BISMARCK, N.D. – On Jan. 23, the North Dakota Senate voted down House Bill 1624, which would have provided up to $65 million to fund free school breakfasts and lunches for every student in the state. The vote was 24 against, 22 in favor. The bill had passed in the House the previous day on Jan. 22, 55 in favor and 38 against. However, a measure for free school meals is likely to appear on the ballot in November
The bill was first introduced on Jan. 21 in a special session of the 69th North Dakota Legislative Assembly by State Representatives Mike Nathe (R-Bismarck), Pat D. Heinert (R-Bismarck), Jim Jonas (R-West Fargo), Bob Martinson (R-Bismarck), Anna Novak (R-Hazen), David Richter (R-Williston), Gregory Stemen (R-Fargo), and Liz Conmy (D-Fargo) , as well as Senators Michelle Axtman (R-Bismarck), Donald Schaible (R-Mott), Kristin Roers (R-Fargo), and Brad Bekkedahl (R-Williston) for an act to create and enact two new sections to chapter 15.1-07 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to offering school breakfast and lunch at no cost and the school meals fund.
Many who oppose the bill say they believe paying for meals should remain the parents’ responsibility, and that parents need to take advantage of the federal free/reduced meal program. Others argue that that students and parents shouldn’t need to worry about paying for school meals.
House Minority Leader Zac Ista (D-Grand Forks) remarked, “The Republican legislature has proven time and time again that they will not pass a popular bill to feed North Dakota kids and make life more affordable for families. This was the only chance we had to put money back in people’s pockets, and the Republican-dominated Senate dropped the ball.”
During a press gaggle after the signing of various bills after the special session on Jan. 23, Gov. Kelly Armstrong said he felt that school lunches polled higher than previous ballot measures such as medical marijuana or term limits. “I’ve spent a lot of time with the polling over the last two years on this issue,” he said. “I’ve done my own polling with just Republicans on this side of the issue. This is not a left versus right issue. This crosses all ideological spectrum.”
According to a press release from Communications Director Laura Dronen of the North Dakota Democratic-NPL, a 2024 poll from North Dakota United showed that 79% of North Dakotans support free school meals.
“We can’t go completely by polls,” said State Sen. Kent Weston (R- Sarles), who voted against the bill. “And if we operate in fear, we will be held hostage. Our job as legislators, I believe, is always to do what we believe is the right thing.”
Weston went on to state that he felt the bill could possibly hurt the most vulnerable affecting current programs such as those that provide tax relief. “Because we’re going to be giving free lunches to every person, (including) people that can clearly afford to do it,” he said. “We’re running into a potential budget shortfall. … So, if that happens, we’re going to have to cut something. People think we have an unlimited amount of money. That’s just not the case.”
Weston added that, since about half of North Dakota’s revenue is dependent on oil production, oil prices can have a big impact on the state budget. “What’s happened in Venezuela is probably going to push oil prices lower, so we have to take all these things in mind when we’re voting for a bill.”
Devils Lake’s own Rep. Kathy Frelich (R), who voted against House Bill 1624, was on the committee that put forth the legislation, as well as other similar ones. “There were actually three bills that came forward to legislative management on Tuesday (Jan. 20),” she said. “We put two of them forward; one was House Bill 1624 that allowed for the free lunch and free breakfast for all children in school, and the other was 1627.”
According to the Federal Register, the daily journal of the U.S. Government, the federal poverty guidelines for free meals, effective July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2026, is at 130%. Frelich said that House Bill 1627 allowed for the state to pay a second portion up to 300% of the poverty level that could apply for free and reduced meals. However, that bill failed in the House, with 48 nays and 45 yeas.
“The concerns that I had and several others had with it is we were hearing from rural schools that this (HB-1624) would be a hardship for them,” Frelich said, explaining that some rural schools she was in contact with didn’t have the staff available to supply breakfast meals. “I think the bill would have passed if it didn’t include breakfasts. It would have brought down the appropriation, but it would have been more doable for those smaller schools.”
“The other problem that we ran into is that right now, people need to apply for free and reduced meals to get that federal funding,” she said. “If everybody gets free meals, regardless of the application, then the thought is that nobody would apply for the free and reduced meals and then we would lose the federal funding. So, then what happens is that appropriation that was $65 million becomes much higher.”
Weston echoed Frelich’s reasoning in regards to applying for the federally-funded free and reduced meals as “an extra effort,” when the state would already provide them. “Some would not sign up for that, because, hey, the state’s paying for it,” he said. “Why would I take the effort?”
Frelich added that a similar bill was introduced in an earlier session last year, for free and reduced breakfasts and lunches, and the appropriation was listed at $140 million.
Dronen said that an initiated measure for free school meals is likely to receive enough signatures to appear on the ballot in November.
Weston acknowledged that if that measure passes in November, the Legislature would have to adhere to it. “We’d have to fund it,” he said. “I think it would be a big mistake, letting the government take care of individuals’ responsibilities.”
Frelich reasoned that it might be time that the voice of the people be heard. “You know, I think that people have the right to vote on that,” she said. “We’ve had this bill the last two sessions … and it’s failed. And I think it’s time for the people to decide on this, and if this is the decision they make and this is their priority, then … they have that right to make the decision. My concern is that I don’t know where the funds are going to come from. I’m not on appropriations, so I would hate to see that other need-based programs get impacted, or per-pupil payment for schools get impacted, because that would also be detrimental.”
Assistant Senate Minority Leader Josh Boschee (D-Fargo) said, “Democratic-NPL legislators have led this fight to find school meals for many sessions. In fact, the first bill I introduced during my first session in 2013 was to fund milk or juice for elementary students during their snack break if their families couldn’t afford it. We’ll continue to fight for North Dakota kids and join the majority of North Dakotans who will pass universal school meals on the ballot in November.”
“I just believe it’s a purely political decision,” Armstrong said. “You either wanted it in the Constitution or wanted it in statute. I think those were the only two options. And I think when the legislature comes back in January (2027), we will be dealing with how we implement free school lunches.”
Sen. Jeff Magrum (R-Hazelton) introduced an amendment to HB-1624 on Jan. 22 that would have used the $65 million towards additional property tax relief, but it was defeated.
