North Dakota

A chance to bring term limits back to life – The Boston Globe

Published

2 years ago

June 30, 2024

A chance to bring term limits back to life – The Boston Globe

Of course, there is a surefire way to guarantee more turnover in Congress: term limits. Imposing a hard cap on how long senators and representatives can retain their seats wouldn’t prevent scoundrels, zealots, and incompetents from getting elected. It would keep them from becoming entrenched in power. It would make congressional elections more competitive, more responsive, and more meaningful. It would encourage more good and talented people to run for office. And it would decrease the influence of lobbyists, whose clout depends on ties to long-time incumbents.

There is little about politics today on which Democratic and Republican voters agree, but the desirability of congressional term limits has long been an exception.

The Pew Research Center last fall measured public support for a number of proposed reforms, including automatic voter registration, expanding the Supreme Court, and requiring a photo ID to vote. By far the most popular proposal was a limit on the number of terms members of Congress can serve. An overwhelming 87 percent of respondents favored the idea. Similarly, researchers at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, who have studied public attitudes on this issue since 2017, report that very large majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents consistently back term limits.

If congressional term limits command such widespread bipartisan regard, why don’t they exist?

Actually, they used to. A wave of citizen activism in the early 1990s led 23 states, comprising more than 40 percent of all the seats in Congress, to enact laws limiting the terms of senators and representatives. But in 1995, a sharply divided Supreme Court ruled in US Term Limits v. Thornton that neither the states nor Congress may add to the conditions for serving in Congress. In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that inasmuch as the Constitution did not set a maximum number of terms for senators and representatives, states cannot do so either.

The dissent, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, was strong.

“Nothing in the Constitution deprives the people of each State of the power to prescribe eligibility requirements for the candidates who seek to represent them in Congress,” he observed. “The Constitution is simply silent on this question. And where the Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the States or the people.”

At the time, the court’s ruling had the effect of nullifying congressional term limits in all the states that had adopted them. But nearly 30 years later, might the issue get a second look?

Maybe.

On June 11, North Dakota voters handily approved an amendment to the state constitution imposing an age limit on candidates for Congress. The new measure disqualifies anyone from running for the House or Senate if they would turn 81 before the term ends. Under the 1995 decision, the North Dakota law is unconstitutional, since it imposes an eligibility requirement to serve in Congress that isn’t in the Constitution. So it is widely assumed that the law will be challenged in federal court. Federal judges are bound by Supreme Court precedent, so the law will presumably be struck down by the district court, and that decision will be affirmed by the court of appeals.

But that would set up an appeal to the Supreme Court, providing an opportunity to revisit the issue — and perhaps overturn US Term Limits v. Thornton. Of the justices who were on the court in 1995, the only one still serving, as it happens, is Thomas. Another of the current justices, Neil Gorsuch, co-authored a 1991 law review article defending the constitutionality of term limits.

It might seem odd that a challenge to North Dakota’s congressional age limits law could conceivably open the door to undoing a Supreme Court precedent dealing with term limits. But the underlying issue is the same in both cases: whether the people in each state have the right to set the rules for gaining access to their ballot and representing them in Congress.

There is good reason for the public’s unflagging support for limiting congressional terms. Because the advantages of incumbency are so powerful, it has become incredibly difficult to dislodge a sitting member of Congress. US presidents, most governors, and mayors of many of the country’s largest cities are term-limited. Most Americans, across the political spectrum, have steadfastly believed senators and representatives should be too. Nearly 30 years ago the Supreme Court took the power to make that decision away from the people. Soon it may have a chance to restore it.

Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jeff.jacoby@globe.com. Follow him on X @jeff_jacoby. To subscribe to Arguable, his weekly newsletter, visit globe.com/arguable.

Source link

North Dakota

Challengers declare victory after ND Supreme Court rules against Legislature’s attempt to alter term limits

Published

9 hours ago

June 25, 2026

Press Room

Challengers declare victory after ND Supreme Court rules against Legislature’s attempt to alter term limits

BISMARCK — A constitutional ballot measure to amend the state’s term limits law as proposed by the Legislature will not appear on November’s ballot, the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled Thursday, siding with petitioners who argued the Legislature exceeded its authority and violated the state constitution in proposing the changes.

“The people’s voice was heard,” Grand Forks County Commissioner Terry Bjerke said in reaction to the news.

