Members of the North Dakota House of Representatives participate in a special session of the Legislature on Jan. 22, 2026. (Photo by Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor)
BISMARCK, N.D. (North Dakota Monitor) – The North Dakota Supreme Court on Thursday found a term limits ballot measure advanced by state lawmakers to be unconstitutional and directed the secretary of state to not place it on the November ballot.
Legislators in 2025 adopted Senate Resolution 4008, which aimed to ask voters whether to amend lawmaker term limits they approved in 2022.
North Dakota lawmakers can serve no more than eight years in the House and eight years in the Senate after the passage of Article XV of the state constitution.
The proposed amendment that was headed to voters sought to allow lawmakers to serve up to 16 years in either chamber. It also sought to make it so partial terms don’t count against term limits.
The ballot measure was challenged by former Minot Republican lawmaker Sen. Oley Larsen and Grand Forks County commissioner Terry Bjerke, who were members of the sponsoring committee for the 2022 ballot measure.
The Supreme Court sided with the challengers, finding that the ballot measure violates a clause in Article XV of the state constitution that bars the Legislature from proposing any constitutional amendments to term limits.
Chief Justice Lisa Fair McEvers authored the unanimous opinion. Southeast Judicial District Court Judge Cherie Clark heard the case in place of Justice Mark Friese, who recused.
Larsen said Thursday he was pleased with the court’s decision.
“It feels good,” Larsen said. “When you know what’s right, and you stick with what’s right, sometimes good things happen.”
Larsen said he hopes lawmakers will move on from trying to eliminate or change the term limits law approved by North Dakotans.
Sen. Michael Dwyer, R-Bismarck, chief sponsor of the legislative resolution, said he wasn’t surprised by the Supreme Court’s ruling based on what he heard during oral arguments.
“I’m disappointed. I thought there was a slim chance since the constitution already provides for the legislative assembly to put measures on the ballot,” Dwyer said.
Legislators who favored the ballot measure said it honored the intent of voter-approved term limits while giving lawmakers more flexibility.
During an April hearing, an attorney for the state Legislature argued that the Supreme Court should dismiss the case, in part because the measure had not yet had an effect because it had not gone before voters.
Secretary of State Michael Howe said the only effect the ruling will have for his office is relabeling the other ballot measures that will be put to voters this fall.
A ballot measure requiring approval from 60% of voters for future constitutional measures will become Measure 1 and the free school meals ballot measure will become Measure 2, he said.
Howe said the Supreme Court saw that his office followed the correct process.
“The secretary of state can’t determine whether or not a ballot measure is constitutional,” Howe said.
Attorney General Drew Wrigley, whose office represented the secretary of state, said he appreciates that the court resolved the matter in a timely fashion.
Attorneys for the Legislature referred a request for comment to Legislative Council. Director John Bjornson said his office was reviewing the opinion.
Comments