In a move that has sparked debate and concern among voting rights advocates, several states are considering measures to make it harder for voters to pass constitutional amendments. This trend, according to Kelly Hall from the Fairness Project, is a direct challenge to the very concept of direct democracy. The argument from Republican lawmakers pushing for these changes is that a simple majority threshold makes amending their state constitution too easy and frequent. However, this perspective is met with skepticism from those who argue that it undermines the core principles of democracy. Quentin Savwoir, from the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, warns that raising vote thresholds is the 'antithesis of democracy.'
The states in question include North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah, where voters will consider measures to raise the threshold for approval of a constitutional amendment from a majority to 60% of the vote. In Utah, the change would only apply to tax-related proposals. California will also vote on a measure to raise the approval requirement for certain local tax issues. These efforts to raise vote thresholds are not without precedent. Florida, for instance, already requires 60% approval for amendments, a threshold that has kept various measures from passing, including an effort in 2024 to enshrine the right to an abortion in the state constitution.
The argument from state lawmakers pushing for these higher thresholds is that constitutional changes have gotten out of control and that the constitution is being 'cluttered up' with items that 'trivialize' it. They argue that many issues that have been added to the constitution would have been better suited as statutory-initiated measures, which allow citizen-led groups to change state law. However, critics argue that this is a distrust of voters and an attempt to exert control over the democratic process. Zebadiah Johnson, from the Voter Defense Association of South Dakota, points out that since 2002, the vast majority of proposed amendments have failed, and that South Dakotans do not take these proposed amendments lightly.
The implications of these measures are far-reaching. They could stifle direct democracy and give minority views outsized power. Hall warns that when we lose the ability to make change at the state level and when we lose a tool like direct democracy that allows voters to have a check on power, we lose it for good. This is a critical moment in the ongoing debate over voting rights and the role of direct democracy in American politics.
