Summary#

HCR 3036, titled “Sessions of the legislative assembly; and to provide an effective date,” is a concurrent resolution proposing changes to the North Dakota Constitution; it would not create an ordinary statute. Its stated goal is to allow the Legislature to meet annually or every two years for up to 100 natural days during a two-year period. The House failed to adopt it on second reading, so it did not advance to voters and is not law.

• The proposal would raise the regular-session limit shown in the current constitutional text from 80 to 100 natural days (each a period of 24 consecutive hours).
• The Legislature could choose to meet annually or biennially; Legislative Management would determine the schedule, within the 100-day limit.
• The organizational meeting, sessions called by the governor, and time spent on impeachment proceedings would not count toward that limit. Regular-session days would not have to be consecutive.
• It would change the Constitution’s general law effective-date provision to refer to 100, rather than 80, natural meeting days. It would not change the separate effective-date rules for tax measures that change tax rates or for certain appropriation measures.

What it means for you#

• Residents: If adopted, the proposal could mean lawmakers meet in regular session more often, or have more regular-session days in a two-year period. It would not directly change your taxes, benefits, or legal rights.
• Legislators and state government: The Legislature could use the added scheduling flexibility, but the proposal would not require it to meet every year.
• Taxpayers: The proposal does not set a new tax or fee. The cost of any additional or longer sessions is not stated.

Money#

No publicly available information.

• The proposal does not specify an appropriation or a cost estimate. More or more frequent session days could require additional public spending, but the amount is not stated.

What is unclear#

• The proposal does not explain how Legislative Management would decide whether sessions are annual or biennial, or how it would set the schedule.
• It does not provide an estimate of the staffing or other costs of using the additional session days.
• The supplied material does not explain how the change to the general law effective-date provision would affect the timing of particular laws.

Case for#

• A possible argument for the proposal is that it would give lawmakers more flexibility to schedule their work across a two-year period.
• The higher limit could give the Legislature more time to consider and pass laws, while still setting a maximum of 100 regular-session days.
• Allowing annual sessions could let lawmakers meet more often without requiring them to do so.

Case against#

• The proposal could allow up to 20 more regular-session days than the 80-day limit shown in the current constitutional text.
• It could also allow regular sessions every year, which may increase demands on public resources; the proposal gives no cost estimate.
• The proposal leaves the scheduling decision to Legislative Management without explaining how that decision would be made.