[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6173426,"mediaKeyId","5380999-f70da164f732e70482bd6818ae38cf08","parentId",5380999,"title","Eighth Circuit ruling on Voting Rights Act suit leaves North Dakota maps in procedural limbo, staff warns","audioSeconds",3679,"startMs",13161000,"endMs",16840000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5380999-f70da164f732e70482bd6818ae38cf08&start=13161&end=16840","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5380999-f70da164f732e70482bd6818ae38cf08/thumbnail_13161000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6173426/North-Dakota/Eighth-Circuit-ruling-on-Voting-Rights-Act-suit-leaves-North-Dakota-maps-in-procedural-limbo-staff-warns","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6173426-808926ea3f83478f4247992a1d2e2226/orig.mp4?Expires=1771181369&Signature=o8c2rUAKMBThaT8Bdq1Scx6PNeYENFdp6-L7pvs8nTIwKm8s1ZkANj-9Ox0nT9bGCPRCvLCUavTURtUl7w8cG~FseCv2zIoeXwebHnu6wpnYJmzJOxEMCyTjjevoq0o9o9Cb43GYaBqQBwv9sOiKfoCLSnSKFNC7bdzWvm~A95OwiOqfa9BofU9lm0FgDWEDfxNmj6OToKyTNquGOiZNJMBYynVaKjnWv7z5EXOFpK6rShJ3T264Acgs5VWzFvy4s~ybzZ-S~bXcQxjFW6-R3fkw2z~5YCyQlMgttIs6sNyitsaQ~K3IHhqhQdjKUBG1nmGZCGbuTMO~NfXn~Pi8eg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","North Dakota Legislation","date","2025-06-26T00:00:00Z","article","Legislative Council legal staff updated Legislative Management on redistricting litigation that could alter legislative district boundaries and create uncertainty for members whose residences may no longer fall inside their districts if the appellate court’s decision becomes final.

Austin Gunderson, legislative council staff, summarized the May 14 Eighth Circuit panel decision in Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe, which concluded private plaintiffs may not bring a private cause of action to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The panel vacated the district court’s judgment imposing a plaintiff-drawn map and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of a private cause of action. If the ruling becomes final, Gunderson said, the district boundaries would revert to those adopted by the Legislature in the 2021 special session, including changes to Districts 9 and 15 that the district court had previously altered.

Gunderson outlined the procedural posture: appellees filed a timely petition for rehearing en banc in the Eighth Circuit on May 18 and the appellants filed a response on June 16. While those petitions are pending, the Eighth Circuit has not issued its mandate; Rule 41(b) requires the mandate seven days after denial of a rehearing petition. Gunderson explained that the mandate must issue before the appellate judgment takes effect, and he described the separate possibility of a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court and the typical motions to stay the mandate that accompany such petitions.

On substance and practical effect, staff noted uncertainty: if the Eighth Circuit mandate issues, the district court judgment would be vacated and the 2021 legislative maps would be in force, which could leave some members residing outside their district boundaries. Gunderson said historical practice has allowed members in prior redistricting cycles to serve out their elected term even if a new map places their residence outside the district, but that the constitution and precedent could leave room for legal challenge and that the Supreme Court or state courts could be asked to decide questions of member qualification and timing.

Committee members asked about timing relative to candidate filing deadlines and the upcoming election calendar. Gunderson said deadlines for potential Supreme Court filings and the possibility of stays could leave the litigation unresolved into the primary or general election and that contingency planning should recognize that uncertainty.

