MOORHEAD — The North Dakota Association of the Blind is hosting a bowling event to raise awareness about blindness.

The organization is hosting “Bowling While Blind” from 4-6 p.m. on Thursday, Jan. 30, at Sunset Lanes, 620 U.S. Highway 75.

The event is being held in conjunction with its Giving Hearts Day campaign, which is happening through Feb. 13, the organization said in a news release.

People who are blind or have low vision can and do bowl, the release said, and attendees can learn about how at the event.

Refreshments will be served.

For more information about the event, call or text Allan Peterson at 701-429-7209 or email

allan.c.peterson@gmail.com.

Our newsroom occasionally reports stories under a byline of “staff.” Often, the “staff” byline is used when rewriting basic news briefs that originate from official sources, such as a city press release about a road closure, and which require little or no reporting. At times, this byline is used when a news story includes numerous authors or when the story is formed by aggregating previously reported news from various sources. If outside sources are used, it is noted within the story.

BISMARCK — North Dakota may increase the interstate’s speed limit to 80 mph, but one of the bills suggesting the long-requested change could cost farmers.

The House Transportation Committee heard testimony Thursday, Jan. 23, and Friday on two bills that would bump up the speed on Interstates 94 and 29 by 5 mph.

House Bill 1298

would increase the speed limit from 75 mph to 80 mph without a minimum speed.

That bill faced less opposition than

House Bill 1421,

which would set the minimum speed for I-29 and I-94 at 40 mph and the maximum at 80 mph. It also would require farmers who move large equipment on interstates to buy an annual permit, which would cost $25 for each tractor.

The bill initially called for a $100 permit, but the committee changed it to $25.

That fee drew the ire of several agricultural advocates, including the North Dakota Farmers Union and North Dakota Stockmen’s Association.

“HB 1421 raises taxes on farmers, creates farm operational inefficiency, provides unwarranted and unworkable mandates, is unenforceable and does nothing to improve public safety,” the North Dakota Grain Growers Association said in a letter.

The full House voted 69-22 to pass HB 1298 on Friday. HB 1421 has not made it to the House floor, but the Transportation Committee recommended in a 14-0 vote that the bill be killed.

If one of the bills becomes law, the increase would be the first since 2003, when North Dakota upped the speed limit from 70 to 75 mph. Other states, including South Dakota and Montana, have 80 mph speed limits on their interstates.

Minnesota’s interstate speed limit is 70 mph.

At least five other states, including Indiana and New York, also have proposed legislation to up their interstate speed limits to 80 mph.

North Dakota has tried but failed several times over the last decade to increase the interstates’ speed limit, most recently in 2023. Rep. Ben Koppelman, a Republican from West Fargo who introduced HB 1298, wrote the same bill two years ago.

The Legislature passed the bill, but then-Gov. Doug Burgum, a Republican, vetoed it over concerns of speeding-related deaths. He also said he could not support the proposed legislation without a “primary seat belt law.”

The House passed a bill requiring all occupants of a vehicle to wear a seat belt the day after the veto, sending it to Burgum’s office for final approval. The Legislature did not have enough votes to override Burgum’s rejection of the speed limit increase.

Koppelman told The Forum that he feels his bill has at least as much support as it has had in the past.

“This year, we won’t have a governor who’s going to veto what we passed last year as a threat to encourage the passage of the seat belt bill,” he said. “Last session, we did not quite have veto-proof majorities, but we had reasonable margins of victory in each chamber.”

North Dakota

Gov. Kelly Armstrong

has not expressed his view on increasing the speed limit.

“The governor generally doesn’t comment on bills (other than those he’s proposed, of course) before they reach his desk,” said Armstrong spokesman Mike Nowatzki.

In testifying in support of the bill, Geoff Simon said motorists need consistency on interstate. Simon is the executive director of the Western Dakota Energy Association but testified as an individual resident of the state.

No one spoke against HB 1298 when the committee held a hearing on Thursday, though there were letters against it saying it would present safety concerns.

Koppelman said the North Dakota Department of Transportation would prefer a minimum speed limit with a maximum. Rep. Eric Murphy, a Grand Forks Republican who also signed on to Koppelman’s bill, has put his name on such a legislation in the form of HB 1421.

“That was the poison pill that killed the bill that year because the farmers don’t want a minimum speed limit,” Koppelman said of the minimum speed. “I think that’s what is going to likely make my bill to the finish line and not Rep. Murphy’s bill.”

