A concurrent resolution to amend and reenact section 1 of article XV of the Constitution of North Dakota, relating to term limits for members of the legislative assembly; 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 an application.
SCR 4008 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would change North Dakota’s legislative term-limit rules. As drafted, it would limit a person to four complete four-year terms in the legislative assembly, with service of less than four years not counting toward the limit. The measure also repeals a constitutional provision that currently bars the legislative assembly from proposing certain amendments related to term limits, thereby removing that restriction from article XV.
If approved by voters, the resolution would place the amendment before the electorate at the November 2026 general election. The application clause states that, if adopted, the change would apply to individuals elected to the legislative assembly after January 1, 2023, which could affect current and recently elected members depending on their service history. Because this is a constitutional change rather than a statutory one, it would alter the state constitution’s rules governing legislative eligibility and service limits rather than ordinary state law.
The resolution would amend article XV of the North Dakota Constitution to establish a single term-limit framework for members of the legislative assembly and to repeal the constitutional barrier preventing the legislature from proposing certain term-limit-related amendments. It would affect eligibility for service in both chambers, potentially shortening the time some legislators may remain in office and creating a retroactive application date tied to elections after January 1, 2023. The measure would not directly amend the state code, but if adopted by voters it would supersede any inconsistent constitutional provisions and govern future legislative service.
The available record shows no committee transcript, vote tally, or recorded floor debate, so there is no documented public sentiment in the materials provided. Based on the text alone, the measure appears to be framed as a reform of legislative tenure and constitutional procedure, with no explicit fiscal or administrative controversy noted in the bill materials. The absence of recorded votes or testimony means support and opposition cannot be reliably assessed from the provided context.
The main potential point of contention is the term-limit change itself: supporters may view it as a way to refresh the legislature and reinforce turnover, while opponents may argue it restricts voter choice and removes experienced lawmakers too quickly. A second possible issue is the application clause, which would apply the amendment to individuals elected after January 1, 2023, raising questions about retroactive effect and fairness to current members. The repeal of the constitutional prohibition on legislative proposals concerning term limits may also be debated as a procedural change that makes future amendments easier to advance.