Bjerke was a member of the sponsoring committee behind the successful 2022 effort to pass a term limits initiative, which amended the state constitution by capping legislative term limits to eight years in the House and eight years in the Senate. The amendment, which became article XV of the state constitution, also included a clause barring the Legislature from making constitutional changes to term limits.

During the 2025 session, however, lawmakers narrowly approved Senate Concurrent Resolution 4008, in which the legislature proposed Constitutional Measure 1, a ballot measure to amend the term limits language to allow legislators to decide in which chamber they want to serve their 16 years, and to repeal the clause limiting the legislative assembly’s authority to propose an amendment to alter or repeal term limits.

Bjerke and former Minot legislator Oley Larsen brought the lawsuit challenging the validity of the Legislature’s action in January, and the state Supreme Court

heard oral arguments in the case

this spring.

“Those term limits may only be altered by a measure proposed by the people rather than the Legislative Assembly. And yet a few years later, the Legislative Assembly is doing what they are prohibited from doing,” attorney Zachary Wallen argued on Bjerke and Larsen’s behalf.

Petitioner’s attorney Zachary Wallen, right, jots down notes for a rebuttal during a North Dakota Supreme Court hearing dealing with a term limits ballot measure on Thursday, April 2, 2026.

Tanner Ecker / The Bismarck Tribune

The Legislature’s attorneys argued the clause prohibiting legislative proposals to alter the constitutional term limits language “infringes on our republican form of government” by “limiting the people’s ability to vote on amendments proposed by their elected officials.”

Justice Jon Jensen seemed skeptical of that argument during the April 2 hearing, questioning whether a second vote was appropriate.

“The public did speak on this. The public spoke on it when it passed the original constitutional amendment and they said, ‘Legislature, you don’t even get to propose a change.’ They have already spoken on it,” Jensen said. “You want a second shot, or a second bite at the apple, not a first one, a second.”

In Thursday’s ruling, all five justices sided with Bjerke and Larsen.

“We … conclude the Legislative Assembly’s adoption of S.C.R. 4008 violated N.D. Const. art. XV … and declare S.C.R. 4008 and Constitutional Measure 1 void … We enjoin the Secretary of State from placing Constitutional Measure 1 on the November 2026 general election ballot,” the ruling said.

Bjerke thanked the legal team that worked on behalf of their lawsuit, and said he was grateful the court reached the conclusion it did.

“I’m thrilled that what the people voted on and approved has been validated,” Bjerke said.

He added that the Legislature had “multiple opportunities” to address term limits prior to 2022’s initiated measure and chose not to, and gave a nod to the country’s coming milestone and the process by which voters expressed their support for term limits.

“We’ve lasted 250 years,” Bjerke said. “I have two words for those elected leaders who think they aren’t: everyone’s replaceable.”

Source link

North Dakota

Fargo woman convicted in North Dakota fraud case now faces charges in Minnesota: A deeper dive

Published

19 hours ago

June 25, 2026

Press Room

Fargo woman convicted in North Dakota fraud case now faces charges in Minnesota: A deeper dive

FARGO, N.D. (Valley News Live) – A North Dakota woman who was sentenced to 180 days in jail in Cass County for defrauding healthcare providers and Medicaid programs is now facing additional fraud charges in Minnesota.

Christine Marie Pryor, 55, pleaded guilty in November 2024 to theft by deception involving more than $50,000. She was sentenced to first serve 180 days with a 3-year sentence suspended. She received credit for 44 days already served.

Pryor was ordered to pay $82,584.78 in restitution to Southeast Human Services in Fargo, where she worked between 2018 and 2019.

How the scheme unfolded

According to court documents, Pryor worked at multiple healthcare facilities in North Dakota and Minnesota between 2018 and 2023, using the identities and credentials of three licensed professionals without their knowledge. She submitted fraudulent Capella University diplomas and transcripts to gain employment.

Investigators say Pryor admitted she searched state licensing websites for therapists who shared her first name, then used those therapists’ last names and license numbers when applying for jobs.

At Southeast Human Services, where she worked as a Licensed Addiction Counselor, Pryor earned $55,584.82 while providing therapy services to approximately 150 patients. She also opened her own counseling center, NIAM Brain Injury Center, in Fargo between 2020 and 2021, and worked at The Lotus Center in Moorhead, Minnesota, from 2021 to 2023.