No formal action was taken; staff advised continued monitoring and explained options that would arise if the mandate issues or the Supreme Court is asked to review the case.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","69th Legislative Interim - Legislative Management Jun 26, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","A May Eighth Circuit panel decision vacated a district court redistricting judgment and remanded for dismissal after ruling private plaintiffs lack a private cause of action under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, leaving North Dakota district lines in temporary legal limbo, Legislative Council staff said.","taxTitle","Legislative, North Dakota","taxId",28306,"location","North Dakota","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6173431,"Staff brief: proposed 'One Big Beautiful Bill' and recent federal rescissions could trim hundreds of millions from state programs",1287,12312000,13599000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5380999-f70da164f732e70482bd6818ae38cf08&start=12312&end=13599","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5380999-f70da164f732e70482bd6818ae38cf08/thumbnail_12312000.jpg","/articles/6173431/North-Dakota/Staff-brief-proposed-One-Big-Beautiful-Bill-and-recent-federal-rescissions-could-trim-hundreds-of-millions-from-state-programs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6173431-a615b30405f95f3d5baf734c6b703a45/orig.mp4?Expires=1771181369&Signature=cdh5A4FRkHVkOtToTmfe07FsTCxdmwZOIB0hDcKFPDnUrFeZmgs2aUBgBesoR5kYIQNjrFFH3BqBjACxi~QCJ2zPhY8300ZVDNKH0RIL4haoy1URHbttGnaQ14H87g8Yz7cCr-DpAaTW3K9QBq63~Qj5HoCWkzXgDhiI4rQPmobgIm~8XxLJKv4fLvkm34PCx~kyVBGcjd-CWZJLPaxoYr75MN4HX4xK6~mXeQgFzSm~u235QKXdH2V7DzoQOXod0ciOBMku1AzGzmVTjY~yrNZlOTfTaqAvBu-Vfg9QCFlM4mvb5AsR~InPIugirhAOnqOptUlKhZVZrJrv7WQqag__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Legislative Council fiscal staff told Legislative Management that changes under consideration in Congress could sharply reduce federal aid to North Dakota programs, and that federal rescissions and expirations have already cost the state nearly $100 million in recent months.

Grant Gaither, legislative council fiscal analyst, reviewed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” as passed by the U.S. House and being worked in the Senate, describing provisions that would reduce Medicaid spending nationally by an estimated $793 billion over a decade. Gaither said North Dakota’s portion could amount to roughly $1.4 billion over ten years—about a 12% reduction of projected federal Medicaid funds—largely driven by a proposed mandatory work requirement for able-bodied adults and other enrollment and cost-sharing changes. Gaither noted North Dakota’s biannual Medicaid budget is about $3.4 billion, including $2.1 billion in federal funds and $662 million tied to Medicaid expansion (90% federal match).

Gaither also outlined proposed SNAP changes in the House bill that would increase state cost sharing for benefits and administrative costs, and tie state benefit obligations to payment error rates; he said those provisions would increase state administrative costs and could add an estimated $18 million per biennium for increased SNAP administrative sharing under a 75% state administrative share scenario.

The analyst then summarized recent federal rescissions and terminations that have already affected state programs: Department of Health and Human Services awards estimated to include $75.8 million in unliquidated obligations (including CDC and SAMHSA grants) and FEMA infrastructure rescissions that removed about $19.6 million intended for resilient infrastructure projects—affecting wastewater work in Lincoln and Fessenden and a water intake project in Washburn. The memo also flagged smaller rescissions totaling about $8.3 million across other agencies for school safety, radon testing, and digital equity projects. Staff told management the Emergency Commission and Budget Section have addressed some shortfalls by repurposing contingency or loan authority where possible.

Gaither cautioned the congressional proposal remains under negotiation in the Senate and that numbers in the memo are subject to change. He advised the committee to monitor federal developments because major entitlement changes would materially affect the state’s budget picture and could require legislative response.

