Insurance coverage, personal healthcare spending, longevity, mortality, health risks, and provider shortages.
Uninsured rate · all ages6.1%2024 · #34 of 50 · highest first
Uninsured rate · under age 657.2%2024 · #35 of 50 · highest first
Private coverage · under age 6582.4%2024 · #1 of 50 · highest first
North Dakota over time
Explore North Dakota readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. North Dakota officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a North Dakota effect.
Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a North Dakota change.
Enacted / issuedDid not proceedPending / in progressStatus unclear
Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.
Uninsured rate · all ages North Dakota · source units
North DakotaPublished U.S. benchmark
Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.
4 of 4 reviewed North Dakota actions match · 4 date markers shown. 21 major events shown separately.
North Dakota · 2024: 6.1% · Rank #34 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 8.2%
FactVote uses the Census Bureau's HIC-4_ACS historical table. Rates and 90% confidence margins of error are the published ACS 1-year estimates for the civilian noninstitutionalized population. ACS annual estimates, all ages. Standard ACS 2020 one-year data were not released; the chart leaves a gap. Survey ranks describe point estimates and do not establish significant differences. Annual observations use December 31; monthly observations use the first of the month. Lines connect consecutive readings and do not supply values between them. Missing observations break the lines.
View observations and export data
North Dakota Uninsured rate · all ages · source units
The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.
Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.
North Dakota · state comparison
Who has health coverage?
Compare ACS annual estimates for all ages or people under 65. Coverage categories can overlap and do not sum to the insured share.
North Dakota · 20246.1%
North Dakota rank#34among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark8.2%Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Uninsured rate · all ages
FactVote uses the Census Bureau's HIC-4_ACS historical table. Rates and 90% confidence margins of error are the published ACS 1-year estimates for the civilian noninstitutionalized population.
ACS annual estimates, all ages. Standard ACS 2020 one-year data were not released; the chart leaves a gap. Survey ranks describe point estimates and do not establish significant differences.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
North Dakota
2024 · North Dakota: 6.1% · Rank #34 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 8.2% · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
North Dakota Uninsured rate · all ages history
Period
North Dakota
Compare
2014
7.9%
2015
7.8%
2016
7%
2017
7.5%
2018
7.3%
2019
6.9%
2020
Not available
2021
7.9%
2022
6.4%
2023
4.5%
2024
6.1%
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. North Dakota stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. North Dakota has a dark outline.
Lower value · 2.8%Higher value · 16.7%Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
North Dakota · 6.1%2024 · Rank #34 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare North Dakota with every state · 50 ranked
Uninsured rate · all ages · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Texas
16.7%
—
#2
Georgia
12%
—
#3
Oklahoma
11.5%
—
#4
Nevada
11.4%
—
#5
Alaska
11%
—
#6
Florida
10.9%
—
#7
Arizona
10.3%
—
#7
Wyoming
10.3%
—
#9
New Mexico
10.1%
—
#10
Mississippi
9.7%
—
#10
Tennessee
9.7%
—
#12
Arkansas
9.4%
—
#13
Idaho
9.2%
—
#14
South Carolina
9%
—
#15
Montana
8.8%
—
#16
North Carolina
8.6%
—
#17
Kansas
8.5%
—
#18
Utah
8.3%
—
#19
Alabama
8.2%
—
#20
South Dakota
8.1%
—
#21
Colorado
7.9%
—
#22
Louisiana
7.7%
—
#22
Missouri
7.7%
—
#22
New Jersey
7.7%
—
#25
Indiana
7.5%
—
#26
Nebraska
7.1%
—
#27
Delaware
6.9%
—
#27
Illinois
6.9%
—
#27
Virginia
6.9%
—
#30
Kentucky
6.8%
—
#31
Ohio
6.7%
—
#32
Washington
6.5%
—
#33
Maryland
6.3%
—
#34
North Dakota · your comparison
6.1%
—
#35
California
5.9%
—
#36
Connecticut
5.8%
—
#36
Pennsylvania
5.8%
—
#36
West Virginia
5.8%
—
#39
Maine
5.5%
—
#40
Iowa
5.4%
—
#41
Wisconsin
5.3%
—
#42
Oregon
5.2%
—
#43
Michigan
5.1%
—
#43
Minnesota
5.1%
—
#45
New York
5%
—
#46
Rhode Island
4.6%
—
#47
New Hampshire
4.5%
—
#48
Vermont
4.2%
—
#49
Hawaii
3.5%
—
#50
Massachusetts
2.8%
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Share of North Dakota’s civilian noninstitutionalized residents under age 65 who lacked comprehensive health-insurance coverage at the time of the ACS survey.
This source snapshot keeps its own definition and period. A rank shown elsewhere applies only to that comparison’s measure and period.
Method and limitations
U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts, sourced from the 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimate.
This is a survey estimate for people under 65 and does not describe coverage type or continuity of coverage.
Insurance status alone does not measure affordability, access, quality, or health outcomes.
State spending is reported for 2020, the latest year available in this CMS state series. Choose a service to compare North Dakota with every state.
North Dakota · 2020$11,301
North Dakota rank#14among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$10,191Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Personal healthcare spending per resident
Personal health care expenditure per resident, assigned to the state where the patient resides.
2020 is the last year in this CMS state series. Personal health care excludes administration, public health, and investment included in national health expenditures. This is spending by all payers, not a household bill.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
North Dakota
2020 · North Dakota: $11,301 · Rank #14 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: $10,191 · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
North Dakota Personal healthcare spending per resident history
Period
North Dakota
Compare
2014
$9,005
2015
$9,357
2016
$9,682
2017
$9,961
2018
$10,269
2019
$10,653
2020
$11,301
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. North Dakota stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. North Dakota has a dark outline.
