In Bismarck, North Dakota, a significant legislative proposal is brewing as state legislators weigh changes to the term limits voters approved for them. In a decision that spotlights a potential tug-of-war with the electorate, the state House has taken steps to propose an amendment to the term limits that voters had previously set in motion.
This move was met with resistance citing the constitution’s explicit language, which restricts the Legislature from amending or repealing the newly established term limits. The amendment in question, which voters ratified in 2022, states clearly that legislative power to alter these term limitations is curtailed. Republican Representative Jared Hendrix, instrumental in the term limit ballot initiative, called attention to this constitutional barrier.
While the Senate has already passed the measure, the proposal is now poised for the November 2026 ballot, setting the stage for another popular vote. The original 2022 amendment to the North Dakota constitution prohibits legislators from proposing amendments to adjust or overturn these limitations.
Supporters of the proposal argue that some voters were confused, believing the 2022 measure applied to congressional term limits. Others claim that the Legislature necessitates accumulated institutional knowledge, which thrives with experienced members serving longer terms. “We’ve got to vote this in, and we’ve got to convince the people that this is a lot better plan than what we’ve got on the books right now,” asserted Republican Representative David Monson.
Dissenters maintain that voters already expressed their overwhelming support for term restrictions. They suggest pursuing a voter-backed ballot initiative for any desired changes. Republican Representative Steve Vetter commented skeptically, questioning whether voters who had backed term limits convincingly would now support extending legislator terms by eight additional years.
Effective January 1, 2023, the term limits restrict lawmakers to eight years in the House and eight years in the Senate. Importantly, these limits apply without considering prior legislative service. The measure also places a cap on gubernatorial terms, restricting a governor to two elections with no officials being term-limited from their positions as of yet.
The new proposal aims to extend legislative terms to four complete terms of four years each, with partial terms not counting towards the limit. Moreover, it seeks the removal of the current restriction preventing the Legislature from altering the term limits.
Republican Senate Majority Leader David Hogue, who supports the amended term limit proposal, has not committed firmly on the legal soundness of the legislature’s potential actions. He noted, “It’s 16 years – doesn’t matter whether you’re in one chamber or the other – and it’s a full 16 years,” acknowledging a departure yet a semblance to the original measure passed by voters.
Representative Hendrix indicated that Secretary of State Michael Howe might inquire with the Attorney General on the measure’s legality for ballot placement. Attempts to reach Secretary Howe and Attorney General Drew Wrigley for comments were made, but response confirmations were pending.
In North Dakota, the Republican-majority Legislature convenes biennially, in odd-numbered years, as this discussion over term limit adjustments marks a contentious chapter in state legislative affairs.