Committee members asked whether staff had detail on program-level impacts and whether state agencies could identify which projects were interrupted; Gaither said staff could coordinate further with affected agencies and OMB to track program effects and standing obligations.","Legislative Council analysts outlined potential reductions to Medicaid and SNAP in pending federal legislation and summarized recent federal grant rescissions that have already cost North Dakota roughly $100 million in realized and unliquidated federal funds.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6173437,"Legislative fiscal staff outline oil-and-gas revenue scenarios that could cut state allocations by hundreds of millions",1546,11231000,12777000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5380999-f70da164f732e70482bd6818ae38cf08&start=11231&end=12777","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5380999-f70da164f732e70482bd6818ae38cf08/thumbnail_11231000.jpg","/articles/6173437/North-Dakota/Legislative-fiscal-staff-outline-oil-and-gas-revenue-scenarios-that-could-cut-state-allocations-by-hundreds-of-millions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6173437-ef52650488d051c8f42814766e2c1f36/orig.mp4?Expires=1771181369&Signature=a5xKCH21Gr1G4oORnXjhV8CdcP4CpPRW3evgrvlsQ9tOGE7JxxVOn48hQOdYkDOi~JoMIAVBP~Z4CtegrNWymgaE-Mn-h3GahBAWbGt4GpcVMgO5ySshXC4~aOjFAZlaNcB4KGhFY~ongLqWS9T2e-fGPz2Tz4JxxMTYNt55E0Lt1yZKTBhjvE6L4WL0s-n5JFJg03dZ7j5ofN7XHhgKaJUZ~krt1wrFDOhygXkTBbvTM87l0yAgZsMyZAu6iMd1PmCmPBJkRqxA4wJno-ofnTsfyTP~X~nUcl4URtXwCOizaC6A4IbhbQYgsEyyb68tKUjG4e9kDiwpPim-VUn5gQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Legislative fiscal analysts warned Legislative Management that a sustained decline in North Dakota oil production or a combined drop in production and price could reduce oil-and-gas tax allocations by hundreds of millions of dollars over the 2025–27 biennium, with knock-on effects for multiple state funds and political subdivisions.

Adam Matiek, legislative counsel fiscal analyst, presented two alternate scenarios based on S&P Global’s low-case material and internal adjustments. The first scenario models a 13% decline in production—about a fall from roughly 1.15 million barrels per day to about 1.0 million—resulting in approximately a $570 million reduction in oil-and-gas tax allocations over the biennium. The second scenario pairs the 13% production decline with a 15% drop in price (roughly a $9-per-barrel reduction) and produces an estimated $1.1 billion reduction.

Matiek told the committee the primary budgetary consequences differ across the allocation “buckets.” Under the first scenario, the Strategic Investment Fund (SIF) bucket faces nearly $200 million less; the Resources Trust Fund would see roughly a $50 million decline; and oil-and-gas political subdivisions would lose about $75 million in revenue. In the combined production-and-price scenario, Matiek said the Resources Trust Fund could lose nearer to $100 million, political subdivisions about $150 million, airport infrastructure funding could lose $20 million, and a planned $65 million transfer toward the PERS main system unfunded liability could disappear unless the legislature acts.

Matiek said the scenarios draw on S&P Global’s March briefing and the vendor’s low-case scenarios, and that factors that could prompt such declines include exhaustion of high-yield wells in the Bakken, mergers and acquisition integration issues, pipeline constraints (including partial or full shutdown scenarios for the Dakota Access Pipeline), and global market oversupply. He noted that immediate cash on hand would mitigate short-term impacts for some funds (SIF uses cash on hand), but that timing and multiyear commitments could create funding shortfalls for projects that rely on anticipated receipts.

Committee members asked about timing and contingency authority. Matiek and staff described the mechanism that would lead to executive allotments and potential use of the budget stabilization fund: if revised revenue forecasts show an actual shortfall, the governor and OMB can order allotments and access the stabilization fund under statutory allotment rules; legislative action would be required to replace or restore programs if the legislature wishes to do so. Fiscal staff confirmed the scenarios are illustrative but grounded in S&P Global’s published low-case information and the legislative forecasting engagement with that vendor.

Members asked about the forecast cadence; Matiek said leadership and staff are discussing a schedule with S&P Global that could include earlier-in-interim updates and additional briefings during the next session to provide more frequent data in volatile markets.

