North Dakota Marsy's Law Crime Victim Rights, Initiated Constitutional Measure 3 (2016)

North Dakota Measure 3
Election date November 8, 2016
Topic Law enforcement
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens

2016 measures
June 14
Referred Measure 1 d
November 8
Constitutional Measure 1 a
Constitutional Measure 2 a
Initiated Constitutional Measure 3 a
Initiated Statutory Measure 4 a
Initiated Statutory Measure 5 a
Polls
Voter guides
Campaign finance
Signature costs

The North Dakota Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Initiative, also known as Initiated Constitutional Measure 3, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in North Dakota as an initiated constitutional amendment. It was approved.

A "yes" vote was a vote in favor of incorporating existing state statutes related to crime victims' rights into the state constitution.

A "no" vote was a vote against adding a crime victims' rights section to the state constitution, and maintaining existing crime victims' rights laws in state statutes.

The organization Marsy's Law, which backed Initiated Constitutional Measure 3, also supported efforts to pass similar measures in Montana and South Dakota in 2016.

Election results

Measure 3
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		207,248	62.03%
No		126,884	37.97%

Election results from North Dakota Secretary of State

Overview

North Dakota's previous laws regarding fair treatment standards for victims and witnesses were passed in 1987 by the legislature at the request of the governor and attorney general. While those laws provided similar protections as Measure 3, as state statutes they were not protected by the constitution. The passage of Measure 3 made any future changes to victim rights laws more difficult to enact, as any proposed changes would require another ballot measure. If the measure had not passed, victim rights laws could have been more easily changed in the future through legislative action.

Initiative design

Initiated Constitutional Measure 3 added the rights of crime victims to the state constitution, to include the following:

• require that they be given the option to be present at all criminal proceedings, including plea, sentencing and release
• ensure they are given restitution before the government
• require they be promptly notified if the accused is released or escapes
• prohibit unreasonable delays during the offender's trial
• allow victims to refuse a deposition or interview request from the defendant's representation

Background

Marsy's Law

See also: Marsy's Law crime victim rights

Marsy's Law is a type of crime victims' rights legislation. Henry Nicholas, the co-founder of Broadcom Corp., started campaigning for Marsy's Law to increase the rights and privileges of victims in state constitutions. Marsy's Law is named after Nicholas' sister, Marsy Nicholas, who was murdered in 1983.

Henry Nicholas was the sponsor of the first Marsy's Law, which was on the ballot in California as Proposition 9 in 2008. He formed the national organization, Marsy's Law for All, in 2009.

Ballotpedia identified $113.2 million in total contributions to the support campaigns for the 14 Marsy's Law ballot measures. Henry Nicholas and the organization Marsy's Law for All provided 91 percent—about 103.2 million—of the total contributions.

The following map shows the status of Marsy's Law ballot measures across the states:

California Proposition 9

Californians voted on Proposition 9 in 2008, which was the first ballot measure known as Marsy's Law. Proposition 9 required that victims and their families be notified during all aspects of the justice process, including bail, sentencing, and parole; and that authorities take a victim's safety into concern when assigning bail or conducting a parole review. Along with Henry Nicholas, Proposition 9 received support from Crime Victims United of California and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association. Proposition 9 faced opposition from the California Teachers Association, the SEIU California State Council, the California Democratic Party, and the California Federation of Teachers. Proposition 9 passed with about 54 percent of the vote and became a model for several subsequent Marsy's Law ballot measures across the United States.

Marsy's Law ballot measures

The first state to vote on Marsy's Law after California was Illinois in 2014. The constitutional amendment received 72.3 percent of the vote in Illinois.

Marsy's Law for All organized campaigns for ballot initiatives in three states in 2016—Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Voters in each state approved the ballot initiative. Montana's Marsy's Law was ruled unconstitutional in 2017 because the ballot initiative, according to the court, violated the state's separate-vote requirement for constitutional amendments. In June 2018, the South Dakota Legislature asked voters to amend Marsy's Law via Amendment Y. Amendment Y, which was approved, was defined to narrow the definition of crime victim and require victims to opt-in to Marsy's Law's protections, rather than making those protections automatic.

In 2017, Marsy's Law was on the ballot in Ohio as Issue 1 and received 82.6 percent of the vote.

The number of Marsy's Law amendments in state constitutions doubled in 2018 from six to 12. The states that voted on Marsy's Law in 2018 were Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, and Oklahoma. Kentucky's Marsy's Law was ruled invalid in June 2019 because the language for the ballot measure, according to the court, did not meet constitutional requirements.

