A concurrent resolution to support the electoral college, denounce the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and invite interested states to form the Electoral College Interstate Compact.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 4013 is a nonbinding legislative resolution expressing North Dakota’s support for the Electoral College and opposition to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). The resolution states that the Electoral College protects state influence in presidential elections, balances rural and urban interests, and reflects the constitutional design chosen by the nation’s founders. It further asserts that the NPVIC could weaken individual states’ role in presidential elections, create the possibility of nationwide recounts, and increase federal control over elections.
The resolution also declares that the NPVIC may be unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution’s Compact Clause and the Electoral College provisions. In response, it invites North Dakota and other interested states to consider forming an “Electoral College Interstate Compact” that would prohibit compact states from requiring electors to vote according to the national popular vote and would require participating states to challenge the NPVIC in court. The resolution proposes that such a compact would move forward once four other states express intent to join.
Because this is a concurrent resolution, it does not change North Dakota statutes or create enforceable state law. Its practical effect is political and diplomatic: it directs the Secretary of State to transmit the resolution to officials in a list of other states, signaling North Dakota’s position and encouraging coordinated action among like-minded states. The measure is filed with the Secretary of State and appears to have no recorded committee action or floor vote in the provided history.
The general sentiment reflected in the text is strongly supportive of the Electoral College and strongly critical of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The resolution frames the issue as one of state sovereignty, constitutional structure, and fairness to rural areas. No opposing arguments are recorded in the provided materials, but the main point of contention is the constitutionality and policy wisdom of the NPVIC versus the existing Electoral College system, especially whether presidential elections should be decided by a national popular vote arrangement or by state-based electors.
SCR 4013 does not amend the North Dakota Century Code or alter election procedures in the state; it is a concurrent resolution expressing legislative intent and urging action by other states. Its legal effect is limited to advocacy, including a call for an interstate compact opposing the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and a request that the Secretary of State distribute the resolution to selected states. The resolution could influence future interstate coordination and litigation strategy, but it does not itself bind electors, election officials, or voters.
The sentiment around the bill is overwhelmingly supportive among its sponsors and in the text of the resolution. It presents the Electoral College as a safeguard for state representation and rural interests, while characterizing the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact as a threat to state sovereignty and constitutional design. No committee testimony, amendments, or recorded votes are provided, so there is no documented opposition in the supplied history; however, the resolution itself anticipates disagreement by emphasizing constitutional concerns and the need for a counter-compact.
The central point of contention is whether presidential elections should continue to be mediated through the Electoral College or shift toward a national popular vote mechanism through the NPVIC. Supporters of SCR 4013 argue that the compact undermines the role of individual states and may be unconstitutional under the Compact Clause, while critics of this position would likely argue that the NPVIC better reflects the national popular vote and democratic equality. Another disputed issue is whether an interstate compact opposing the NPVIC is a viable or necessary response, especially given the resolution’s call for states to challenge the NPVIC in court.