In a significant change to the state’s legislative process, North Dakota lawmakers will no longer have the opportunity to pass a so-called “Christmas tree” bill during the upcoming session. This shift comes after the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled the practice unconstitutional, forcing lawmakers to reconsider their approach as the new session kicks off.
What is a “Christmas Tree” Bill?
Historically, a “Christmas tree” bill was a last-minute legislative maneuver. This term referred to a budget bill, traditionally the final piece of legislation passed during a session, that would often get overloaded with a variety of unrelated amendments. Think of it as a legislative “catch-all,” with everything from minor technical fixes to sweeping policy changes attached to it. The term came from the way amendments were hung onto the bill like ornaments on a tree.
In North Dakota, this often happened with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) bill. The OMB bill, seen as an essential budgetary tool, was a final opportunity for legislators to slip in new funding requests, revive bills that had been defeated earlier, or make corrections to previously passed laws.
However, this approach left many scratching their heads. Why was a critical financial document being used to pass unrelated laws? In some cases, the final votes on these bills would come late into the night or early morning, often after hours of debate. This practice raised concerns about transparency, as it allowed controversial or less popular measures to bypass normal legislative scrutiny.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling
In 2023, the practice came to an abrupt halt when the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled that such amendments were unconstitutional. This decision stemmed from a legal challenge involving the North Dakota Public Employee Retirement System (NDPERS) board. The NDPERS board had challenged an amendment to the 2023 OMB bill that proposed increasing the number of board members.
The amendment had originally been introduced as a standalone bill but failed to pass. So, lawmakers inserted it into the OMB bill instead. This last-minute switch, along with other diverse amendments ranging from school funding to business grants, caught the attention of the state’s highest court. The Court ruled that including unrelated legislation in the OMB bill violated the state constitution. The decision marked a turning point in how North Dakota lawmakers would proceed in future legislative sessions.
What’s Next for Lawmakers?
As North Dakota heads into the 2025 legislative session, starting this Tuesday, lawmakers are faced with the challenge of navigating around this newly enforced restriction. Gone are the days of tacking on unrelated bills to the OMB, which means the Legislature must find a new way to address those last-minute proposals that might otherwise slip through the cracks.
John Bjornson, the director of the North Dakota Legislative Council, explained that while a new process hasn’t been fully developed yet, lawmakers are fully aware that they can no longer attach unrelated items to the OMB bill. Instead, legislators will need to find other, more transparent ways to introduce amendments or revive failed bills during the session.
“We don’t have a particular process worked out, but we’ll certainly be aware that they can’t put non-related things into the OMB bill,” Bjornson said in a recent meeting.
The Impact of the Change
This change may seem subtle on the surface, but it carries significant implications for how the Legislature operates. The “Christmas tree” bills had become a convenient way to sneak in controversial provisions without the usual scrutiny of public debate. Some argue that it allowed for necessary adjustments that would have otherwise been bogged down by political maneuvering. Others, however, saw it as a way to bypass the normal legislative process, potentially making laws less transparent and more prone to error.
Now, lawmakers will be forced to reconsider how they approach last-minute changes. It could lead to more thorough discussions of individual bills, potentially resulting in more focused legislation. On the other hand, some worry that it could slow down the process, as each proposal will now require its own individual attention and debate.
The Supreme Court’s decision has sparked discussions about how the state should balance efficiency and transparency in the legislative process. It could ultimately lead to a more organized and accountable system, but only time will tell how lawmakers will adapt.
Comments