A concurrent resolution directing the Legislative Management to consider studying all state laws to identify laws that are outdated, unnecessary, or cause undue burden on this state and its citizens.
SCR 4025 is a concurrent resolution directing the North Dakota Legislative Management to consider studying all state laws to identify provisions that are outdated, unnecessary, or create an undue burden on the state and its citizens. The resolution frames the review as part of the Legislature’s responsibility to periodically examine existing law and determine whether repeal or revision is appropriate.
If adopted, the resolution would not itself change any substantive law. Instead, it would authorize or encourage a broad review of the state code and require Legislative Management to report findings and recommendations, along with any needed implementing legislation, to the Seventieth Legislative Assembly. The practical effect would be to create a legislative study process aimed at identifying obsolete or burdensome statutes for possible repeal or reform.
The measure would have had no immediate direct effect on state statutes because it is a study resolution rather than a bill amending the code. Its impact would be procedural: it would task Legislative Management with reviewing all state laws and potentially recommending future legislation to repeal, revise, or streamline laws found to be outdated, unnecessary, or burdensome. The affected parties would be state agencies, lawmakers, and indirectly North Dakota residents and businesses that may be subject to existing regulatory requirements.
The resolution appears to reflect a generally reform-oriented and deregulatory sentiment, emphasizing legislative housekeeping and the removal of obsolete or burdensome laws. Because there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials, there is no detailed evidence of debate or bipartisan support levels. The bill’s failure on March 20, 2025 suggests it did not secure enough support to advance, but the available record does not show the specific reasons.
The main point of contention likely would have been the breadth of the proposed study, since it calls for reviewing all state laws rather than a targeted subject area. Supporters would likely view the resolution as a common-sense effort to modernize the code and reduce unnecessary burdens, while opponents may have questioned the value, scope, or administrative cost of such a sweeping review. No specific objections or named opponents are documented in the provided transcript or vote history.