A concurrent resolution to amend and reenact sections 1 and 2 of article XV of the Constitution of North Dakota, relating to term limits for members of the legislative assembly and statewide elected officers; to repeal section 4 of article XV of the Constitution of North Dakota, relating to prohibiting the legislative assembly from proposing certain amendments to article XV of the Constitution of North Dakota; and to provide for application.
House Concurrent Resolution 3034 proposes a constitutional amendment that would change North Dakota’s term-limit rules for both legislators and statewide elected officials. For the House and Senate, it would generally limit service to 12 cumulative years in each chamber, followed by a four-year break before a person could serve another 12 cumulative years in that chamber. The resolution also applies term limits to statewide executive officers: most statewide elected officials would be limited to 12 cumulative years in office, while the governor and lieutenant governor would be limited to eight cumulative years. It further clarifies how partial terms are treated and includes an application section specifying that certain service before the effective counting dates would not count toward the new limits.
The measure would amend sections 1 and 2 of article XV of the North Dakota Constitution and repeal section 4 of article XV, which currently restricts the Legislative Assembly from proposing certain amendments related to term limits. Because it is a constitutional resolution, it would not change statutory law directly; instead, it would place the proposed amendment before voters at the 2026 general election if adopted by the Legislature. If approved by voters, it would alter eligibility rules for future service in the Legislature and in statewide elected offices, affecting current and prospective officeholders.
The general sentiment reflected in the available record is limited, but the bill’s introduction by multiple representatives suggests support from its sponsors for stricter and more uniform term limits. The bill ultimately failed, indicating that it did not secure enough legislative support to advance to the ballot. No committee transcript or recorded vote details were provided, so the broader debate cannot be reconstructed from the available materials.
The main point of contention is likely the policy choice between imposing tighter term limits and preserving voter choice and institutional continuity. Supporters would favor turnover and limits on long tenure in office, while opponents may have been concerned about losing experienced legislators and statewide officials, especially because the proposal would reset or extend the term-limit framework across multiple offices. The repeal of the constitutional restriction on legislative proposals related to term limits may also have been controversial because it would make future term-limit amendments easier to place before voters.
If enacted by voters, this resolution would amend the North Dakota Constitution to impose new cumulative term limits on legislators and statewide elected officials, including a four-year waiting period before additional service in the same legislative chamber after reaching the limit. It would also repeal a constitutional barrier that currently limits the Legislature’s ability to propose certain term-limit amendments. The measure would affect eligibility for office rather than ordinary statutes, and its application clause would exclude certain pre-2026 and pre-2027 service from the new counting rules.
The available record suggests a reform-oriented proposal aimed at tightening term limits, but the bill failed in the Legislature, indicating insufficient support for advancing the constitutional amendment. With no committee testimony or vote breakdown provided, there is no detailed public record here of bipartisan support or organized opposition, only the outcome that the proposal did not move forward.
The likely central dispute was whether North Dakota should further restrict how long individuals can serve in the Legislature and in statewide executive offices. Supporters of the resolution would view term limits as a way to encourage turnover, reduce entrenched incumbency, and broaden participation in government. Opponents would likely argue that the proposal removes experienced officeholders too quickly, weakens institutional knowledge, and may limit voters’ ability to retain effective representatives. The inclusion of the governor and lieutenant governor, along with the repeal of the constitutional restriction on proposing term-limit amendments, likely added to the controversy because it broadened the scope of the change beyond the Legislature alone.