The presentation was delivered to inform future budget and contingency planning; no formal budget decisions were made at the meeting.","Legislative fiscal analysts presented two downside scenarios—one focused on a production decline and a second combining lower production and lower prices—that could reduce state oil-and-gas allocations by roughly $570 million and $1.1 billion respectively across the 2025–27 biennium, affecting major funds and some planned transfers.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6173441,"Legislative Management adopts interim committee rules and finalizes most interim committee appointments",5468,539000,6007000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5380999-f70da164f732e70482bd6818ae38cf08&start=539&end=6007","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5380999-f70da164f732e70482bd6818ae38cf08/thumbnail_539000.jpg","/articles/6173441/North-Dakota/Legislative-Management-adopts-interim-committee-rules-and-finalizes-most-interim-committee-appointments","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6173441-95df920cafdb907ae72f468f329e2d36/orig.mp4?Expires=1771181369&Signature=CidkMaht6X4~Zd-wpWoHNHyzj2c3RRcv6108z-tQ87tihzMCY-Q2QrzH3Gq~bYQnAxoX22P~Xf3d0buCUOu6lSW6yx1XqDC-Sb-m9n-7MTlLTqIK8U2i89y8GlIyOpP4httbHMmxCxb5epjIcbMQu33x8eiaLcbmnI~O~MQM~MXm0Bpp6Gut5Ll-6X4hNq-IYzquyPetIig5lJAKPjLRIOWYPo6G7CtoY6jVyROeUcTnMGSClL3rV7B9lWTvRwRvM~WeHArlHwaDmlQT3RfPbBesqkDekV3a5D4RiRhvlfQri1gya~2pMQ~KpVa5C15exCMzNtKzyjfl17eMd5-r~w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Legislative Management adopted its supplementary rules of operation and procedure and approved most interim committee appointments during its second meeting in Bismarck, concluding votes and motions on committee leadership and statutory committee representation.

The rules, which echo the Legislative Assembly’s procedures and require public votes and meeting recordings, were adopted by voice vote after staff explained that the rules were unchanged from the prior interim and emphasized remote attendance options and the chairman’s authority to direct additional studies or fill vacancies. Mr. Bjornsson, legislative council staff, reviewed the changes and reminded members that “voting must be public” and that meetings are recorded and livestreamed when possible.

Committee business moved quickly: the assembly reappointed Representative Glenn Bosch and Sen. Dale Patton as co-chairs of the Clean Sustainable Energy Authority; approved nominees to the Veterinary Medical Education Program Admissions Committee based on university recommendations; and filled statutory appointments to the Kindergarten through 12 Education Coordination Council. On a subsequent roll call, the management committee approved the full committee structure, chairs and vice chairs as presented. The clerk recorded multiple ayes during the roll call that adopted the full committee slate.

Members also adjusted several committee rosters after caucus discussions. Representative Ista successfully moved to expand one education committee’s membership to 20 to allow adding Representative Austin Foss (motion carried by voice). Speaker Weiss moved several additional substitutions—adding Representative Sue Ann Olson to a general education committee, replacing Representative Jordan Johnson with Representative Mike Belt on water topics, and adding Representative Jason Doctor to the Tax Reform and Relief Advisory Committee—motions that were adopted by voice vote.

Staff clarified appointment mechanics for statutory committees: some committees require leadership-level appointments while legislative management fills remaining seats. The body accepted university recommendations for veterinary education committee representatives and voted to appoint Levi Bachmeier as the Board of Higher Education designee to a higher education challenge grant fund committee.

The meeting recessed and scheduled follow-up work to finalize any remaining vacancies. The committee also asked legislative council to prepare a final roll-call record of the committee structure and leadership for the record.