Lower value · $7.52KHigher value · $14.01KStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
North Dakota · $11,3012020 · Rank #14 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare North Dakota with every state · 50 ranked
Personal healthcare spending per resident · 2020 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
New York
$14,007
—
#2
Alaska
$13,642
—
#3
Massachusetts
$13,319
—
#4
Delaware
$12,899
—
#5
West Virginia
$12,769
—
#6
Vermont
$12,756
—
#7
South Dakota
$12,495
—
#8
Connecticut
$12,489
—
#9
Maine
$12,077
—
#10
New Jersey
$11,868
—
#11
New Hampshire
$11,793
—
#12
Rhode Island
$11,694
—
#13
Pennsylvania
$11,603
—
#14
North Dakota · your comparison
$11,301
—
#15
Wyoming
$10,989
—
#16
Minnesota
$10,846
—
#17
Maryland
$10,839
—
#18
Indiana
$10,517
—
#19
Louisiana
$10,515
—
#20
Nebraska
$10,514
—
#21
Ohio
$10,478
—
#22
California
$10,299
—
#23
Hawaii
$10,291
—
#24
Kentucky
$10,257
—
#25
Montana
$10,212
—
#26
Illinois
$10,190
—
#27
Oregon
$10,071
—
#28
Wisconsin
$9,982
—
#29
Missouri
$9,921
—
#30
Michigan
$9,897
—
#31
Florida
$9,865
—
#32
Iowa
$9,789
—
#33
Oklahoma
$9,444
—
#34
Kansas
$9,408
—
#35
Mississippi
$9,394
—
#36
Arkansas
$9,338
—
#37
Tennessee
$9,336
—
#38
Alabama
$9,280
—
#39
Washington
$9,265
—
#40
Virginia
$9,195
—
#41
North Carolina
$8,917
—
#42
New Mexico
$8,902
—
#43
South Carolina
$8,766
—
#44
Georgia
$8,758
—
#45
Arizona
$8,756
—
#46
Colorado
$8,583
—
#47
Texas
$8,406
—
#48
Nevada
$8,348
—
#49
Idaho
$8,148
—
#50
Utah
$7,522
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Use age-adjusted mortality to account for different age distributions; life expectancy summarizes period death rates.
North Dakota · 202277.9 years
North Dakota rank#17among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark77.5 yearsSame measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Life expectancy at birth
FactVote uses CDC National Center for Health Statistics annual complete life-table estimates for the total North Dakota population. Values are rounded to the published tenth of a year.
The latest published comparable state series ends in 2022, even though newer national life-expectancy estimates may be available. Period life expectancy summarizes current mortality rates; it is not a forecast of how long a particular person will live. The 2020 and 2021 estimates reflect the mortality shock during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
North Dakota
2022 · North Dakota: 77.9 years · Rank #17 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 77.5 years · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
North Dakota Life expectancy at birth history
Period
North Dakota
Compare
2018
79.3 years
2019
78.8 years
2020
76.9 years
2021
77.6 years
2022
77.9 years
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. North Dakota stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. North Dakota has a dark outline.
Lower value · 72.2 yearsHigher value · 80 yearsStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
North Dakota · 77.9 years2022 · Rank #17 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare North Dakota with every state · 50 ranked
Life expectancy at birth · 2022 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Hawaii
80 years
—
#2
Massachusetts
79.8 years
—
#3
New Jersey
79.6 years
—
#4
New York
79.5 years
—
#5
Connecticut
79.4 years
—
#6
California
79.3 years
—
#6
Minnesota
79.3 years
—
#8
Rhode Island
79.2 years
—
#9
Utah
79 years
—
#10
New Hampshire
78.7 years
—
#11
Colorado
78.5 years
—
#12
Idaho
78.4 years
—
#12
Washington
78.4 years
—
#14
Nebraska
78.3 years
—
#14
Vermont
78.3 years
—
#16
Wisconsin
78.1 years
—
#17
Florida
77.9 years
—
#17
Iowa
77.9 years
—
#17
North Dakota · your comparison
77.9 years
—
#20
Maryland
77.8 years
—
#21
Oregon
77.7 years
—
#22
Illinois
77.5 years
—
#22
Virginia
77.5 years
—
#24
Montana
77.3 years
—
#24
Pennsylvania
77.3 years
—
#24
South Dakota
77.3 years
—
#27
Texas
77.1 years
—
#28
Michigan
76.8 years
—
#28
Wyoming
76.8 years
—
#30
Arizona
76.7 years
—
#31
Maine
76.6 years
—
#32
Delaware
76.5 years
—
#32
Kansas
76.5 years
—
#34
Nevada
76.4 years
—
#35
Georgia
75.9 years
—
#35
North Carolina
75.9 years
—
#37
Alaska
75.8 years
—
#38
Ohio
75.6 years
—
#39
Indiana
75.4 years
—
#40
Missouri
75.2 years
—
#41
South Carolina
75.1 years
—
#42
New Mexico
74.5 years
—
#43
Arkansas
73.9 years
—
#44
Alabama
73.8 years
—
#44
Louisiana
73.8 years
—
#44
Oklahoma
73.8 years
—
#44
Tennessee
73.8 years
—
#48
Kentucky
73.6 years
—
#49
Mississippi
72.6 years
—
#50
West Virginia
72.2 years
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Compare age-adjusted adult prevalence using the same survey year and definition.
North Dakota · 20238.9%
North Dakota rank#38among 48 states with data
U.S. benchmark10.7%Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted
Adult self-reported prevalence, age-adjusted to a common population.
Published CDC 2019–2023 series. Missing or suppressed estimates remain unranked. Confidence intervals describe sampling uncertainty; point ranks are not significance tests.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
North Dakota
2023 · North Dakota: 8.9% · Rank #38 of 48, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 10.7% · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
North Dakota Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted history
Period
North Dakota
Compare
2019
8.3%
2020
9.4%
2021
8.9%
2022
9%
2023
8.9%
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. North Dakota stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. North Dakota has a dark outline.