The Pennsylvania General Assembly referred Marsy's Law to the ballot for the election on November 5, 2019. The Wisconsin State Legislature referred Marsy's Law to the ballot for the election on April 7, 2020.

The following table describes the outcome of votes on Marsy's Law ballot measures:

State	Measure	Year	Percent “Yes”	Percent “No”	Status
California	Proposition 9	2008	53.84%	46.16%	Approved
Illinois	Amendment	2014	78.45%	21.55%	Approved
Montana	Initiative 116	2016	66.09%	33.91%	Approved (Overturned)
North Dakota	Measure 3	2016	62.03%	37.97%	Approved
South Dakota	Amendment S	2016	59.61%	40.39%	Approved (Amended)
Ohio	Issue 1	2017	82.59%	17.41%	Approved
Florida	Amendment 6	2018	61.61%	38.39%	Approved
Georgia	Amendment 4	2018	80.93%	19.07%	Approved
Kentucky	Amendment	2018	62.81%	37.19%	Approved (Overturned)
Nevada	Question 1	2018	61.19%	38.81%	Approved
North Carolina	Amendment	2018	62.13%	37.87%	Approved
Oklahoma	State Question 794	2018	78.01%	21.99%	Approved
Average			66.44%	33.56%

Text of measure

Ballot language

The ballot language was as follows:

“

This initiated measure would add a new section to Article I of the North Dakota Constitution which would provide certain rights to victims of crime in this state, including the right to be treated with respect, to be free from harassment, and to be protected from the accused. The measure would provide for the right to prevent the disclosure of confidential information about the victim; to refuse or limit questioning of the victim; to notice of, and presence at, court proceedings; and to notice of release or escape of the accused. The measure would provide for the right to be heard in court proceedings, to provide information about the impact of the offender’s conduct, and to receive reports relevant to these rights. The measure would provide for the right to restitution from an offender for losses suffered as a result of criminal conduct; to be informed of the outcome of the case and of the detention or other disposition of the offender; and to be informed of, and participate in, post-judgment processes.

”

Measure analysis

The measure analysis was as follows:

“

Initiated Constitutional Measure No. 3 was placed on the ballot by petitions circulated by a sponsoring committee. If approved, it would add a new section to Article I of the North Dakota Constitution which would provide certain rights to victims of crime in this state, including the right to be treated with respect, to be free from harassment, and to be protected from the accused. The measure would provide for the right to prevent the disclosure of confidential information about the victim; to refuse or limit questioning of the victim; to notice of, and presence at, court proceedings; and to notice of release or escape of the accused. The measure would provide for the right to be heard in court proceedings, to provide information about the impact of the offender’s conduct, and to receive reports relevant to these rights. The measure would provide for the right to restitution from an offender for losses suffered as a result of criminal conduct; to be informed of the outcome of the case and of the detention or other disposition of the offender; and to be informed of, and participate in, post-judgment processes. Voting “YES” means you approve the measure as summarized above. Voting “NO” means you reject the measure as summarized above.

”

Estimated fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

The fiscal note prepared by the Office of Management and Budget states the constitutional measure will become effective 30 days after the election, or December 8, 2016. The combined state and local fiscal impact for this constitutional measure is estimated to be $4.0 million in additional expenditures for the 2017-19 biennium, including $1.7 million of estimated costs to county governments. The estimated fiscal impact for this constitutional measure is anticipated to be $1.2 million for the remainder of the 2015-17 biennium for a total of $5.2 million in additional expenditures through June 30, 2019.

”

Constitutional changes

The measure added a new section to Article I of the North Dakota Constitution.

Full text

The full text of the measure was as follows:

