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.
HCR 3035 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would change how North Dakota’s common schools trust fund and other perpetual trust funds distribute money. It would submit the amendment to voters at the 2026 general election and, if approved, would require larger annual distributions from the trust funds for a limited period to support school construction statewide. The measure’s stated intent is to allow up to $3 billion over ten years, at a rate of $300 million per year, for school construction across the state.
The resolution would amend Article IX, Section 2 of the North Dakota Constitution. It keeps the existing requirement that common schools trust fund distributions be used for the benefit of common schools, but changes the distribution formula for perpetual trust funds. For the first biennium after the amendment takes effect, distributions would be the greater of the prior biennium’s amount or 10% of the five-year average value of trust assets, excluding lands and minerals. After that, biennial distributions would be set at 10% of the five-year average value. In addition, for the 2027-28 through 2035-36 bienniums, the resolution would require an extra $600 million per biennium, split evenly each year, to fund the state school construction program.
If adopted by voters, the measure would directly affect the state constitution and the administration of perpetual trust fund distributions, especially the common schools trust fund. It would create a dedicated, constitutionally authorized funding stream for statewide school construction and would likely increase the amount of trust fund revenue available for education-related capital projects over a ten-year period. The proposal would also interact with the statutory state-funded construction program referenced in the text.
The bill appears to have had limited legislative support and ultimately failed in the House, with a 15-77 vote on second reading. The available record does not include committee testimony, so the broader discussion is not documented here, but the floor vote suggests substantial opposition or concern about the proposal. The overall sentiment in the recorded action is negative, at least in terms of legislative approval, despite the bill’s education-focused purpose.
The main point of contention is likely the use of trust fund distributions for school construction and the size of the proposed draw from perpetual trust assets. Supporters would view the measure as a way to address statewide school facility needs and provide predictable funding, while opponents may have been concerned about constitutional changes, the long-term effect on trust fund principal and earnings, and whether the state should commit to such a large, dedicated transfer. The resolution’s requirement for voter approval also reflects the significance of the policy change.
HCR 3035 would amend the North Dakota Constitution to alter the distribution rules for the common schools trust fund and other perpetual trust funds, increasing the amount available for education-related purposes and adding a temporary, constitutionally mandated funding stream for school construction. It would affect the constitutional provisions governing trust fund distributions, the state-funded school construction program, and the entities responsible for administering and receiving those funds, especially school districts and state education finance officials.
The recorded sentiment around HCR 3035 is generally unfavorable in the legislature, as shown by its failure on House second reading by a wide margin, 15-77. The bill’s purpose—supporting school construction—appears broadly policy-driven and education-focused, but the vote indicates that a majority of representatives were not persuaded to advance the constitutional amendment. No committee transcript is available here to show detailed debate, but the floor result suggests significant skepticism about the proposal.
The central controversy is whether the state should constitutionally require larger distributions from the common schools and perpetual trust funds to finance school construction. Supporters likely emphasized the need for statewide school facility investment and a stable funding source, while opponents likely focused on the fiscal and constitutional implications of increasing distributions from trust assets, the potential long-term effect on the funds, and whether the proposed formula was too aggressive. The size of the proposed additional transfer—$600 million per biennium for multiple bienniums—was likely a major point of concern.