Republican sponsor seeks clearer, uniform rules for district party reorganization after redistricting

Representative Jared Hendricks, sponsor of House Bill 14-31, told the House Political Subdivisions Committee the bill’s purpose is to clarify and simplify Century Code language governing political party organization and district committees.

Hendricks framed the bill as reducing unnecessary statutory detail about how private political parties structure internal organization while ensuring that state law and party bylaws do not conflict. He testified the bill would: require notice of participation requirements for publicly noticed caucuses; require all legislative districts to reorganize after redistricting (removing the 25%-only trigger); move apportionment power from a single temporary appointee to the entire state committee in certain circumstances; and strike lengthy precinct-specific organization language from statute so districts could adopt local arrangements in their bylaws. “The government's role in the organization of a private political party should be limited,” Hendricks said.

Sponsor explanation and specifics: Hendricks said the bill replaces references to the 2020 census with “the most recent federal census,” clarifies when the state committee calls a reorganization meeting for a district without a functioning committee, and preserves a formula for when prior temporary arrangements are needed. He also said the bill removes repeated statutory references to an undefined “executive committee” and instead defers organization structure to a party’s bylaws.

Supporters’ testimony: Several Republican district chairs and party officers supported the bill as a cleanup and local-control measure. Andrew Borneman (District 28) and Greg Demme (District 3) told the committee the bill reduces confusion that occurred after the last redistricting by specifying that reorganization should occur in every district rather than only those that cross a 25% change threshold. “This bill would simplify the process significantly,” Borneman said. Travis Zablotny, a Republican district chair and ND GOP executive committee member, argued the bill would return power to districts to elect their own chairs and reduce instances in which a single appointed temporary chair carried out substantive business at the state level.

Opposition and concerns: Mitch Basler, District 37 chair, testified in opposition. Basler said HB 14-31 appears to align state law with state party rules rather than requiring party rules to conform to state law; he warned that removing statutory guardrails could shift control to state-party bodies elected by comparatively small delegations. Other committee members raised similar concerns about balancing local control with uniform standards set by a state party. Committee members pressed the sponsor to clarify whether the bill would allow state parties to impose uniform bylaws or restrict district-level structures. Hendricks and witnesses noted that, in practice, state party rule changes require a two-thirds vote of the state committee and that many districts already follow state party guidelines for some functions.

Why it matters: The bill addresses how political parties — private organizations with public roles (delegates, nominations, ballot access) — organize internally after legislative redistricting. Committee members emphasized the tension between preserving local district autonomy and ensuring uniform, transparent processes across the state’s 47 legislative districts.

Ending: The committee took testimony from supporters and opponents and asked for clarifying technical language; no committee final action appears in the provided transcript excerpt.