Lower value · 7.8%Higher value · 15.1%Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
North Dakota · 8.9%2023 · Rank #38 of 48, highest first95% confidence interval: 8.1% – 9.7%Selected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare North Dakota with every state · 48 ranked, 2 unavailable
Diagnosed diabetes · age adjusted · 2023 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Mississippi
15.1%
95% CI: 13.7–16.6
#1
West Virginia
15.1%
95% CI: 13.9–16.3
#3
Louisiana
14.6%
95% CI: 13.4–15.8
#4
Alabama
14%
95% CI: 12.7–15.3
#5
Arkansas
13.1%
95% CI: 12–14.3
#6
South Carolina
12.7%
95% CI: 11.9–13.6
#6
Tennessee
12.7%
95% CI: 11.7–13.8
#8
Texas
12.1%
95% CI: 11–13.3
#9
Indiana
11.7%
95% CI: 11.1–12.4
#10
Georgia
11.5%
95% CI: 10.7–12.3
#10
Ohio
11.5%
95% CI: 10.8–12.2
#12
Oklahoma
11.3%
95% CI: 10.5–12.1
#13
Delaware
11.1%
95% CI: 9.8–12.6
#14
North Carolina
11%
95% CI: 9.8–12.3
#15
Illinois
10.9%
95% CI: 9.9–12.1
#15
Maryland
10.9%
95% CI: 10.2–11.7
#15
Michigan
10.9%
95% CI: 10.1–11.8
#18
Nevada
10.8%
95% CI: 8.9–13
#18
New Mexico
10.8%
95% CI: 9.3–12.6
#20
Missouri
10.7%
95% CI: 9.9–11.7
#20
South Dakota
10.7%
95% CI: 8.9–12.8
#22
California
10.6%
95% CI: 9.8–11.4
#23
Kansas
10.5%
95% CI: 9.7–11.3
#24
Virginia
10.4%
95% CI: 9.5–11.4
#25
Florida
10.1%
95% CI: 9.1–11.1
#26
Rhode Island
10%
95% CI: 9.1–11
#27
Arizona
9.9%
95% CI: 9.2–10.7
#27
Iowa
9.9%
95% CI: 9.2–10.7
#29
Nebraska
9.7%
95% CI: 9–10.3
#30
Wisconsin
9.6%
95% CI: 9–10.2
#31
Hawaii
9.5%
95% CI: 8.7–10.5
#31
New York
9.5%
95% CI: 8.9–10.1
#31
Oregon
9.5%
95% CI: 8.7–10.5
#34
Wyoming
9.4%
95% CI: 8.5–10.5
#35
Minnesota
9.3%
95% CI: 8.6–10
#36
New Jersey
9.1%
95% CI: 8.4–9.9
#37
Maine
9%
95% CI: 8.4–9.7
#38
North Dakota · your comparison
8.9%
95% CI: 8.1–9.7
#39
Idaho
8.7%
95% CI: 7.9–9.6
#40
Washington
8.6%
95% CI: 8.2–9
#41
Massachusetts
8.5%
95% CI: 7.8–9.4
#42
Connecticut
8.4%
95% CI: 7.6–9.3
#43
Alaska
8.2%
95% CI: 7.4–9.2
#44
Utah
8.1%
95% CI: 7.5–8.7
#45
Colorado
8%
95% CI: 7.3–8.7
#46
Montana
7.9%
95% CI: 7.2–8.7
#46
New Hampshire
7.9%
95% CI: 7.1–8.8
#48
Vermont
7.8%
95% CI: 7–8.7
—
Kentucky
Not available
No comparable published observation for this period; excluded from rank.
—
Pennsylvania
Not available
No comparable published observation for this period; excluded from rank.
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Compare coverage of need, practitioners needed, or affected population for each discipline.
North Dakota · June 30, 202636.5%
North Dakota rank#41among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark47.4%Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Primary care · need met
HRSA-designated shortage areas; measures describe need within those areas, not the entire state population.
National report totals can include territories. Designation rules and populations differ by discipline; do not add disciplines. Absolute population and practitioner ranks also reflect state size.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. North Dakota stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. North Dakota has a dark outline.
Lower value · 11.2%Higher value · 83.2%Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
North Dakota · 36.5%June 30, 2026 · Rank #41 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare North Dakota with every state · 50 ranked
Primary care · need met · June 30, 2026 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
New Jersey
83.2%
—
#2
Vermont
82.6%
—
#3
South Carolina
79.4%
—
#4
New Hampshire
74.8%
—
#5
Rhode Island
74.3%
—
#6
Louisiana
72.1%
—
#7
Hawaii
67.1%
—
#8
Utah
65.4%
—
#9
Wisconsin
65.2%
—
#10
Alabama
63%
—
#11
Connecticut
60.3%
—
#12
Massachusetts
58%
—
#13
Tennessee
58%
—
#14
Virginia
57.2%
—
#15
Pennsylvania
56.7%
—
#16
Maine
56%
—
#17
Minnesota
55.4%
—
#18
Wyoming
54.4%
—
#19
Indiana
54.2%
—
#20
California
53.2%
—
#21
Arkansas
52.6%
—
#22
Texas
49.8%
—
#23
Ohio
49.7%
—
#24
Nebraska
49.1%
—
#25
Alaska
48.9%
—
#26
North Carolina
48.1%
—
#27
Colorado
47.5%
—
#28
Michigan
44.9%
—
#29
Oregon
43.9%
—
#30
Idaho
43.9%
—
#31
Washington
42.4%
—
#32
Illinois
41.5%
—
#33
Nevada
41.5%
—
#34
Arizona
41.2%
—
#35
Kansas
41.1%
—
#36
Iowa
40.5%
—
#37
Florida
39.7%
—
#38
Georgia
39.1%
—
#39
Montana
38.5%
—
#40
West Virginia
38.3%
—
#41
North Dakota · your comparison
36.5%
—
#42
New York
35.3%
—
#43
South Dakota
34.6%
—
#44
Mississippi
34.1%
—
#45
Maryland
31.6%
—
#46
New Mexico
31.4%
—
#47
Kentucky
30.8%
—
#48
Oklahoma
28.6%
—
#49
Missouri
23.7%
—
#50
Delaware
11.2%
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Premium comparisons use a published historical all-state employer survey. Total premiums combine employer and employee payments.
