When voters head to the polls November 3, they will decide whether North Dakota should guarantee free breakfast and lunch to every public school student, regardless of family income.
Constitutional Measure 2 would require public schools to provide one breakfast and one lunch each school day at no cost to students or their families. It would also require the state to reimburse schools for those meals, with an estimated cost of $124.3 million to $134.3 million every two years.
But the debate surrounding Measure 2 extends beyond school lunches. At its center is a question about the role of state government, how taxpayer money should be spent, and whether school meal funding should be written into the North Dakota Constitution rather than a policy determined by the Legislature.
What Would Measure 2 Do?
If approved, Measure 2 would amend the North Dakota Constitution to require all public schools, including public charter schools, to provide one free breakfast and one free lunch every school day to enrolled students.
The requirement would apply regardless of a family’s income.
Private schools, Bureau of Indian Education schools, and other tribal schools would have the option to participate.
The program would begin with the 2027–28 school year.
Schools would be required to maximize available federal meal reimbursements, with the state covering the remaining costs under the measure’s reimbursement formula.
Unlike a traditional legislative program, the guarantee would be written into the state Constitution. Lawmakers could establish procedures and funding mechanisms but could not simply eliminate the requirement through ordinary legislation.
Aren’t Students Already Receiving Free Meals?
North Dakota already provides free school meals to many students.
Federal programs provide free or reduced-price meals based on family income. North Dakota lawmakers have expanded that assistance beyond federal eligibility requirements.
During the 2025 legislative session, lawmakers increased the income eligibility threshold to 225% of the federal poverty level.
That means qualifying families earning above the traditional federal eligibility limits can also receive school breakfast and lunch at no charge.
Additionally, North Dakota law protects students from being denied a reimbursable school meal because of unpaid meal balances.
However, those protections do not mean every family’s meals are free.
When a student does not qualify for assistance and the family fails to pay, the school may accumulate unpaid meal debt. Districts must then address those outstanding balances, sometimes through collection efforts, donations, or other funding sources.
The distinction is significant: Under current policy, students are protected from being denied meals, but families can still be responsible for the cost.
Measure 2 would eliminate that financial responsibility for the covered meals, regardless of income.
What Would It Cost?
According to the state’s official fiscal estimate, Measure 2 would increase ongoing state spending by approximately $124.3 million to $134.3 million during the 2027–29 biennium.
That works out to approximately $62 million to $67 million annually.
The costs would be adjusted for inflation in subsequent years, meaning the expenditure could increase over time.
The measure does not establish a new tax or specify that the money must come from a particular tax.
Instead, the Legislature would be required to identify a funding source.
If lawmakers could not identify sufficient funding, reimbursement would come from the state’s Legacy Earnings Fund.
Opponents have raised concerns about committing future Legacy Fund earnings to an ongoing constitutional obligation.
Opponents Question the Constitutional Requirement
During an interview with The Dakotan, Bob Harms, who has been advocating against Measure 2, said his primary concern is not whether children should receive meals but whether the policy belongs in the Constitution.
“The real question is, should we put this policy into our Constitution, where we can only change it with another vote of the good people of North Dakota,” Harms said.
Harms also acknowledged that existing school meal assistance could be improved.
“Well, I don’t think it’s adequate yet. And the place to address that is really in the legislature,” he said.
Harms argued that legislators should have the flexibility to expand income eligibility, address unpaid meal balances, and adjust state funding as circumstances change.
He also questioned providing state-funded meals to families that can already afford to pay.
Senate Majority Leader David Hogue expressed similar concerns during an earlier interview with The Dakotan.
“One, just like the governor, I don’t support any spending that is embedded in our Constitution,” Hogue said. “That’s always a mistake, in my judgment.”
Hogue also objected to removing income eligibility requirements.
“The bigger flaw with the measure is, it provides free lunches to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay,” he said.
Opponents argue that a more targeted approach could provide greater assistance to families who need it without committing the state to universal benefits.
Supporters Say Every Child Should Have Access
Supporters of Measure 2 argue that school meals should be treated as an essential part of public education.
The Together for School Meals campaign says universal meals would reduce financial pressure on families, eliminate stigma associated with income-based assistance, and ensure that children can participate in school meal programs without worrying about their parents’ ability to pay.
The campaign estimates that families could save nearly $1,000 per student annually, depending on their current meal expenses.
Supporters also point out that families can earn too much to qualify for assistance while still struggling with grocery bills, housing costs, and other everyday expenses.
Under Measure 2, those families would no longer need to pay for the standard school breakfast and lunch.
Supporters maintain that providing meals to every student, rather than requiring families to qualify through income applications, would create a more consistent system and remove financial barriers to participation.
They also argue that a constitutional guarantee would protect school meal funding from changes in future legislative priorities.
Could the Legislature Address This Without Measure 2?
North Dakota lawmakers already have the authority to expand school meal assistance without amending the Constitution.
The expansion to 225% of the federal poverty level is one example.
Lawmakers could also consider higher income thresholds, additional funding for school meal debt, or other changes to the existing system.
That distinction has become one of the central arguments against Measure 2.
Opponents believe the Legislature should retain the ability to determine who qualifies and how much the state spends.
Supporters argue that leaving the issue to lawmakers creates uncertainty and that a constitutional amendment would establish a permanent guarantee for students and families.
The difference is not simply whether the state can fund more school meals. It is whether voters want to require the state to do so for every student.
What Does a Yes or No Vote Mean?
A YES vote would amend the North Dakota Constitution to guarantee one free breakfast and one free lunch each school day to students in public schools, regardless of household income. It would also establish the state’s obligation to reimburse schools for those meals.
A NO vote would reject the constitutional amendment, leaving the existing school meal programs and funding structure in place, subject to future legislative changes.
Measure 2 presents voters with a choice between continuing an income-based system that lawmakers can modify and establishing a universal school meal guarantee in the state’s Constitution.