“ SECTION 1. A new Section to Article I of the North Dakota Constitution is created and enacted as follows: To preserve and protect the right of crime victims to justice, to ensure crime victims a meaningful role throughout the criminal and juvenile justice systems, and to ensure that crime victims’ rights and interests are respected and protected by law in a manner no less vigorous than the protections afforded to criminal defendants and delinquent children, all victims shall be entitled to the following rights, beginning at the time of their victimization: The right to be treated with fairness and respect for the victim’s dignity. The right to be free from intimidation, harassment and abuse. The right to be reasonably protected from the accused and any person acting on behalf of the accused. The right to have the safety and welfare of the victim and the victim’s family considered when setting bail or making release decisions. The right to prevent the disclosure of information or records that could be used to locate or harass the victim or the victim’s family, or which could disclose confidential or privileged information about the victim, and to be notified of any request for such information or records. The right to privacy, which includes the right to refuse an interview, deposition or other discovery request made by the defendant, the defendant’s attorney, or any person acting on behalf of defendant, and to set reasonable conditions on the conduct of any such interaction to which the victim consents. Nothing in this section shall abrogate a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution nor diminish the State’s disclosure obligations to a defendant. The right to reasonable, accurate and timely notice of, and to be present at, all proceedings involving the criminal or delinquent conduct, including release, plea, sentencing, adjudication and disposition, and any proceeding during which a right of the victim is implicated. The right to be promptly notified of any release or escape of the accused. The right to be heard in any proceeding involving release, plea, sentencing, adjudication, disposition or parole, and any proceeding during which a right of the victim is implicated. The right, upon request, to confer with the attorney for the government. The right to provide information regarding the impact of the offender’s conduct on the victim and the victim’s family to the individual responsible for conducting any pre-sentence or disposition investigation or compiling any pre-sentence investigation report or recommendation regarding, and to have any such information considered in any sentencing or disposition recommendations. The right, upon request, to receive a copy of any report or record relevant to the exercise of a victim’s right, except for those portions made confidential by law or unless a court determines disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation of a case, and to receive a copy of any pre-sentence report or plan of disposition when available to defendant or delinquent child. The right, upon request, to the prompt return of the victim’s property when no longer needed as evidence in the case. The right to full and timely restitution in every case and from each offender for all losses suffered by the victim as a result of the criminal or delinquent conduct. All monies and property collected from any person who has been ordered to make restitution shall be first applied to the restitution owed to the victim before paying any amounts owed to the government. The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay, and to a prompt and final conclusion of the case and any related post-judgment proceedings. The right, upon request, to be informed of the conviction, adjudication, sentence, disposition, place and time of incarceration, detention or other disposition of the offender, any scheduled release date of the offender, and the release of or the escape by the offender from custody or commitment. The right, upon request, to be informed in a timely manner of all post-judgment processes and procedures, to participate in such processes and procedures, to provide information to the release authority to be considered before any release decision is made, and to be notified of any release decision regarding the offender. The parole authority shall extend the right to be heard to any person harmed by the offender. The right, upon request, to be informed in a timely manner of any pardon, commutation, reprieve or expungement procedures, to provide information to the Governor, the court, any pardon board and other authority in these procedures, and to have that information considered before a decision is made, and to be notified of such decision in advance of any release of the offender. The right to be informed of these rights, and to be informed that victims can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to their rights. This information shall be made available to the general public and provided to all crime victims in what is referred to as a Marsy’s Card. The victim, the retained attorney of the victim, a lawful representative of the victim, or the attorney for the government upon request of the victim may assert and seek enforcement of the rights enumerated in this section and any other right afforded to a victim by law in any trial or appellate court, or before any other authority with jurisdiction over the case, as a matter of right. The court or other authority with jurisdiction shall act promptly on such a request, ensuring that no right is deprived without due process of law, and affording a remedy by due course of law for the violation of any right. The reasons for any decision regarding disposition of a victim’s right shall be clearly stated on the record. The granting of these rights to victims shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights possessed by victims. All provisions of this section apply throughout criminal and juvenile justice processes and are self-enabling. This section does not create any cause of action for damages against the State, any political subdivision of the State, any officer, employee, or agent of the State or of any of its political subdivisions, or any officer or employee of the court. As used in this section, a “victim” is a person who suffers direct or threatened physical, psychological, or financial harm as a result of the commission or attempted commission of a crime or delinquent act or against whom the crime or delinquent act is committed. If a victim is deceased, incompetent, incapacitated, or a minor, the victim’s spouse, parent, grandparent, child, sibling, grandchild, or guardian, and any person with a relationship to the victim that is substantially similar to a listed relationship, may also exercise these rights. The term “victim” does not include the accused or a person whom the court finds would not act in the best interests of a deceased, incompetent, minor or incapacitated victim. ”

Support

Marsy's Law for North Dakota led the support for Initiated Constitutional Measure 3.

Initiated Constitutional Measure 3 was part of a national effort by Henry Nicholas, co-founder of Broadcom Corp., whose sister, Marsy Nicholas, was murdered by her ex-boyfriend in 1983. Henry and his mother were later confronted by Marsy's ex-boyfriend, who had not been notified that he had been released from prison on bail. The legislation backed by Henry Nicholas across the country, which is commonly called "Marsy's Law," was named after Henry's sister.