North Dakota · 2020$7,216
North Dakota rank#21among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$7,149Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Single coverage premium · all firms
Average total annual employer-plan premium per enrolled employee at private-sector establishments offering coverage.
Historical 2020 published all-state table; not a current quote. Includes both employer and employee contributions, rather than just a worker’s payment. Survey estimates and small firm samples carry uncertainty. Missing estimates remain unavailable.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. North Dakota stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. North Dakota has a dark outline.
Lower value · $6.39KHigher value · $8.64KStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
North Dakota · $7,2162020 · Rank #21 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare North Dakota with every state · 50 ranked
Single coverage premium · all firms · 2020 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Alaska
$8,635
—
#2
New York
$8,177
—
#3
New Hampshire
$7,991
—
#4
Vermont
$7,868
—
#5
Wyoming
$7,743
—
#6
Nebraska
$7,611
—
#7
South Carolina
$7,516
—
#8
Connecticut
$7,501
—
#9
Maine
$7,496
—
#10
Massachusetts
$7,452
—
#11
Washington
$7,440
—
#12
New Mexico
$7,424
—
#13
Illinois
$7,376
—
#14
New Jersey
$7,373
—
#15
Maryland
$7,352
—
#16
Rhode Island
$7,326
—
#17
Indiana
$7,319
—
#18
Delaware
$7,280
—
#19
Wisconsin
$7,250
—
#20
Pennsylvania
$7,246
—
#21
North Dakota · your comparison
$7,216
—
#22
Colorado
$7,206
—
#23
Missouri
$7,179
—
#24
California
$7,173
—
#25
Florida
$7,078
—
#26
South Dakota
$7,070
—
#27
Oklahoma
$7,058
—
#28
Hawaii
$7,040
—
#29
North Carolina
$7,036
—
#30
Texas
$7,017
—
#31
West Virginia
$6,993
—
#32
Ohio
$6,989
—
#33
Kentucky
$6,949
—
#34
Iowa
$6,932
—
#35
Virginia
$6,928
—
#36
Oregon
$6,917
—
#37
Minnesota
$6,910
—
#38
Georgia
$6,876
—
#39
Montana
$6,860
—
#40
Idaho
$6,744
—
#41
Louisiana
$6,713
—
#42
Michigan
$6,683
—
#43
Kansas
$6,675
—
#44
Arizona
$6,612
—
#45
Utah
$6,593
—
#46
Mississippi
$6,561
—
#47
Nevada
$6,493
—
#48
Tennessee
$6,485
—
#49
Arkansas
$6,414
—
#50
Alabama
$6,393
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Adult statewide estimates use the same SAMHSA model and survey period. Treatment use is a share of all adults, not a share of adults with mental illness.
North Dakota · 2023–202423%
North Dakota rank#35among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark23.1%Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Any Mental Illness · adults 18+
Civilian noninstitutionalized adults age 18+, past-year prevalence or treatment use, estimated by small-area survey models.
Mental illness and depression estimates pool 2023–2024; treatment use covers 2024 only. Definitions and model-based uncertainty differ from the national page’s annual 2025 survey estimates. Point-estimate ranks do not establish significant differences. Serious mental illness is a subset of any mental illness, so their percentages must not be added.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. North Dakota stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. North Dakota has a dark outline.
Lower value · 18.1%Higher value · 31.6%Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
North Dakota · 23%2023–2024 · Rank #35 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare North Dakota with every state · 50 ranked
Any Mental Illness · adults 18+ · 2023–2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Oregon
31.6%
—
#2
Vermont
29.1%
—
#3
West Virginia
28.1%
—
#4
Washington
27.9%
—
#5
New Hampshire
27.7%
—
#6
Tennessee
27%
—
#7
Utah
26.7%
—
#8
Maine
26.7%
—
#9
Arkansas
26.6%
—
#10
Colorado
26.4%
—
#11
Rhode Island
25.8%
—
#12
Missouri
25.7%
—
#13
Montana
25.6%
—
#14
Indiana
25.3%
—
#15
Kentucky
25.3%
—
#16
Georgia
25.2%
—
#17
Iowa
25%
—
#18
Massachusetts
24.9%
—
#19
Wyoming
24.7%
—
#20
Nevada
24.6%
—
#21
Arizona
24.6%
—
#22
Wisconsin
24.6%
—
#23
Idaho
24.5%
—
#24
Nebraska
24.1%
—
#25
Louisiana
24.1%
—
#26
Alaska
24%
—
#27
Pennsylvania
23.9%
—
#28
New Mexico
23.9%
—
#28
Ohio
23.9%
—
#30
Connecticut
23.7%
—
#31
Kansas
23.7%
—
#32
Michigan
23.6%
—
#33
Virginia
23.1%
—
#34
Alabama
23%
—
#35
North Dakota · your comparison
23%
—
#36
Maryland
22.7%
—
#37
Oklahoma
22.6%
—
#38
Minnesota
22.6%
—
#39
Illinois
22.2%
—
#40
Delaware
22.1%
—
#41
New York
21.9%
—
#42
South Dakota
21.8%
—
#43
California
21.6%
—
#44
North Carolina
21.4%
—
#45
Florida
20.8%
—
#46
Texas
20.7%
—
#47
Mississippi
20.5%
—
#48
Hawaii
19.8%
—
#49
South Carolina
19.8%
—
#50
New Jersey
18.1%
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Explore current officeholders and explicitly reviewed historical executive officials, labeled at the time of their actions. Timeline dates, action type, status and search also filter this list. Read any record’s summary, latest recorded status and official evidence below, or open it beside the timeline.
