative Council (or Joint Budget Committee if the General Assembly is in session) to do so.
- Vermont H0080 increases agency authority by expanding the Office of the Health Care Advocate’s responsibilities and strengthening its role in creating health care regulations.
- Arizona HB2603 increases agency authority by expanding the circumstances under which the Game and Fish Commission can suspend or revoke a person’s fishing or hunting license.
To keep up-to-date on legislation related to the administrative state, visit our Administrative State Legislation Tracker. You can also sign up for Check & Balances, our monthly email newsletter featuring highlights from our administrative state coverage.
On the Ballot gives you the rundown on cryptocurrency
In this episode of On the Ballot, our weekly podcast that connects people to politics, we’re examining the world of cryptocurrency. Our host, Frank Festa, will give you the rundown on cryptocurrency with the help of our guest Chris Giancarlo, former chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and co-founder of the Digital Dollar Project.
Cryptocurrency has become a major force in financial markets and public policy, with Bitcoin and other digital assets seeing a surge in value over the last several months.
According to Giancarlo, “[Cryptocurrency] is really a new architecture of finance in the same way that the Internet changed everything we know about how we share and gather information. [Cryptocurrency] is going to change everything we know about how we gather and share things of value.”
But many Americans are still asking the same questions: What is cryptocurrency really for? And what does it mean for the future of money? In this episode, we’ll tackle those questions and more.
To listen to this episode and more, click here. Also, don’t forget to subscribe to On the Ballot on YouTube or your preferred podcast app.