The remaining administrative items were deferred to follow-up meetings and caucuses, and members planned to reconvene later in the interim as needed for any vacancies or additional appointments.","Legislative Management approved supplementary rules of operation, reappointed co-chairs for the Clean Sustainable Energy Authority and confirmed a slate of interim committee appointments, sending several committee assignments to caucus before final approval by roll call.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6173421,"Attorney general opinion on governor’s erroneous veto draws concern from Legislative Management; staff to present options",2716,15483000,18199000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5380999-f70da164f732e70482bd6818ae38cf08&start=15483&end=18199","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5380999-f70da164f732e70482bd6818ae38cf08/thumbnail_15483000.jpg","/articles/6173421/North-Dakota/Attorney-general-opinion-on-governors-erroneous-veto-draws-concern-from-Legislative-Management-staff-to-present-options","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6173421-87e29812bc39988899ddbf55411ed7ba/orig.mp4?Expires=1771181369&Signature=PXaej1cNfqUvDUdKyd4DpyW4hJDBfLJjbzjStykbV1MULXyipfrFtcsEnx17Q8fpnb0uXlBBLR952WdxGXh05Wcf4X-uN4w-DeVjOXRHFib0kx2Cd4M0Mf481cwRZx9FbBYLLkTb98-apAd~G9-bl6s~ZK-x2SdtnuSMcOLf5BJUNF6x4tzb95QnyGJwmXH-mmNvs3YMVFNVuTDQwP94MhlBK9knyDZEzo2gANusYMl9IprlZIDFrz7lnEf7ATrE5LnrG36ksp-18aVlYsduBsTeyUbPW5O1QDNpjGMnikMdxR4OkvkGoh0bUVzUbiQDFDFISuNIZ~EvHsgQrmoiiQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Legislative Management reviewed an attorney general opinion responding to the governor’s request about an erroneous veto and expressed concern that the opinion could alter longstanding expectations about item vetoes, prompting a motion that directed Legislative Council to compile legal and procedural options for the committee to consider.

Emily Thompson of Legislative Council legal staff summarized the issue: the governor returned Senate Bill 2014 with Section 7 struck out on the face of the bill but in an objection letter stated he intended to veto only a single $150,000 pass-through grant within Section 7. The attorney general concluded the veto letter (the governor’s written objections) is the legally operative document and that markings on the bill serve only as a visual aid; the opinion therefore treated the governor’s description in the veto letter as controlling even where it conflicts with pen-and-ink markings on the bill.

Thompson and members cited controlling precedent from the North Dakota Supreme Court in Legislative Assembly v. Burgum (2018), which states the governor cannot withdraw a veto by agreement with the attorney general and that striking words or numbers on the bill has legal effect. Committee members noted the Burgum decision emphasized that subtraction of vetoed items from the larger appropriation is the legal operation of an item veto and argued the attorney general opinion did not reference that precedent or address the deduction the court requires when part of an appropriation is disapproved.

Members raised separation-of-powers concerns and the practical problem that an attorney general opinion that allows a veto letter to supersede markings on the bill could leave the legislative branch without a clear, paper record to consult when deciding whether to override a veto. Representative LaFoure, Leader Ista and Senator Hogan asked staff to produce options, including potential original-jurisdiction filings in state supreme court to seek declaratory relief and injunctions, an October or early reconvening to consider overrides, and statutory changes that would require the governor to accompany veto letters with identifiable pen-and-ink markings or require stricter return procedures for vetoed items.

Members voted to instruct Legislative Council to prepare a memorandum of options (motion carried by voice vote) within days so Legislative Management could decide whether to pursue court action, call a special veto session, propose clarifying legislation at the next session, or accept the AG opinion’s formulation.

Thompson noted practical timelines: funds at issue were scheduled for transfer July 1 and the court options (original jurisdiction writs, mandamus, injunction) could be filed quickly but may proceed at different speeds than a legislative reconvening; she recommended swift staff work to provide pros and cons for each route. Management approved the request and tasked staff to return with options.","Legislative Management reviewed an attorney general opinion that treated the governor’s veto letter as the controlling record—even where markings on the returned bill conflicted—and directed Legislative Council to produce options after members raised separation-of-powers and procedural concerns.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Eighth Circuit ruling on Voting Rights Act suit leaves North Dakota maps in procedural limbo, staff warns

Staff brief: proposed 'One Big Beautiful Bill' and recent federal rescissions could trim hundreds of millions from state programs

Legislative fiscal staff outline oil-and-gas revenue scenarios that could cut state allocations by hundreds of millions

Legislative Management adopts interim committee rules and finalizes most interim committee appointments

Attorney general opinion on governor’s erroneous veto draws concern from Legislative Management; staff to present options