A concurrent resolution to amend and reenact sections 3 and 13 of article VI of the Constitution of North Dakota, relating to the judicial branch and supreme court.
Summary
HCR 3021 is a proposed constitutional amendment affecting North Dakota’s judicial branch and supreme court. It would remove civil and criminal judicial immunity for members of the judiciary, including supreme court justices and district judges, and would declare void any judgment rendered in violation of due process, state or federal law, or the North Dakota or U.S. Constitutions. The resolution also preserves the supreme court’s rulemaking authority over procedure and attorney discipline, while making the chief justice the administrative head of the unified judicial system.
The measure would also change how vacancies in the supreme court and district courts are filled. Instead of the current process, vacancies would be filled by gubernatorial appointment from a list of candidates nominated by a bipartisan judicial nominating committee established by law, unless the governor calls a special election. Appointed judges would generally serve until the next general election, with a minimum service period of two years before the seat is returned to election if needed. The proposed amendment was to be submitted to voters at the 2026 primary election, but the resolution failed in the House on second reading.
Impact
If adopted, HCR 3021 would amend Article VI of the North Dakota Constitution and significantly alter judicial accountability and judicial selection. It would eliminate judicial immunity protections, create constitutional grounds to void judgments entered in violation of law or constitutional rights, and require a bipartisan nominating process for filling judicial vacancies in the supreme court and district courts. These changes would affect judges, litigants, court administration, and the balance of power between the judiciary, the governor, and the electorate.
Sentiment
The available voting history shows the resolution failed decisively in the House, with 13 yeas and 80 nays on second reading. That margin suggests broad opposition and little legislative support for the proposal in its introduced form. No committee transcript is available, so the record reflects the vote more than any detailed floor debate, but the outcome indicates the measure was not viewed favorably by most members.
Contention
The most contentious provisions are the elimination of judicial immunity and the declaration that judgments entered in violation of law or constitutional requirements are void. Those changes would raise concerns about exposing judges to personal liability, destabilizing final judgments, and creating uncertainty in the courts. The proposed shift to a bipartisan nominating committee for judicial vacancies is also likely to have been debated as a change to the existing appointment and election system, with supporters emphasizing accountability and critics likely concerned about reduced judicial independence and increased politicization of the selection process.
A concurrent resolution to amend and reenact sections 3 and 13 of article VI of the Constitution of North Dakota, relating to the judicial branch and supreme court.
A concurrent resolution to amend and reenact section 9 of article III and section 16 of article IV of the Constitution of North Dakota, relating to the threshold for approving a constitutional amendment.
A concurrent resolution to amend and reenact sections 7 and 13 of article IV of the Constitution of North Dakota, relating to sessions of the legislative assembly; and to provide an effective date.
A concurrent resolution to amend and reenact section 2 of article IX of the Constitution of North Dakota, relating to distributions from the common schools trust fund.
Requiring each resolution adopted by the legislative assembly proposing a constitutional amendment and each initiative petition and measure proposing a constitutional amendment to be comprised of a single subject.