4 of 4 reviewed North Dakota actions · newest first
Apr 2, 2025 · HB 1326 · A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 12.1-05-03 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to self-defense and the unlawful possession of a firearm; and to provide a penalty. · Not enacted · Senate rejected passageNorth Dakota Legislature · HB 1326
A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 12.1-05-03 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to self-defense and the unlawful possession of a firearm; and to provide a penalty.
Apr 2, 2025 · Not enacted · Senate rejected passage
Rep. Mary Schneider · Sponsored / Sen. Michael Dwyer · Sponsored / Rep. Pat D. Heinert · Sponsored / Sen. Kathy Hogan · Sponsored / Rep. Zachary Ista · Sponsored / Rep. Daniel Johnston · Sponsored / Rep. Lawrence R. Klemin · Sponsored / Sen. Jonathan Sickler · Sponsored / Rep. Christina Wolff · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
HB 1326 proposed denying the statutory self-defense justification to a person who possessed a firearm in violation of the specified provisions of section 62.1-02-01 and used it when the danger of imminent unlawful injury, sexual assault or detention occurred. The Senate rejected the bill on April 2, 2025, by 6–40. It was not enacted and did not change this justification or establish an effect on firearm deaths.
Senate rejected the measure on 2025-04-02. Second reading, failed to pass, yeas 6 nays 40. The 2025 regular session ended without enactment of this measure.
Why this record is included
The CDC firearm-death measure includes homicide, suicide and accidents. The proposal concerns a self-defense justification when specified prohibited possessors use a firearm, a limited aspect of firearm violence. It does not establish an effect on mortality. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained North Dakota evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
An individual is justified in using force upon another individual to defend oneself against danger of imminent unlawful bodily injury, sexual assault, or detention by the other individual, except that an individual is not justified in using force:
[…]
If the individual:
[…]
Possesses a firearm in violation of subdivision a or b of subsection 1 of section 62.1-02-01 and used the firearm at the time the danger of imminent unlawful bodily injury, sexual assault, or detention occurred.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Mar 19, 2025 · HB 1067 signing · Approval of Medicaid eligibility and waiver legislation · Signed · Enacted as chapter 450Governor · HB 1067 signing
Approval of Medicaid eligibility and waiver legislation
Mar 19, 2025 · Signed · Enacted as chapter 450
Gov. Kelly Armstrong · Signed
FactVote reviewed summary
Gov. Kelly Armstrong signed HB 1067 on March 19, 2025. Its medical-assistance eligibility provision disregards Social Security survivor income and court-ordered child support for children under 18 enrolled in a section 1915(c) Medicaid waiver, effective July 1, 2026. Signing is verified in the legislature’s action history and 2025 Session Laws chapter 450. It does not establish enrollment totals or a change in the uninsured share.
Approved by Gov. Kelly Armstrong on 2025-03-19; 2025 Session Laws chapter 450. Signing, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
Why this record is included
The uninsured fact covers residents under 65. Disregarding specified income for children under 18 enrolled in a Medicaid waiver concerns eligibility for one subset of that population. It does not establish new enrollment or a change in the uninsured share. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained North Dakota evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
The department shall disregard social security survivor income and court-ordered child support for a child who is under the age of eighteen years and is enrolled in a medicaid waiver under section 1915(c) of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 1915(c)].
[…]
SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. Section 1 of this Act is effective on July 1, 2026. Approved March 19, 2025 Filed March 20, 2025
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Mar 19, 2025 · HB 1067 · AN ACT to amend and reenact sections 50-24.1-02.6 and 50-24.1-26 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to medical assistance benefits and Medicaid waivers; and to provide an effective date. · Enacted · Signed by governorNorth Dakota Legislature · HB 1067
AN ACT to amend and reenact sections 50-24.1-02.6 and 50-24.1-26 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to medical assistance benefits and Medicaid waivers; and to provide an effective date.
Mar 19, 2025 · Enacted · Signed by governor
Rep. Bert Anderson · Voted for / Rep. Karen A. Anderson · Voted for / Rep. Landon Bahl · Voted for / Rep. Mike Beltz · Voted for / Rep. Mike Berg · Voted for / Rep. Macy Bolinske · Voted for / Rep. Glenn Bosch · Voted for / Rep. Collette Brown · Voted for / Rep. Nels Christianson · Voted for / Rep. Jayme Davis · Voted for / Rep. Gretchen Dobervich · Voted for / Rep. Jason Dockter · Voted for / Rep. Ty Dressler · Voted for / Rep. Clayton Fegley · Voted for / Rep. Lisa Finley-DeVille · Voted for / Rep. Jay Fisher · Voted for / Rep. Austin Foss · Voted for / Rep. Kathy Frelich · Voted for / Rep. Karen Grindberg · Voted for / Rep. Jim Grueneich · Voted for / Rep. LaurieBeth Hager · Voted for / Rep. Karla Rose Hanson · Voted for / Rep. Patrick R. Hatlestad · Voted for / Rep. Dori Hauck · Voted for / Rep. Craig Headland · Voted for / Rep. Pat D. Heinert · Voted for / Rep. Donna Henderson · Voted for / Rep. Jared Hendrix · Voted for / Rep. Dawson Holle · Voted for / Rep. Jeff Hoverson · Voted for / Rep. Zachary Ista · Voted for / Rep. Jorin Johnson · Voted for / Rep. Daniel Johnston · Voted for / Rep. Jim Jonas · Voted for / Rep. Karen Karls · Voted for / Rep. Jim Kasper · Voted for / Rep. Keith Kempenich · Voted for / Rep. Dwight Kiefert · Voted for / Rep. Lawrence R. Klemin · Voted for / Rep. Ben Koppelman · Voted for / Rep. Mike Lefor · Voted for / Rep. Donald W. Longmuir · Voted for / Rep. Scott Louser · Voted for / Rep. Roger A. Maki · Voted for / Rep. Andrew Marschall · Voted for / Rep. Bob Martinson · Voted for / Rep. Carrie McLeod · Voted for / Rep. Lisa Meier · Voted for / Rep. Alisa Mitskog · Voted for / Rep. David Monson · Voted for / Rep. Desiree Morton · Voted for / Rep. Mike Motschenbacher · Voted for / Rep. Eric J. Murphy · Voted for / Rep. Mike Nathe · Voted for / Rep. Jon O. Nelson · Voted for / Rep. Anna S. Novak · Voted for / Rep. SuAnn Olson · Voted for / Rep. Doug Osowski · Voted for / Rep. Mitch Ostlie · Voted for / Rep. Todd Porter · Voted for / Rep. David Richter · Voted for / Rep. Nico Rios · Voted for / Rep. Karen M. Rohr · Voted for / Rep. Dan Ruby · Voted for / Rep. Matthew Ruby · Voted for / Rep. Mark Sanford · Voted for / Rep. Bernie Satrom · Voted for / Rep. Mike Schatz · Voted for / Rep. Austen Schauer · Voted for / Rep. Mary Schneider · Voted for / Rep. Vicky Steiner · Voted for / Rep. Gregory Stemen · Voted for / Rep. Steve Swiontek · Voted for / Rep. Nathan Toman · Voted for / Rep. Bill Tveit · Voted for / Rep. Lori VanWinkle · Voted for / Rep. Steve Vetter · Voted for / Rep. Don Vigesaa · Voted for / Rep. Daniel R. Vollmer · Voted for / Rep. Scott Wagner · Voted for / Rep. Jonathan Warrey · Voted for / Rep. Robin Weisz · Voted for / Rep. Dennis Nehring · Voted against / Rep. Christina Wolff · Voted against
