Summary#

HCR 3035 proposed an amendment to the North Dakota Constitution; it did not become law. It would have required extra distributions from perpetual trust funds for statewide school construction, alongside regular trust-fund distributions. Its stated goal was to provide $3 billion over 10 years for construction through the statutory state-funded construction program.

• For the 2027–29 through 2035–37 bienniums (two-year periods), the state would have had to distribute an extra $600 million per biennium for school construction—$300 million a year.
• The extra distributions would have come from perpetual trust funds, in addition to the regular distributions under the proposed formula.
• The proposal also set a transition rule for the first biennium it took effect: regular distributions would be the greater of the previous biennium’s amount or 10% of the five-year average value of trust assets, excluding land and minerals. After that, regular biennial distributions would be 10% of that average.
• The extra money would go to the existing statutory state-funded construction program. The resolution did not itself set that program’s rules or say which projects would receive funds.
• HCR 3035 failed to pass the House on second reading, so it did not go to voters in 2026 under this proposal.

What it means for you#

• North Dakota voters: The resolution would have sent the constitutional amendment to voters at the 2026 general election, if adopted. It failed, so it did not do so.
• Public schools and construction projects: If approved by voters, the constitutional change would have required the extra distributions for the state-funded construction program. The bill does not identify individual schools or guarantee funding to any particular project.
• Trust beneficiaries and taxpayers: More trust money would have been distributed for school construction during the specified period. The materials do not explain the effect on future trust balances or other beneficiaries.
• Other educational or charitable institutions: The proposal retains a separate rule that distributions from an institution’s trust fund must benefit that institution. It does not describe any change to those distributions.
• General public: The proposal would not itself create a new construction program, tax, or fee.

Money#

The proposal would have required $3 billion in additional trust-fund distributions over 10 years; no estimate of longer-term effects on trust funds is available.

• The required amount was $600 million in each of five bienniums, distributed equally over each two-year period.
• Regular distributions would also have continued under the proposed formula.
• No information is provided about project costs, how the construction program would allocate the money, or the effect on trust assets and future distributions.

What is unclear#

• The available material does not include a clean copy of the existing constitutional section, so the exact changes to the current distribution rules could not be verified against current law.
• The bill does not explain which perpetual trust funds would supply the extra distributions or how the $600 million would be divided among them.
• The statutory state-funded construction program’s eligibility, application, selection, and oversight rules are not included.
• The text does not explain how the extra distributions would affect trust balances, earnings, or later distributions.
• The text provides a transition rule but does not clearly state when the amendment would take effect if voters approved it.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to provide a defined, time-limited source of money for school construction statewide.
• A constitutional requirement for equal yearly distributions could give the construction program a predictable amount over each biennium.
• Using trust distributions could fund construction without creating a new tax in this resolution.

Case against#

• The proposal would require large additional distributions, but the materials do not explain the effect on trust assets or future beneficiaries.
• The bill does not say how construction funds would be allocated, what projects would qualify, or how decisions would be overseen.
• The extra distributions would be mandatory if the amendment took effect, while the bill leaves the construction program’s key rules outside the text.