Under the hood of the constitutional ‘free’ school lunch proposal

A constitutional measure to provide tax-funded school breakfast and lunch to K-12 students is highly likely to land on North Dakota’s ballots in November.

North Dakota’s unique constitutional amendment procedures have illuminated an alternative political runway for universal school lunch proponents after other universal school lunch proposals stalled out during January’s special session. (Interestingly, in North Dakota’s current system, local school building referendums require a higher threshold of voter approval than changes to the state constitution.)

The organization Together For School Meals recently turned in more than 57,000 petition signatures to the North Dakota Secretary of State’s Office, comfortably beyond the required 31,164 signatures. If successfully verified, a constitutional amendment will be placed on the November ballot.

Who currently receives free school meals in North Dakota?

Lawmakers in North Dakota’s 2023 and 2025 sessions expanded the federal government’s free and reduced school meals program. Currently, families who make 225% of the federal poverty level qualify for a free breakfast and lunch under North Dakota’s Expanded Eligibility guidelines. North Dakota provides school district reimbursements for those students who do not qualify for free or reduced-price meals under federal income guidelines, but whose household income falls below the state’s benchmark of 225% of the poverty level. Under current guidelines, a family of four with a household income of $74,250 or below qualifies for free school breakfast and lunch.

In the 2024 school year, 37,078 of North Dakota’s 118,878 students were eligible for free school meals under state and federal eligibility guidelines.

The 2023 legislative session expanding North Dakota’s free meals program appropriated $6 million in one-time funding. Only about half of the fund was used by the time of the 2025 legislative session, in which lawmakers expanded the program qualification guidelines and included an additional $4.5 million for the program in the state education budget.

How would universal free meals work?

North Dakota’s traditional public and charter schools would provide a free breakfast and lunch to all students in all schools, regardless of their household income, with state reimbursement. Tribal schools and private schools could opt into the program.

According to the North Dakota Monitor, the program is “estimated at $134 million for the 2027-29 biennium. If lawmakers can’t agree on how to fund the meals program, the ballot measure language directs that earnings from the Legacy Fund, now at more than $14.3 billion, would be used.” The Legacy Fund is North Dakota’s oil tax savings account.

Proponents of the measure have pitched it as a popular measure that creates financial breathing room for families of all income brackets who are feeding hungry children. Some school leaders have argued that the current system wastes the school’s and the family’s time with unnecessary paperwork, allowing hungry students to slip through the cracks.

Could this proposal have any unforeseen side effects?

It may come as a surprise, but tracking free or reduced school lunch acts as a pivotal piece of paperwork for ensuring that school districts gain an appropriate amount of compensatory funding, or extra money for schools that serve students in poverty. Title I federal aid and other types of state aid are tied to the amount of students in each district who qualify for a free or reduced lunch. It’s long been considered the simplest method to measure poverty.

Removing the requirement for students in need to file for a free or reduced lunch presents lawmakers with an entirely new headache: how does the state know which schools have students who are in poverty?

In Minnesota, which passed universal free meals in 2023, the answer has required a complex system overhaul from the past days of paper application forms. According to the Minnesota Reformer, “Districts certify students as eligible through a process called direct certification, i.e[.], the Minnesota Department of Human Services matches school district enrollment with participants in SNAP, welfare, Medicaid and other safety net programs.” 

Of course, not all students in financial need also participate in a safety net program, resulting in a structural undercount. Minnesota’s “hold harmless” provisions that temporarily allowed districts to certify their students via paper form and artificially bumped district aid expire this year. Unless further legislative action is taken, almost three quarters of Minnesota’s school districts will see a reduction in funding to support low-income students, despite having consistent student populations.

The structural effects don’t stop there. North Dakota’s budget had a structural deficit in 2025 in which general fund spending exceeded revenue collections (including transfers from the Legacy fund) by about $226 million. This deficit will approach $1 billion in the 2025-27 biennium based on current appropriations. Over the next biennium, a new constitutional spending obligation only adds to this growing budget pressure. While the Legacy Fund transfers are oil and gas revenues that have already been invested into the economy, oil and gas are inherently volatile revenues. In the short term, this proposal might be feasible, but North Dakota has work to do to ensure that it’s a wise long-term decision.

If this amendment passes and it does become clear in the future that universal free school meals are unfeasible budget requirements, lawmakers would have their hands tied. North Dakotans would have to amend the constitution once more to repeal the amendment — and a new constitutional amendment that would remove free school meals is a political dead end. If chosen, then this proposal will stick around for a long time.

Conclusions

Under the present constitutional amendment procedure, North Dakota’s voters have been authorized to vote directly on the language of the state’s constitution. This style of governance elevates the will of the people and insists that their choices be enshrined into law.

North Dakota’s voters must use their responsibility wisely. If North Dakota’s voters choose to make taxpayer-funded meals for all students (even affluent ones) a constitutional priority, then they must accept that there will be subsequent trade-offs in later budget discussions.

My colleague Kim Koppleman is primarily concerned that this measure fundamentally changes North Dakota’s constitution; given that such amendments are a well-known tradition in North Dakota’s democratic process, I’m interested in tabling the constitutional amendment issue for another day and tackling a different question entirely.

Does this constitutional amendment shape North Dakota in accordance with its spirit? North Dakota’s Latin motto, after all, tells us that Serit ut alteri saeclo prosit, or that One sows for the benefit of another age. Good stewardship of the Peace Garden State requires that voters exercise wisdom in their constitutional amendment votes.

North Dakotans are generous people, and it’s good that they want their tax dollars to go to those in need. But this proposal adds too many structural headaches for too few benefits in return. The juice isn’t worth the squeeze.

With Gov. Armstrong sounding the alarm bell about a significant disconnect between the state’s income and expenditures, it’s not the right time for North Dakota to spend luxuriously. Perhaps the extra $133 million of spending per biennium in tax money that this amendment would require could be better spent in funding early grade reading and mathematics tutors, not free lunches for the children of six-figure homes. Sympathetic lawmakers could also consider raising the income threshold for families that potentially qualify for North Dakota-subsidized school meals, from a four-person family income threshold of $74,250 to perhaps a $99,000 threshold. (Perhaps the threat of a constitutional measure will force them to take the issue more seriously in the next legislative session.)

There are smarter ways to make a difference for families.