FactVote reviewed summary
HB 1067 excludes Social Security survivor income and court-ordered child support when determining medical-assistance eligibility for a child under 18 enrolled in a section 1915(c) Medicaid waiver. Section 1 takes effect July 1, 2026. The listed House members cast the indicated votes on the first engrossment on February 18, 2025; this income provision is also in the final enrolled text. Gov. Kelly Armstrong signed the bill March 19, 2025. A vote on that version does not establish support for every later amendment or new enrollment.
Approved by Gov. Kelly Armstrong on 2025-03-19; 2025 Session Laws chapter 450. Signing, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
Why this record is included
The uninsured fact covers residents under 65. Disregarding specified income for children under 18 enrolled in a Medicaid waiver concerns eligibility for one subset of that population. It does not establish new enrollment or a change in the uninsured share. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained North Dakota evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
The department shall disregard social security survivor income and court-ordered child support for a child who is under the age of eighteen years and is enrolled in a medicaid waiver under section 1915(c) of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 1915(c)].
[…]
SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. Section 1 of this Act is effective on July 1, 2026.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Feb 12, 2025 · HB 1488 · A BILL for an Act to create and enact sections 14-02.1-04.3, 14-02.1-04.4, and 14-02.1-04.5 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the creation of an abortion approval committee, a framework for abortion, and an emergency medical exception; to amend and reenact sections 12.1-19.1-03, 14-02.1-02, 14-02.1-02.1, 14-02.1-02.2, and 14-02.1-03, subsection 1 of section 14-02.1-03.1, sections 14-02.1-05, 14-02.1-07, 14-02.1-08, 14-02.1-09, and 14-10-15, and subsection 3 of section 14-10-19 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to abortion procedures, consent, and reporting requirements; and to repeal sections 14-02.1-03.4, 14-02.1-03.5, and 14-02.1-04 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to abortion restrictions. · Not enacted · House rejected passageNorth Dakota Legislature · HB 1488
A BILL for an Act to create and enact sections 14-02.1-04.3, 14-02.1-04.4, and 14-02.1-04.5 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the creation of an abortion approval committee, a framework for abortion, and an emergency medical exception; to amend and reenact sections 12.1-19.1-03, 14-02.1-02, 14-02.1-02.1, 14-02.1-02.2, and 14-02.1-03, subsection 1 of section 14-02.1-03.1, sections 14-02.1-05, 14-02.1-07, 14-02.1-08, 14-02.1-09, and 14-10-15, and subsection 3 of section 14-10-19 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to abortion procedures, consent, and reporting requirements; and to repeal sections 14-02.1-03.4, 14-02.1-03.5, and 14-02.1-04 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to abortion restrictions.
Feb 12, 2025 · Not enacted · House rejected passage
Rep. Eric J. Murphy · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
HB 1488 proposed allowing abortion through 15 weeks under a licensed physician in a licensed facility, with additional hospital committee approval and medical conditions at later stages. A medical-emergency provision would dispense with committee approval. Rep. Mike Murphy introduced the bill. The House rejected it on February 12, 2025, by 6–87. It was not enacted and cannot explain the reported 2022 abortion count.
House rejected the measure on 2025-02-12. Second reading, failed to pass, yeas 6 nays 87. The 2025 regular session ended without enactment of this measure.
Why this record is included
The fact counts abortions reported by place of occurrence in North Dakota, including nonresidents. The proposal concerns procedures performed in the state. The published fact retains the numeric 2022 count because the later 2025 count is suppressed; suppressed does not mean zero. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained North Dakota evidence context: Abortions reported by area of occurrence. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
14-02.1-04.4. Abortion limitations 1. An abortion procedure may be performed from fertilization through fifteen weeks of gestation. The abortion procedure must be performed: a. Under the supervision of a physician licensed under chapter 43-17; b. In a licensed healthcare facility; and c. In compliance with section 14-02.1-03. 2. An abortion procedure may be performed from sixteen through twenty-six weeks gestation only when: a. Approved for a medical purpose, including a serious health risk, by the licensed hospital's abortion approval committee under section 14-02.1-04.3, and b. Performed by a physician, board certified or board eligible in: (1) Obstetrics and gynecology; or (2) Family medicine with additional training in obstetrics and gynecology; and c. In compliance with section 14-02.1-03. 3. An abortion procedure may be performed from twenty-seven weeks gestation through parturition only when deemed medically required and approved by an abortion approval committee. 4. This section does not apply in a medical emergency under section 14-02.1-04.5. SECTION 9. Section 14-02.1-04.5 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows: 14-02.1-04.5. Medical emergency abortion procedures. A medical emergency decision to perform an abortion does not require approval of the abortion committee under 14-02.1-04.3. A medical emergency requiring an abortion procedure may be carried out by any physician licensed under chapter 43-17 in a medical effort to preserve the life of the mother and the fetus, at any point medically necessary during a pregnancy.
