Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Election Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House rejects overhaul of party endorsement process and related bills after heated debate
Summary
Two bills that would have changed how candidates get onto primary ballots — including ending district endorsing conventions and requiring petition signatures — failed on the House floor after extended debate. Lawmakers argued tradeoffs between grassroots vetting and open primary access.
The House rejected multiple bills this week that would have substantially altered North Dakota’s partisan nominating process, including proposals to require all candidates to reach the primary ballot by petition and to make party certificates of endorsement exclusive of primary ballot access.
What happened: After extended floor debate that lasted for hours and drew numerous members onto the floor, the chamber voted down House Bill 14‑46 (mandating petition access for all partisan candidates) 32‑58. A companion bill, House Bill 14‑24, which would have made a certificate of endorsement exclude other primary ballot routes, was defeated 3‑86.
Why it mattered: Supporters argued petition‑based access would broaden participation and dilute the control of small district conventions that sometimes produce organization‑only nominees. Opponents — including district chairs and party officials — said the change would dismantle longstanding party structures that vet and endorse candidates and would increase the cost of running for office by forcing petitions for every seat.
Representative Schauer, chair of the Government and Veterans Affairs Committee, described the committee’s do‑not‑pass recommendation and framed the debate as a question of whether to preserve party conventions’ role in candidate vetting or to shift to a uniform petition system. Opponents said petition drives disadvantage rural candidates who must travel long distances during winter months; proponents said signatures broaden participation and would mirror what many other states do.
Representative Schauer (first reference at 07:03:15): “The question has been asked, is our election process broken?… We know over the last several election cycles, districts have been overtaken by people and leaders who in many ways have treated legislators harshly.”
Floor debate included a mix of personal anecdotes about convention experiences and concerns about outside spending, takeover attempts by highly organized groups, and the administrative burden of processing far more petition signatures at the Secretary of State’s office.
Representative Koppelman urged colleagues to focus on building better district party structures instead of changing state law; Representative Naithi and others argued that petition access would open the process to more voters and challengers. Several current and former party leaders and the state party chair testified to committees and the floor in opposition or concern.
Votes: House Bill 14‑46 failed 32‑58; House Bill 14‑24 failed 3‑86. Lawmakers also rejected related language that would have removed the minimum vote requirement in primaries during an amendment process.
Ending: With the House votes, the existing mix of convention endorsements and petition access remains in place. Sponsors said they would continue to push for reforms that broaden participation; opponents said they will work to strengthen district engagement and bylaws.
