Senate rejects bill to make school meals universally free, 24–22, after heated debate

The North Dakota Senate voted 24–22, with one absent, to reject House Bill 16-24, a one-year measure to provide free breakfast and lunch in K–12 public schools across the state that sponsors estimated would cost about $65 million for the first year.

Senator Shively, the bill carrier, said the measure would deliver relief to families and keep money in households by covering school meal costs. "Doing this would provide property tax relief… [it] would give dollars back into the pocket pockets of our parents," Shively said during floor remarks describing committee testimony and the bill’s intent.

Opponents argued the bill should not be advanced in a special session and warned of budgetary risks and loss of legislative control if the policy were placed in the constitution or implemented without broader public deliberation. Senator Clemens said the measure risks making government "allowing them to get by with less responsibility for their children" and criticized the timing and cost. Senator Powers urged senators to "respect the process" and allow the initiative petition to go to voters instead of bypassing that route.

Senators debated whether adopting a statutory program now would preempt an initiated constitutional amendment already gathering signatures. Several speakers, including Senator Angus and Senator Lee, said a constitutional amendment would lock future legislatures out of adjusting the policy; Angus warned of an expanding entitlement and uncertain long‑term cost. Others, including Senator Cleary and Senator Matherne, framed the bill as direct assistance to working families and a simplification of benefit delivery.

An amendment offered by Senator Magram that would have redirected the same $65 million to increase the primary-residence property tax credit instead of funding universal meals failed on a recorded roll call, 14 ayes to 32 nays with one absent. The floor then returned to final passage. After the recorded vote on the bill, the tally showed 22 ayes and 24 nays and the bill was lost.

The session record shows both procedural and policy objections: concerns about leaving federal dollars unclaimed if households stop signing up for free-reduced programs, potential administrative burdens on small rural districts, the source of funding (in testimony linked to the Strategic Investment and Improvement Fund), and whether a special session provided adequate public input. Senator Van Oosting noted many eligible families do not sign up for federal programs; Senator Lee corrected a misstatement by another senator, clarifying that Medicaid (not Medicare) is the program that serves lower-income people of all ages.

Because the bill failed in the Legislature, advocacy groups and organizers may proceed with an initiated constitutional amendment drive; senators noted repeatedly that an initiative remains an active path for proponents.

Next steps: with the bill defeated, proponents can continue the ballot process or pursue statutory changes in a future regular session. The Senate did not adopt a clincher motion to reconsider before adjourning sine die.