Summary#

HCR-3034 is a House concurrent resolution proposing amendments to the North Dakota Constitution, not a law that directly changes term limits. It would set new term limits for legislators and statewide elected officials, and repeal the constitutional section described as barring the Legislature from proposing certain Article XV amendments. Its stated goal is to impose these limits; the resolution failed to pass the House, so it did not send the proposal to voters.

• Legislators would be limited to 12 cumulative years in each chamber, followed by a four-year break before serving another 12 years. The proposal also addresses partial terms.
• Statewide elected officials would generally face a 12-year limit in an office, followed by a four-year break before another 12 years.
• The statement of intent says the governor and lieutenant governor would each have an eight-year limit. But the proposed text also includes the lieutenant governor in the 12-year rule, creating a conflict.
• The proposal would exclude some earlier service when counting years: for certain legislators elected in 2026 or 2028, and for statewide officials other than the governor and lieutenant governor.
• If adopted by the Legislature, the proposed amendment would have gone to voters at the 2026 general election. The resolution failed before that could happen.

What it means for you#

• Voters: This resolution did not put a constitutional amendment on the ballot. It does not change current term limits.
• People considering elected office: The proposal would have changed how long a person could serve in each legislative chamber and in listed statewide offices. The exact rule for lieutenant governors is unclear because the text gives both an eight-year and a 12-year limit.
• Current and future officeholders: The proposal includes special rules for counting some partial terms and excludes specified earlier service. No application or review process is set out.
• The Legislature: The proposal would repeal Article XV, section 4, which the resolution describes as restricting the Legislature from proposing certain amendments to Article XV. The current constitutional text was not supplied, so the exact scope of that restriction cannot be verified.

Money#

No publicly available information on cost.

• The materials give no estimate for election administration, implementation, or other costs. The resolution does not specify new funding or fees.

What is unclear#

• The proposed text appears to give the lieutenant governor both an eight-year limit and a 12-year limit. The materials do not explain how those rules would work together.
• The current text of the North Dakota Constitution was not supplied, so the exact change from current law—including the full scope of the restriction the proposal would repeal—could not be verified.
• The proposal does not explain how the four-year breaks or partial-term rules would be applied in every case.
• The resolution failed in the House, so it did not establish a start date or lead to a voter decision.

Case for#

• The proposal appears intended to limit how long a person can serve in legislative and statewide elected offices.
• A possible argument for the approach is that it sets limits while allowing someone to return to office after a four-year break.
• Removing the restriction on legislative proposals about Article XV could let future legislatures put further constitutional changes to voters.

Case against#

• The conflicting limits for the lieutenant governor make an important part of the proposal unclear.
• A 12-year limit followed by another 12 years after a four-year break still allows long periods of service; the proposal does not explain why this pattern is appropriate.
• The exclusions for earlier service mean some service would not count toward the proposed limits. The materials do not explain the reason for those cut-off dates.