ST. PAUL – Bills introduced last week in both the House and Senate would make it more difficult for lawmakers to put proposed constitutional amendments to a statewide vote.

One proposal would raise the Legislature’s bar for putting amendments on the ballot from a simple majority to a two-thirds vote in both chambers. Twenty-six states already require such a supermajority, which mirrors the requirements for amending the U.S. Constitution.

Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk has advanced an alternative which requires at least a 60 percent vote in both the House and Senate. In addition, his bill specifies that the votes can not occur in the same calendar year and that voters would not get their crack at the amendment until the general election two years after the Legislature acts.

Both measures are aimed at ensuring that proposed amendments have bipartisan support and preventing lawmakers from abusing the process as a tool for one party’s gain.

Amendment battles

Bakk, DFL-Cook, has traveled this road before, and said he was motivated to revisit the issue after voters in November rejected proposed amendments to ban same-sex marriage and to require a government-issued photo ID to vote. Republicans, who controlled the Legislature in 2001-12, put both amendments on the ballot over near-unanimous opposition from legislative Democrats and Governor Mark Dayton, also a Democrat.

“It was costly, inefficient and ugly,” said Bakk, who said millions of dollars were spent by advocacy groups to oppose or support the amendments and the battles over the two amendments created hard feelings.

Bakk also argues that the current process is being exploited as a way to get around the checks and balances built into the legislative process and doesn’t serve the public well.

Although some GOP legislators have expressed support for tougher requirements, others argue the current system is adequate.

State Sen. Mary Kiffmeyer, R-Big Lake, who was the chief House sponsor of the photo ID amendment and was elected to the Senate in November, argues that raising the threshold would take power out of the hands of voters.

“That would make the Legislature the gatekeeper,” she said. “It definitely shuts out the voice of the people.”

Senate Minority Leader David Hahn, R-Eden Prairie, contends that the law shouldn’t be changed because amendments are already difficult to pass. Just over 50 percent of the amendments introduced in the state’s history have been approved.

But Bakk challenges that assertion. “Of the last 19 amendments put on the ballot before 2010, 18 passed,” he said. “ Amendments are relatively easy to pass if they have an advocacy group to promote them and voters only hear one side of the argument.”

Bakk said he’s wary of amending the state’s Constitution because it hamstrings legislatures. “Priorities change over time but we lose flexibility if something is put into the Constitution,” he said.

Amendment needed?

Although Bakk’s proposal calls for a statutory solution, he acknowledged that might prove to be problematic.

A future Legislature that wants to place an amendment on the next general election’s ballot by simple majority could either repeal Bakk’s statute, provided a governor was willing to sign the bill, or simply disregard it and invite a lawsuit.

The Legislature would likely be in a good position to prevail in such a suit, since Article IX of the state Constitution states that “a majority of the members elected to each house of the Legislature may propose amendments to the constitution.”

Although Bakk said he proposed the statute because Minnesotans are weary of constitutional amendment battles, he may have no choice but to put it before the voters as a proposed amendment.