Port: When it comes to school bonds, a simple majority should be good enough

Chris Flynn / The Forum Opinion by Rob Port Today at 12:52 PM Listen Comments Share Share this article Opinion Opinion Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. The Trust Project What is this? MINOT — North Dakotans just had a debate over how much political support should be required to amend the state constitution. Measure 1 would have set that threshold at 60% of the vote. Voters rejected that proposal, leaving in place the simple-majority requirement for constitutional amendments. ADVERTISEMENT If a simple majority is good enough to amend the state constitution, why isn't it good enough for school bonds? It's a particularly pertinent question given some recent results of bond elections. Bismarck Public Schools put two bond questions on the ballot this year in June and November. Both failed despite strong majority support; the June proposal got nearly 59% of the vote while the November version received almost 57%. Surrey, a small community just outside of Minot, saw bond proposals fail in June (with nearly 59% of the vote) and in November (with more than 59%). Since Election Day, we've learned that the November vote may well have passed had a ballot error not kept some voters from casting a vote on it. It's been tough sledding for school districts looking for bond approval. Since 2016, North Dakota voters have considered 82 school bond questions, and 50, or about 61%, of them failed. Of those 50 failures, 21 were rejected despite simple majority support, and 15 of those received more than 55% of the vote. More than 40% of the failed bond measures over the last decade were denied despite majority support. Are we sure that's what we want? The Measure 1 debate focused intensely on the "will of the people." Voters said that a simple majority is good enough to amend the constitution. Why isn't it good enough for a local bond? I can't argue that every proposed bond represents prudent fiscal policy, but if a majority believes a given question is a good idea, and if they say as much with their votes at the ballot box, why shouldn't it pass? I'm probably more familiar with Surrey's situation than any other, given the district's proximity to me, and I believe school officials when they say their situation is "dire." Yet despite more than 59% of the voters saying yes to a new bond, the district must do without. Does that make sense? ADVERTISEMENT Gov. Kelly Armstrong, who poured significant resources into the attempt to pass Measure 1, made that point during a Sept. 30 episode of Plain Talk. "It's harder to get school construction money passed than it is to change the North Dakota Constitution," he said, calling that "misaligned priorities" and saying he would sign legislation to lower the threshold if lawmakers sent it to him. Skepticism of local bonds, born of reasonable fears over obligating taxpayers to long-term debt, has deep roots in North Dakota. Lawmakers created a majority vote requirement for local government bonds in 1925. In 1927, they moved the threshold to a 60% supermajority requirement. In 1933, they set the bar higher, at more than two-thirds. In 1947, they established thresholds based on population (60% for communities with more than 5,000 residents and two-thirds for those smaller), but in 1969 they standardized the requirement at 60% for school districts. In 1985, they did the same for municipalities. MORE FROM ROB PORT Port: North Dakota mandated school meals but didn't fund them. It's time to pay the bill. 3d ago Plain Talk: 'We're just disconnected' — Rep. Julie Fedorchak breaks down the GOP midterm wipeout 3d ago Port: Ballot error impacting Surrey school bond worse than first reported 3d ago During the 2025 session, lawmakers passed House Bill 1482, which required that bond questions appear only on the June and November ballots in election years. The idea was to stop local governments from playing games with voter turnout by scheduling elections away from the regular election cycle. It's a valid concern — I'm not sure that the public's interests are served by special elections scheduled in a way that produces low turnout — but it's now made funding local government, including school districts, with voter-approved bonds a more fraught process. In Surrey, where a ballot coding error prevented 12 voters from weighing in on the bond question, potentially costing the district approval, the school district wouldn't be allowed to put the question on the ballot again until the 2028 cycle. That's a particularly heartbreaking example, but Bismarck is in the same boat. A majority of voters said yes to two different versions of a bond for the district, but because it was just short of the supermajority threshold, the district can't ask again until June 2028 at the earliest. From the perspective of a school district that has pressing, or even dire, needs — needs that a majority, if not a supermajority, agrees exist and need funding — does that timeline work? This is something that lawmakers have to address in their upcoming session. ADVERTISEMENT Maybe a supermajority threshold works if local governments aren't restricted to asking bond questions on only two ballots every two-year political cycle. Though I'm not sure it makes a lot of sense if we can amend the state constitution with a simple majority. Lawmakers have made school bonds difficult to pass and, when they fail, difficult to bring back before voters. At some point, we have to ask whether we're protecting taxpayers or simply preventing communities from acting on the decisions a majority of their voters have already made. Comments Share Share this article Opinion Opinion Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. The Trust Project What is this? Tags Tags GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS NORTH DAKOTA PLAIN TALK INFORUM BISMARCK PLAIN TALK COLUMN ELECTION 2026 NORTH DAKOTA LEGISLATURE EDUCATION Opinion by Rob Port Rob Port is a news reporter, columnist, and podcast host for the Forum News Service with an extensive background in investigations and public records. He covers politics and government in North Dakota and the upper Midwest. Reach him at [email protected]. Click here to subscribe to his Plain Talk podcast. Twitter Facebook Listen to this article Conversation ADVERTISEMENT What To Read Next Columns Guest column: Facts undermine justification offered for 'votes about anger' 3h ago · By Mike Hulett Columns Guest column: Protecting North Dakotans' property means protecting their information 1d ago · By Joseph Heringer Columns Guest column: 'We're just disconnected' 2d ago · By Sheri McMahon ADVERTISEMENT Get Local Must Reads Fargo Levi Larteh sentenced to 55 years in 2025 apartment stairwell slaying 20h ago · By Tasha Carvell College Matthew Donovan moves into larger room, has upcoming CT scan, father says 6h ago · By Forum staff Moorhead Moorhead City Council signs off on plan to sell River View Heights 16h ago · By Ingrid Harbo West Fargo West Fargo racer says Bonneville crash ‘changed everything’ 18h ago · By Kevin Wallevand