Murphy acknowledged the DOT’s recommendation for a minimum speed. He told The Forum his concerns about tractors not being allowed if a minimum speed is set.

Most modern tractors can drive a maximum of 25 mph.

“Clearly, they should seek other alternatives, but there are some farmers out there who literally have to use the interstate,” Murphy said.

He added language into HB 1421 that would give exceptions to farm tractors, but it would come at a cost.

Along with the $25 permit, a vehicle with flashing hazard signals would have to follow the tractor on the interstate. It also could not let debris fall onto the highway.

“That would allow them to move equipment well below the 40 mph speed limit,” Murphy said.

HB 1421 would also give the North Dakota Department of Transportation the ability to reduce the maximum limit in “a high accident zone,” such as extreme curves in the interstate, to 60 mph, Murphy said. The DOT could reduce the speed when weather impacts travel, according to the bill.

Ag producers use the interstate rarely and as a last resort, said Brent Baldwin, president of the Red River Valley Sugarbeet Growers Association. The bill could open the door to additional fees, he added.

For farmers to get across rivers, particularly at the North Dakota-Minnesota border, the only option is the interstate, said Pete Hanebutt, public policy director for the North Dakota Farm Bureau. Weather can flood roads and force farmers to take the interstate, he said.

“I think there are an awful lot of holes in this bill,” Hanebutt said during a House Transportation Committee hearing on Friday.

Koppelman said HB 1421 is an attempt at a compromise that does not leave anyone happy. There is no reason to support that, he said.

“We don’t need to do that at the expense of farmers,” he said.

North Dakota’s abortion ban will not be enforced while the state appeals an earlier decision that found it unconstitutional, the state’s highest court ruled Friday.

That appeal has yet to fully play out in the state Supreme Court after a judge struck down the law in September.

North Dakota has had no abortion providers since the only one moved from Fargo to neighboring Moorhead, Minnesota, in 2022. The only scenarios in which North Dakotans can currently obtain an abortion in the state would be for life- or health-preserving reasons at a hospital.

The plaintiffs had contended that keeping the overturned ban from being enforced was important for patients with pregnancy complications who go to a hospital seeking medical care that might be delayed because of the law.

Attorneys for the state had asked the North Dakota Supreme Court to let the ban be enforced pending appeal. They said a stay “is warranted because this case presents serious, difficult, and unresolved constitutional questions that are of profound importance to the people of this State,” among other reasons.

State District Judge Bruce Romanick had earlier denied such a request, saying: “It would be non-sensical for this Court to keep a law it has found to be unconstitutional in effect pending appeal.”

The Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents the abortion clinic and several physicians who challenged the law, opposed enforcement of the overturned ban. The court heard oral arguments on the state’s request in November.

In the three-member majority opinion, Justice Daniel Crothers cited several legal reasons against the state’s arguments, writing at one point: “The upshot of the State’s argument is that any decision that recognizes a previously unobserved constitutional right should warrant a stay. We reject the request to adopt such a tenuous connection between the proposition advanced by the State and our precedent.”

The plaintiffs welcomed the decision.

“Today’s decision to keep the abortion ban blocked was the only logical outcome,” Meetra Mehdizadeh, senior staff attorney at the center, said in a statement. “People are dying without access to abortion, and still the State sought to stop pregnant North Dakotans facing dangerous situations from getting the care they need. It’s shameful. We will not stop fighting until this ban is struck down once and for all.”

In a statement, North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley said: “This is only a decision on the stay motion, not on the constitutional merits of the legislation. North Dakota will continue moving forward to fully litigate this matter before the state Supreme Court, where we intend to establish that the law passed by our legislature is clearly constitutional.”

The case has had a winding road since the Red River Women’s Clinic initially challenged the state’s previous abortion ban in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022.

In 2023, North Dakota’s Republican-controlled Legislature revised the state’s abortion laws. That law criminalized the performance of an abortion as a felony, with the only exceptions to save the life of a mother or to prevent a “serious health risk” to her. The ban also allowed for abortions in cases of rape or incest but only up to six weeks gestation, which is often before many women know they are pregnant. The plaintiffs said the law was unconstitutionally vague and its health exception too narrow.

Republican state Sen. Janne Myrdal, who introduced the 2023 bill that became law, said she doesn’t view Friday’s decision as a setback.

“It’s not a reflection of the validity of the constitutionality of the law … and I don’t read anything more into that fact, actually,” Myrdal said.

A Center for Reproductive Rights spokesperson said the clinic has no current plans to return to North Dakota.