Republican proposes law to let party endorsements place candidates on ballots; Secretary of State warns of enforcement and timing problems

Representative Ben Koppelman told the House Government and Veterans Affairs Committee that House Bill 14‑24 would let political parties use district endorsements to determine which candidates appear on primary ballots and would create a process for validating those endorsements.

Koppelman said the proposal is intended to give political parties greater control over who uses the party label on ballots while preserving a pathway to the general election for candidates who fail to win or who are not part of a party endorsement. “If a political party issues certificates of endorsement under this chapter, no other candidate seeking the same office may appear on that primary election ballot as a representative of the same party issuing the certificate of endorsement,” Koppelman said, explaining that candidates who do not receive an endorsement could still run in the general election as independents or seek another party’s backing.

Koppelman also outlined a complaint and review process: the Secretary of State would accept endorsement certificates, hold them for a seven‑day complaint window, and—if a complaint alleged procedural violations—forward the matter to the Attorney General for review. If the Attorney General finds the endorsement invalid, the party could re‑submit a corrected certificate; if it cannot, the affected candidate(s) would not appear on their party’s primary ballot and would have to pursue independent petitioning for the general election.

Secretary of State Michael Howe told the committee he and his office oppose Section 1— the enforcement pathway that would insert the Secretary of State and the Attorney General into internal party disputes. Howe said parties typically control their own bylaws and organizational enforcement, that party bylaws are not filed with the Secretary of State, and that the office lacks investigative authority. He warned the statutory process Koppelman proposes would not be feasible inside the existing 64‑day candidate‑filing timeline because it could add at least two weeks to allow for collection, AG review and any corrections. “Putting the state of North Dakota in the middle of a private organization’s enforcement of its bylaws is not a good idea,” Howe said.

Supporters framed the bill as protecting a party’s associational rights. Andrew Borneman, who testified in favor, cited U.S. Supreme Court precedent recognizing a political party’s right to exclude candidates and argued the bill would let parties exercise that right without removing the option for a party to use primaries instead.

Committee members asked about practical effects and safeguards. Members queried what happens if a party fails to follow its bylaws or misses a filing deadline, and whether the bill gives districts disproportionate influence. Koppelman said the bill includes a backup path: if a district fails to issue a valid endorsement, candidates can still qualify for a primary via nomination petitions or run as independents in the general election.

The Secretary of State urged the legislature to leave enforcement within party structures or require parties to standardize and publish district bylaws if the legislature expects state agencies to adjudicate disputes. Committee members did not take a vote on the bill during the hearing.

Why it matters: The proposal would change how party nominees are selected for primary ballots in a state without party registration. It raises questions about the appropriate role of state officials in adjudicating internal party rules and about timing for ballot preparation.

What’s next: Committee members may consider removing or substantially modifying Section 1 to keep internal party enforcement with parties themselves, or to adjust filing timelines and clarify which office handles disputes if the legislature chooses to keep a state role.