Records come from published fact relationships or reviewed topic records with official supporting evidence and verified North Dakota officeholder attribution. Historical executive officials require evidence tied to the action date and are excluded from incumbent proposals. Inclusion follows an explicit topic review, a related state fact, or the action’s title and supporting evidence. Explicit topic reviews take priority; repeated actions use the most recent explicit review for this topic. Duplicate actions attached to several facts appear once. This topic match is not a new finding that an action caused a result, and the reviewed collection is selective. Collection reviewed Sep 16, 2026.
What candidates are saying
Explore statements about health coverage, healthcare costs, access to care and public health from FactVote’s North Dakota candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.
3 statements from 2 candidates
2026 North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner — General Election
1 candidate with matching statements · 1 statement
Managing your mental health during the best of times is difficult enough. During times of unstable markets, low crop prices, and high input costs, producers are under an incredible amount of stress. Vern's Ag Department staff will focus on conducting surveys, researching solutions, and working with …
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
Managing your mental health during the best of times is difficult enough. During times of unstable markets, low crop prices, and high input costs, producers are under an incredible amount of stress. Vern's Ag Department staff will focus on conducting surveys, researching solutions, and working with policymakers and organizations to address the current crisis.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Americans are paying the highest prices in the world for healthcare. Insurance costs are a burden for many families here in North Dakota. People should not be forced to choose between their health and paying the rent or putting food on the table.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Candidate statement
Candidate campaign source
Americans are paying the highest prices in the world for healthcare. Insurance costs are a burden for many families here in North Dakota. People should not be forced to choose between their health and paying the rent or putting food on the table.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 23, 2026
Sovereignty in Health and Wellbeing Hammer supports Tribal control over essential programs like SNAP, advocating for tax-exempt status for IHS scholarships and loan repayment programs. Funding Healthcare Hammer calls for mandatory appropriations for the Indian Health Service (IHS) to ensure stable a…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: empowering tribal Sovereignty
Candidate campaign source
Sovereignty in Health and Wellbeing Hammer supports Tribal control over essential programs like SNAP, advocating for tax-exempt status for IHS scholarships and loan repayment programs. Funding Healthcare Hammer calls for mandatory appropriations for the Indian Health Service (IHS) to ensure stable and sufficient funding for healthcare services to Indigenous populations. Supporting Our Native American Veterans Hammer advocates for the full implementation of programs like NAVPACT and the Tribal HUD-VASH Act to ensure Native veterans receive the healthcare, housing, and benefits they deserve.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 23, 2026
This section matches specific health coverage, healthcare costs, access to care and public health terms in retained, attributed source text from published North Dakota candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.
Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.
North Dakota incumbents
What incumbents are proposing
Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current North Dakota legislators and North Dakota’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from North Dakota’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.
10 matching sponsorships or proposals · 10 North Dakota incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.
Rep. Christina Wolff
North Dakota House of Representatives · R–ND
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Christina WolffNorth Dakota Legislature · HB 1326
A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 12.1-05-03 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to self-defense and the unlawful possession of a firearm; and to provide a penalty.
Apr 2, 2025 · Not enacted · Senate rejected passage
Rep. Mary Schneider · Sponsored / Sen. Michael Dwyer · Sponsored / Rep. Pat D. Heinert · Sponsored / Sen. Kathy Hogan · Sponsored / Rep. Zachary Ista · Sponsored / Rep. Daniel Johnston · Sponsored / Rep. Lawrence R. Klemin · Sponsored / Sen. Jonathan Sickler · Sponsored / Rep. Christina Wolff · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
HB 1326 proposed denying the statutory self-defense justification to a person who possessed a firearm in violation of the specified provisions of section 62.1-02-01 and used it when the danger of imminent unlawful injury, sexual assault or detention occurred. The Senate rejected the bill on April 2, 2025, by 6–40. It was not enacted and did not change this justification or establish an effect on firearm deaths.
Senate rejected the measure on 2025-04-02. Second reading, failed to pass, yeas 6 nays 40. The 2025 regular session ended without enactment of this measure.
Why this record is included
The CDC firearm-death measure includes homicide, suicide and accidents. The proposal concerns a self-defense justification when specified prohibited possessors use a firearm, a limited aspect of firearm violence. It does not establish an effect on mortality. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained North Dakota evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
An individual is justified in using force upon another individual to defend oneself against danger of imminent unlawful bodily injury, sexual assault, or detention by the other individual, except that an individual is not justified in using force:
[…]
If the individual:
[…]
Possesses a firearm in violation of subdivision a or b of subsection 1 of section 62.1-02-01 and used the firearm at the time the danger of imminent unlawful bodily injury, sexual assault, or detention occurred.
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Daniel JohnstonNorth Dakota Legislature · HB 1326
A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 12.1-05-03 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to self-defense and the unlawful possession of a firearm; and to provide a penalty.
