BISMARCK, N.D. (North Dakota Monitor) – A Democratic lawmaker in North Dakota is calling for the Legislature to address data centers while legislators are gathered for a special session next month.
But a top legislative leader is skeptical that a three-day special session, focused on regulating kratom, is the right time to debate data centers.
Sen. Tim Mathern of Fargo plans to propose a bill draft that would prohibit public officials from signing non-disclosure agreements with data center developers. He also plans to propose a temporary data center moratorium, though acknowledged that is unlikely to be embraced by other legislators.
“Strike when the iron is hot,” Mathern said Monday. “It’s the governor who called a special session, and this is more important than any other topic for a special session.”
Mathern’s proposal, expected to be discussed during a joint press conference Tuesday with Vern Thompson, the Democratic nominee for agriculture commissioner, would prohibit non-disclosure agreements that involve the project location, energy and water use, tax incentives and several other topics.
Legislative staff had not finished drafting the proposed bill as of Monday afternoon and the exact language was not available.
Mathern and Thompson said data centers are the No. 1 issue they hear about from people around the state, and they argue a moratorium would give the public time to breathe and do their research.
Mathern said he’s bringing the moratorium proposal because he wants his colleagues to have options when considering ways to address data centers in the short term. He said doing nothing could create its own share of problems.
“If they wait, there will be more trouble out around North Dakota, regarding data centers,” Mathern said. “There will be more out-of-state companies taking advantage of our lack of transparency in North Dakota. That would be unfortunate.”
Republican Gov. Kelly Armstrong called the special session to address concerns about kratom and related substances. Lawmakers can also consider other topics, though they’ve said they want to limit the session to three days. Legislative Management, a committee of senior lawmakers, will meet on Monday to decide whether any other proposed legislation can be introduced.
Legislative Council has received more than 20 requests to draft bills or resolutions for the special session, said Director John Bjornson. The requests, which are not yet publicly available, cover about a dozen topics, he said. It’s not clear how many of those drafts will advance to Legislative Management next week.
Democrats, who make up a minority in the Legislature, have three members of Legislative Management while Republicans have 13 members.
Senate Majority Leader David Hogue, R-Minot, said he questions whether the special session is the appropriate time for the Legislature to consider regulation of data centers.
“I’m dubious that that is something that is appropriate for the upcoming special session,” Hogue said. “That’s why we set up the interim committee.”
Legislative Management, which Hogue chairs, created an interim Artificial Intelligence and Data Centers Committee this summer to study the topics prior to the 2027 legislative session. Hogue said if Mathern or others have proposals, that is the appropriate venue to share them.
Hogue said he is open to discussing a prohibition on public officials signing non-disclosure agreements with data center developers, but this isn’t the right time to do so.
“Anything that constrains or restricts the ability of an elected official to communicate with the people that they serve is something we ought to take a look at,” Hogue said. “I’ve never been asked to sign an NDA as part of a discussion being a public official.”
Mathern disagrees. The Democratic lawmaker said data centers are the most important topic lawmakers could address during the special session. He had already begun working on proposals for next year’s legislative session, but a special session would allow lawmakers to take action sooner.
Thompson, who favors a moratorium on data centers, said the state has a responsibility to at least ensure the process is transparent.
“That’s not the North Dakota way. We have an open government,” Thompson said. “We got to get away from the secret secrecy about all of this.”
Comments