Emily Thompson, right, legal division director for Legislative Council, speaks during a committee meeting next to John Bjornson, director of Legislative Council, on Aug. 13, 2025. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor)
Lawmakers are considering a bill to clarify the legislative veto process after Gov. Kelly Armstrong’s office appeared to accidentally line-item veto housing funding in May.
Armstrong in his veto message indicated he was vetoing $150,000 the 2025 Legislature set aside for a Native American homelessness liaison, but a staff member also crossed out $25 million for affordable housing and $10 million for homelessness in the bill markup.
The legislative and executive branches disagreed over how to interpret the line-item veto, leading to a larger dispute over the scope of the governor’s veto power.
The interim Legislative Procedure and Arrangements Committee on Wednesday advanced a bill draft lawmakers say will prevent similar conflicts from arising in the future.
The draft legislation would make it so that when a governor’s line-item veto message and bill markup conflict, the markup would be considered the authority on what the veto actually does. This is in contrast to a recent opinion by Attorney General Drew Wrigley that found that the bill markups are visual aids and do not change the substance of a veto.
The proposed bill would also provide more specific instructions on what should be included in each veto and which officials the governor’s office would send copies of the veto to.
“We don’t see this as infringing on the governor’s veto power in any way,” Emily Thompson, legal division director for Legislative Council, said of the draft during the meeting.
The Legislative Procedure and Arrangements Committee voted to forward the proposal to Legislative Management.
The committee on Wednesday also discussed a bill draft to create a more formal mechanism for calling special sessions to override vetoes by the governor after the legislative session adjourns.
Legislative Council proposed a system where lawmakers are polled 21 days after the session on whether they want to reconvene for a veto override session.
The idea received a mixed response from committee members, in part because lawmakers only get 80 legislative days each biennium.
“Let’s say we’ve set aside three days — that’s all we have left — and we’re coming back to override a bill that really isn’t a substantial bill,” Senate Majority Leader David Hogue, R-Minot, said. “We don’t want to burn our days just to override that.”
Sen. Kristin Roers, R-Fargo, suggested earmarking a day well in advance for lawmakers to handle potential post-session vetoes.
“For people like me who have to return to a day job and your boss would like to know what day you’re going to be gone, there is some benefit for having that future date pre-scheduled,” she said. “We can always cancel it.”
The committee asked Legislative Council to prepare an amended bill draft to reflect Roers’ suggestion for consideration at its next meeting.
Some lawmakers on Wednesday said the two bill drafts are also a way to address what they view as a separation of powers issue raised by the attorney general’s opinion on Armstrong’s line-item veto.
The opinion, issued in June, found that the accidental markup didn’t create any problems because Armstrong was clear in his memo about what he intended to veto.
Legislators voiced concerns that the opinion could give the Governor’s Office and Attorney General’s Office broad discretion to decide the meaning of unclear vetoes.
“We want to make sure that there’s a balance, that the legislative branch is not losing any authority,” House Majority Leader Mike Lefor, R-Dickinson, said during Wednesday’s meeting.
The Attorney General’s Office on Wednesday said it was not aware of the proposed legislation and did not have a position on it. The Governor’s Office also declined to comment on the legislation.
Legislative Council’s attorneys said previously in their own analysis that Wrigley’s opinion conflicts with legal precedent, including previous rulings by the North Dakota Supreme Court.
They wrote that the Legislature could hold a special session and override the veto, though lawmakers have signaled they don’t intend to go that route. Wrigley previously called Legislative Council’s analysis a “political document” and said the agency doesn’t get to decide the scope of the governor’s authority.
The Office of Management and Budget has already allocated the money at issue in the veto. The agency in an email last month confirmed it dispersed the $34.85 million to the Housing Finance Agency on July 1.
North Dakota Monitor reporter Mary Steurer can be reached at [email protected].
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Comments