Supporters

• The North Dakota Sheriffs and Deputies Association
• Rep. Gail Mooney (D-20)
• Kathleen Wrigley, chair, Marsy's Law for North Dakota; and wife of Lt. Gov. Drew Wrigley (R)

Arguments in favor

Kathleen Wrigley, chair of Marsy’s Law for North Dakota, argued:

“

One of the reasons we have a Constitution is to protect people and their rights. This amendment elevates crime victims’ rights and protection to the same level as the people who have been accused of hurting them. That was really important to me. I understand ours is a wonderful criminal justice system. I’m not knocking the system, I just want people to be better protected. Accused criminals deserve a mighty fight for their rights, but the people who are hurt also deserve rights and protections to the same level.

”

Pam Perleberg, a North Dakota resident who is a family member of a murder victim, said:

“

We have had a difficult time getting information regarding the proceedings in his case and at times have had no response at all to our inquiries. Marsy’s Law will help other families who are faced with tragedy like ours so their situation is not compounded by a system that gives a murderer stronger rights than it gives us.

”

Opposition

No on 3 led the opposition campaign for Measure 3.

Opponents

• Former U.S. attorney for North Dakota Tim Purdon
• North Dakota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
• North Dakota State's Attorneys' Association
• North Dakota Victim's Assistance Association
• North Dakota Women's Network
• North Dakota Trial Lawyers
• First Nations Women's Alliance
• North Dakota Fraternal Order of Police
• Tom Davies, retired Fargo municipal judge
• Darla Juma, president, North Dakota Victim Assistance Association
• Janelle Moos, executive director, North Dakota's Council on Abused Women's Services
• Renee Stromme, executive director, North Dakota Women's Network
• Ladd Erickson, McLean County State's Attorney

Arguments against

Some opponents, such as Fargo defense attorney Willie Kirschner, were concerned that the law would allow victims to demand to take the witness stand at trial, even in cases when a prosecutor objects.

Justin Vinje, former president of the North Dakota Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, argued:

“

I don’t know that anybody’s complained that they’re not getting adequate treatment under the law as it is, so we are trying to fix something that isn’t broken.

”

Defense attorney Monty G. Mertz said:

“

We need to enforce the laws that are already on the books. We need to figure out okay who's dropping the ball here. Not layer on, especially not put it in the Constitution. That's overkill. ... If they prohibit defense attorneys from interviewing alleged victims, then the only recourse would be to question them in open court.

”

Mark Friese, a criminal law attorney at Vogel Law Firm, argued:

“

While broad interpretive concepts may be good for lawyers who earn their living from litigation, and while they may provide a “feel-good-atmosphere,” they are of limited utility in day-to-day proceedings. Unlike broad constitutional concepts, statutes are far more precise, and far less interpretive. Existing North Dakota victims’ rights statutes are far more effective than the broad concepts advanced by the initiated measure. Unfortunately, if Marsy’s Law is adopted, many of those effective, practical concepts would arguably be superseded and ineffective.

”

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for North Dakota ballot measures

Marsy's Law for North Dakota LLC registered to support Measure 3. The sole contributor to the campaign was Henry Nicholas, the brother of Marsy Nicholas. Nicholas contributed $2,377,803.00.

No on 3 registered in opposition to Measure 3.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$2,377,803.00	$0.00	$2,377,803.00	$2,361,068.22	$2,361,068.22
Oppose	$18,445.00	$0.00	$18,445.00	$17,154.65	$17,154.65
Total	$2,396,248.00	$0.00	$2,396,248.00	$2,378,222.87	$2,378,222.87

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee(s) supporting the measure.

Committees in support of Initiated Constitutional Measure 3
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Marsy's Law for North Dakota LLC	$2,377,803.00	$0.00	$2,377,803.00	$2,361,068.22	$2,361,068.22
Total	$2,377,803.00	$0.00	$2,377,803.00	$2,361,068.22	$2,361,068.22

Donors

The following were the top donors to the support committee(s).

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Henry Nicholas	$2,377,803.00	$0.00	$2,377,803.00

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee(s) in opposition to the measure.

Committees in opposition to Initiated Constitutional Measure 3
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
No On 3	$18,445.00	$0.00	$18,445.00	$17,154.65	$17,154.65
Total	$18,445.00	$0.00	$18,445.00	$17,154.65	$17,154.65

Donors

The top donors to the opposition committee(s) were as follows:

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
CAWS North Dakota	$3,000.00	$0.00	$3,000.00
North Dakota Women's Network	$1,000.00	$0.00	$1,000.00
Robert O Wefald	$1,000.00	$0.00	$1,000.00
Robert W. Harms	$1,000.00	$0.00	$1,000.00
Suhr & Lofgren	$1,000.00	$0.00	$1,000.00
Thomas Dickson	$1,000.00	$0.00	$1,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Signature collection

See also: Ballot measures cost per required signatures analysis

The campaign behind Initiated Constitutional Measure 3 reported that 15 volunteers and 30 hired circulators collected the 26,904 signatures required to put the measure on the ballot. The campaign spent a total of $218,750 to hire the paid signature gatherers.

