The Senate State and Local Government Committee heard hours of testimony on a bill to move North Dakota from biennial to annual legislative sessions, with supporters arguing the change would let interim committees produce better‑vetted bills and opponents warning it would raise costs and strain legislators and stakeholders.

Proponents said annual sessions and more action from interim committees would allow bills to be developed and vetted throughout the year so they arrive on the floor more fully formed. "Your interim committees are going to be working a little bit harder ... when you come to your annual session, all of those interim committees should have a handful of bills that are already able to be voted on and sent to the floor," a member of the committee testified. Representative Scott Lauser, who described his past opposition to annual sessions, said joint interim committee meetings that meet monthly could reduce the front‑loading of work in the first weeks of a session and give leadership more time to place bills in the correct committee.

Supporters also pointed to other states. Jeff Simon of the Western Dakota Energy Association noted South Dakota has operated annual sessions for decades and brought South Dakota Senator Jim Melhoff to offer the committee an overview of that state's 38‑day schedule and how its joint procedures and appropriations process function.

Opponents urged caution. Pete Hanover of the North Dakota Farm Bureau, testifying in opposition, said experiences in other states often led to higher budgets and greater pressure on rural legislators and their staffs. "If Texas with a land mass and a budget bigger than a lot of European countries can do this on a biennial basis, why in the world wouldn't we?" he said to illustrate the point that schedules and powers vary widely by state. Senator Lee and others asked whether the state's constitution and existing 80‑day biennial structure already set limits; one senator noted, "The constitution already grants us 80 days every biennium." Committee members repeatedly described the proposal as complex and likely to upset existing processes if done hastily.

The discussion focused less on a single draft text than on broader logistics: how interim committees would be structured, whether legislative management would gain new powers, the need for clearer continuity amid term limits, and whether rules rather than statute could accomplish some changes. Witnesses offered a range of implementation details, including proposals for standing joint interim committees meeting monthly, and cautioned that any shift would involve a period of transition.

Committee action: At the close of the hearing the chair announced the hearing for House Bill 1408 was closed for the day; the transcript records no committee vote on the bill during this session.

The committee will consider the bill further; committee members said they expect extended discussion and stakeholder engagement if the proposal proceeds to committee markup.