Summary#

SCR-4027 is a Senate concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to Section 25 of Article XI of the North Dakota Constitution. It would bar certain political uses of proceeds from games of chance, lotteries, or similar activities, with an exception for raffles; its stated goal is to limit the use of gaming proceeds for political purposes.

• The proposal says proceeds may not be used to support, finance, or influence a political campaign, candidate for office, ballot measure, or political organization, unless the game of chance is a raffle.
• The constitutional section also addresses state participation in a multi-state lottery and games run by certain nonprofit and public-spirited organizations. The supplied text does not clearly show whether the proposal changes those existing provisions.
• The resolution proposes submitting the amendment to voters at the 2026 general election. It has passed the Senate, but the supplied status does not show that it has passed the House or that voters have approved it. It is not yet a constitutional change.

What it means for you#

• Nonprofit and other authorized gaming organizations: If the amendment takes effect, they could not use proceeds from covered gaming activities for the listed political purposes, except where the raffle exception applies.
• Campaigns, candidates, ballot measures, and political organizations: They could not receive or benefit from covered proceeds for those purposes, subject to the raffle exception.
• Voters: The proposal would go to voters only if the legislative process results in its submission. Voter approval would be needed for the proposed constitutional change to take effect.
• General public: The proposal does not itself ban charitable gaming or political spending from other sources. It addresses the use of proceeds from gaming, lotteries, or similar activities.

Money#

No cost information is available in the supplied material.

• The material gives no spending estimate, funding source, or estimate of costs to gaming organizations or government.
• It does not specify fees, fines, enforcement costs, or a new enforcement office.

What is unclear#

• The supplied amendment text appears to combine old and proposed wording, so it is not possible to verify every change to the current constitutional section. The current section was not supplied separately.
• “Similar activity” and “support, finance, or influence” are not defined in the supplied text.
• The text does not explain how the raffle exception applies alongside references to lotteries or similar activities.
• The proposal does not set out who would enforce the restriction, how suspected violations would be handled, or what penalties would apply.
• The supplied material does not show whether the House has acted on the resolution.

Case for#

• The proposal appears intended to keep gaming proceeds from being used for political purposes, rather than the charitable or other public uses described in the constitutional section.
• A possible argument for the rule is that it would draw a clearer line between proceeds raised through gaming and political activity.
• The raffle exception may preserve a way to use proceeds from that type of game for political purposes.

Case against#

• The terms describing prohibited uses are broad and undefined, leaving uncertainty about what counts as supporting, financing, or influencing a political purpose.
• The raffle exception may make the restriction less consistent across different kinds of gaming proceeds.
• The proposal does not specify enforcement, penalties, or procedures, so readers cannot tell how the restriction would be applied in practice.
• The supplied text does not make clear whether other existing rules for charitable gaming would also change.