Court documents say the three licensed professionals whose identities were used told investigators they had no knowledge of Pryor’s actions and did not give her permission to use their information.

Two additional charges against Pryor in North Dakota, unauthorized use of personal identifying information, were dismissed on motion of the state.

Additional charges in Minnesota

Pryor is also facing charges in Minnesota. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison announced on Tuesday charges against Pryor in Clay County District Court for six theft offenses and six identity theft offenses related to defrauding Minnesota’s Medicaid program of more than $150,000.

According to the Minnesota complaint, Pryor claimed to provide psychotherapy and alcohol and drug counseling services to Medicaid recipients despite having no license or credentials to do so. Prosecutors allege she used the credentials and identities of three licensed professionals while claiming to provide Medicaid-funded services to 169 clients.

The Minnesota charges were filed as part of National Health Care Fraud Takedown Day, a joint effort involving the Department of Justice and more than 40 state Medicaid Fraud Control Units.

Source link

North Dakota

NCAA Set to Change Unpopular Football Rule Just in Time for North Dakota State’s FBS Jump

Published

1 day ago

June 24, 2026

Press Room

NCAA Set to Change Unpopular Football Rule Just in Time for North Dakota State’s FBS Jump

North Dakota State playing in the FCS playoffs and College Football Playoff in back-to-back years? It’s likelier than you think.

That’s because on Wednesday, according to a report from Ross Dellenger of Yahoo! Sports, the NCAA Division I cabinet voted to repeal a rule that effectively barred teams transitioning from FCS to FBS from playing in postseason games in their first FBS seasons. The Bison are making that move along with Sacramento State in 2026.

The reported change has been a long time coming; the rule has hampered teams from immediate bowl eligibility for decades. Its good intentions of dissuading teams from rashly making the FCS-to-FBS leap have been rendered obsolete in recent years by the fact that programs generally arrive in FBS more prepared than ever before.

Consider the number of new FBS teams that have had to work within the provision in the past decade alone

Curt Cignetti’s James Madison program was impacted by the rule preventing teams transitioning up from FCS to play in the FBS postseason. | David Yeazell-Imagn Images

That list includes: Liberty (home for the holidays at 6–6 in 2018), James Madison (8–3 in 2022 under coach Curt Cignetti, and barely able to play in a bowl at 11–1 in ’23 due to a lack of bowl-eligible teams), Jacksonville State (8–4 in ’23 before backing in like the Dukes), Missouri State (7–5 in 2025, also backed in) and Delaware (6–6 in ’25, ditto).

James Madison in particular became a cause célèbre in ’23 because it started the season 10-0, climbing as high as No. 18 in the AP Poll in mid-November. Then-Virginia attorney general Jason Miyares bandied about suing the NCAA before the Dukes lost 26–23 to Appalachian State, an event that caused the program to back off and accept a bid to play Air Force in the Armed Forces Bowl. James Madison lost that game 31–21, by which time Cignetti had left for Indiana.

There was a time when the FCS-to-FBS jump was an imposing one, and the NCAA did not want to incentivize making it lightly—not even a proud Florida A&M program could make a mid-2000s attempt at a jump stick. However, the Flames, Dukes and other teams have shown it’s not so great a climb for programs with the right resources and management.

Now the Bison and the Hornets stand to benefit.

How far can North Dakota State and Sacramento State go in the near term?

The Bison opened 12–0 last year before a shock loss to Illinois State in the FCS playoffs’ second round, so that question may answer itself. North Dakota State does not play a single Power 4 team—a potential strength-of-schedule albatross if it has designs on really surging. A potential roadblock: the fact that the Bison have to visit the Mountain West’s two favorites, UNLV (Oct. 10) and New Mexico (Oct. 24).

It’s a different story for the Hornets, a 7–5 squad a year ago whose move to the FBS is widely seen as a gamble on their growth potential. Sacramento State also does not play a major-conference team, but has a breakneck travel schedule ahead of it—the Hornets will visit Ypsilanti, Mich.; Bowling Green, Ohio; Muncie, Ind.; Mount Pleasant, Mich. and Honolulu. Combine that with a first-year coach—Oakland native and ex-MC Hammer choreographer Alonzo Carter—and it could be a long FBS debut in California’s capital.