Polls

North Dakota Crime Victim Rights (2016)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Moore Information 7/24/16 - 7/25/16	72%	16%	12%	+/-4.0	500
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Reports and analyses

Secretary of state analysis

The North Dakota Secretary of State's analysis of Measure 3 was as follows:

“

Initiated Constitutional Measure No. 3 was placed on the ballot by petitions circulated by a sponsoring committee. If approved, it would add a new section to Article I of the North Dakota Constitution which would provide certain rights to victims of crime in this state, including the right to be treated with respect, to be free from harassment, and to be protected from the accused. The measure would provide for the right to prevent the disclosure of confidential information about the victim; to refuse or limit questioning of the victim; to notice of, and presence at, court proceedings; and to notice of release or escape of the accused. The measure would provide for the right to be heard in court proceedings, to provide information about the impact of the offender’s conduct, and to receive reports relevant to these rights. The measure would provide for the right to restitution from an offender for losses suffered as a result of criminal conduct; to be informed of the outcome of the case and of the detention or other disposition of the offender; and to be informed of, and participate in, post-judgment processes.

”

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in North Dakota

The petition was submitted on November 15, 2015, and issued a petition title on December 22, 2015. It was approved for circulation on November 30, 2015. Supporters had to collect 26,904 valid signatures by July 11, 2016.

Marsy's Law for North Dakota submitted more than 44,000 signatures on May 10, 2016, which needed to be verified by the secretary of state by June 14, 2016. On June 13, 2016, roughly 34,000 of the signatures submitted were accepted by the secretary of state and Initiated Constitutional Measure 3 was approved for the November ballot.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired Advanced Micro Targeting to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $218,750 was spent to collect the 26,904 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $8.13.

State profile

Demographic data for North Dakota
	North Dakota	U.S.
Total population:	756,835	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	69,001	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	88.7%	73.6%
Black/African American:	1.6%	12.6%
Asian:	1.2%	5.1%
Native American:	5.3%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0%	0.2%
Two or more:	2.2%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	2.9%	17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:	91.7%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	27.7%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$57,181	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	12.2%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in North Dakota. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in North Dakota

North Dakota voted Republican in all seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.

Pivot Counties (2016)

Ballotpedia identified 206 counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these Pivot Counties by more than 580,000 votes. Of these 206 counties, four are located in North Dakota, accounting for 1.94 percent of the total pivot counties.

Pivot Counties (2020)

In 2020, Ballotpedia re-examined the 206 Pivot Counties to view their voting patterns following that year's presidential election. Ballotpedia defined those won by Trump won as Retained Pivot Counties and those won by Joe Biden (D) as Boomerang Pivot Counties. Nationwide, there were 181 Retained Pivot Counties and 25 Boomerang Pivot Counties. North Dakota had three Retained Pivot Counties, 1.66 percent of all Retained Pivot Counties.

More North Dakota coverage on Ballotpedia

• Elections in North Dakota
• United States congressional delegations from North Dakota
• Public policy in North Dakota
• Endorsers in North Dakota
• North Dakota fact checks
• More...

Related measures

On the ballot in 2016

Law enforcement measures on the ballot in 2016
State	Measures
Oklahoma	Oklahoma Rehabilitative Programs Fund Initiative, State Question 781 a
Montana	Marsy's Law Montana Crime Victims Rights, CI-116 a/ot
New Mexico	New Mexico Denial of Bail Measure, Constitutional Amendment 1 a
South Dakota	South Dakota Marsy's Law Crime Victim Rights, Constitutional Amendment S a
California	California Proposition 57, Parole for Non-Violent Criminals and Juvenile Court Trial Requirements a
California	California Proposition 66, Death Penalty Procedures Measure a

See also

Suggest a link

• 2016 ballot measures
• North Dakota 2016 ballot measures
• North Dakota ballot measures

External links

• North Dakota Voter Guide 2016
• Marsy's Law North Dakota Facebook page

Footnotes

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

---

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Frank Festa • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker
External Relations: Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

---

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams. Managing Editor of Events • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Ellie Mikus • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox