North Dakota term Limits Law Faces Legal challenge

Two supporters of North Dakota’s voter-approved term limits law are challenging a recent legislative resolution that seeks to clarify the law’s application. The lawsuit, filed on January 26, 2026, argues that the resolution improperly attempts to circumvent the intent of the constitutional amendment passed by voters in 2022.

Background: North Dakota’s Term Limits

In 2022, North Dakota voters approved Measure 1, a constitutional amendment establishing term limits for state legislators. The amendment limits state senators to two four-year terms and state representatives to four two-year terms. The goal was to bring fresh perspectives to the legislature and reduce the influence of long-serving incumbents. North Dakota Legislative Branch

The Legislative Resolution and the Lawsuit

The North Dakota Legislature, during a special session in December 2025, passed a resolution clarifying how the term limits apply to legislators who had already served partial terms before the amendment’s effective date. The resolution,Senate Concurrent Resolution 1,essentially allows legislators who had served less than half of a term to serve additional terms beyond the limits outlined in the amendment. Inforum

The plaintiffs, identified as Duane Sand and Paul Sorum, argue that this resolution effectively weakens the term limits established by the voters. They contend that the legislature is attempting to create an exception to the constitutional amendment, which is not permissible. The lawsuit,filed in Burleigh County District Court,seeks a declaratory judgment stating that the resolution is unconstitutional.

Arguments from Both Sides

Supporters of the legislative resolution argue that it’s a necessary clarification to ensure a smooth transition and avoid disrupting the legislative process. They claim that the intent was not to circumvent the term limits but to address unique situations created by the timing of the amendment’s passage. Legislators who voted in favor of the resolution stated it was a matter of fairness to those already serving when the amendment was approved. KFYR TV

The plaintiffs, however, maintain that the resolution undermines the clear will of the voters.They argue that the amendment was intended to apply uniformly to all legislators, irrespective of how much time they had already served. They believe the resolution creates a two-tiered system, allowing some legislators to remain in office longer than others.

Potential implications

The outcome of this lawsuit could have meaningful implications for the future of term limits in North Dakota. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, the legislative resolution would be struck down, and the term limits would be applied strictly as originally intended by the voters.If the court sides wiht the legislature, it could set a precedent for future legislative attempts to interpret or modify constitutional amendments.

Key takeaways

• North Dakota voters approved term limits for state legislators in 2022.
• The legislature passed a resolution in December 2025 clarifying how the term limits apply to existing legislators.
• Two supporters of the term limits are suing, arguing the resolution weakens the amendment.
• The lawsuit centers on whether the legislature can create exceptions to a constitutional amendment.
• The court’s decision will likely shape the future of term limits in North Dakota.

The case is expected to be heard in the coming months. This is a developing story, and updates will be provided as they become available.