Apr 2, 2025 · Not enacted · Senate rejected passage
Rep. Mary Schneider · Sponsored / Sen. Michael Dwyer · Sponsored / Rep. Pat D. Heinert · Sponsored / Sen. Kathy Hogan · Sponsored / Rep. Zachary Ista · Sponsored / Rep. Daniel Johnston · Sponsored / Rep. Lawrence R. Klemin · Sponsored / Sen. Jonathan Sickler · Sponsored / Rep. Christina Wolff · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
HB 1326 proposed denying the statutory self-defense justification to a person who possessed a firearm in violation of the specified provisions of section 62.1-02-01 and used it when the danger of imminent unlawful injury, sexual assault or detention occurred. The Senate rejected the bill on April 2, 2025, by 6–40. It was not enacted and did not change this justification or establish an effect on firearm deaths.
Senate rejected the measure on 2025-04-02. Second reading, failed to pass, yeas 6 nays 40. The 2025 regular session ended without enactment of this measure.
Why this record is included
The CDC firearm-death measure includes homicide, suicide and accidents. The proposal concerns a self-defense justification when specified prohibited possessors use a firearm, a limited aspect of firearm violence. It does not establish an effect on mortality. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained North Dakota evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
An individual is justified in using force upon another individual to defend oneself against danger of imminent unlawful bodily injury, sexual assault, or detention by the other individual, except that an individual is not justified in using force:
[…]
If the individual:
[…]
Possesses a firearm in violation of subdivision a or b of subsection 1 of section 62.1-02-01 and used the firearm at the time the danger of imminent unlawful bodily injury, sexual assault, or detention occurred.
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Eric J. MurphyNorth Dakota Legislature · HB 1488
A BILL for an Act to create and enact sections 14-02.1-04.3, 14-02.1-04.4, and 14-02.1-04.5 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the creation of an abortion approval committee, a framework for abortion, and an emergency medical exception; to amend and reenact sections 12.1-19.1-03, 14-02.1-02, 14-02.1-02.1, 14-02.1-02.2, and 14-02.1-03, subsection 1 of section 14-02.1-03.1, sections 14-02.1-05, 14-02.1-07, 14-02.1-08, 14-02.1-09, and 14-10-15, and subsection 3 of section 14-10-19 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to abortion procedures, consent, and reporting requirements; and to repeal sections 14-02.1-03.4, 14-02.1-03.5, and 14-02.1-04 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to abortion restrictions.
Feb 12, 2025 · Not enacted · House rejected passage
Rep. Eric J. Murphy · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
HB 1488 proposed allowing abortion through 15 weeks under a licensed physician in a licensed facility, with additional hospital committee approval and medical conditions at later stages. A medical-emergency provision would dispense with committee approval. Rep. Mike Murphy introduced the bill. The House rejected it on February 12, 2025, by 6–87. It was not enacted and cannot explain the reported 2022 abortion count.
House rejected the measure on 2025-02-12. Second reading, failed to pass, yeas 6 nays 87. The 2025 regular session ended without enactment of this measure.
Why this record is included
The fact counts abortions reported by place of occurrence in North Dakota, including nonresidents. The proposal concerns procedures performed in the state. The published fact retains the numeric 2022 count because the later 2025 count is suppressed; suppressed does not mean zero. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained North Dakota evidence context: Abortions reported by area of occurrence. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
14-02.1-04.4. Abortion limitations 1. An abortion procedure may be performed from fertilization through fifteen weeks of gestation. The abortion procedure must be performed: a. Under the supervision of a physician licensed under chapter 43-17; b. In a licensed healthcare facility; and c. In compliance with section 14-02.1-03. 2. An abortion procedure may be performed from sixteen through twenty-six weeks gestation only when: a. Approved for a medical purpose, including a serious health risk, by the licensed hospital's abortion approval committee under section 14-02.1-04.3, and b. Performed by a physician, board certified or board eligible in: (1) Obstetrics and gynecology; or (2) Family medicine with additional training in obstetrics and gynecology; and c. In compliance with section 14-02.1-03. 3. An abortion procedure may be performed from twenty-seven weeks gestation through parturition only when deemed medically required and approved by an abortion approval committee. 4. This section does not apply in a medical emergency under section 14-02.1-04.5. SECTION 9. Section 14-02.1-04.5 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows: 14-02.1-04.5. Medical emergency abortion procedures. A medical emergency decision to perform an abortion does not require approval of the abortion committee under 14-02.1-04.3. A medical emergency requiring an abortion procedure may be carried out by any physician licensed under chapter 43-17 in a medical effort to preserve the life of the mother and the fetus, at any point medically necessary during a pregnancy.
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Lawrence R. KleminNorth Dakota Legislature · HB 1326
A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 12.1-05-03 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to self-defense and the unlawful possession of a firearm; and to provide a penalty.
Apr 2, 2025 · Not enacted · Senate rejected passage
Rep. Mary Schneider · Sponsored / Sen. Michael Dwyer · Sponsored / Rep. Pat D. Heinert · Sponsored / Sen. Kathy Hogan · Sponsored / Rep. Zachary Ista · Sponsored / Rep. Daniel Johnston · Sponsored / Rep. Lawrence R. Klemin · Sponsored / Sen. Jonathan Sickler · Sponsored / Rep. Christina Wolff · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
HB 1326 proposed denying the statutory self-defense justification to a person who possessed a firearm in violation of the specified provisions of section 62.1-02-01 and used it when the danger of imminent unlawful injury, sexual assault or detention occurred. The Senate rejected the bill on April 2, 2025, by 6–40. It was not enacted and did not change this justification or establish an effect on firearm deaths.
Senate rejected the measure on 2025-04-02. Second reading, failed to pass, yeas 6 nays 40. The 2025 regular session ended without enactment of this measure.
Why this record is included
The CDC firearm-death measure includes homicide, suicide and accidents. The proposal concerns a self-defense justification when specified prohibited possessors use a firearm, a limited aspect of firearm violence. It does not establish an effect on mortality. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained North Dakota evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
An individual is justified in using force upon another individual to defend oneself against danger of imminent unlawful bodily injury, sexual assault, or detention by the other individual, except that an individual is not justified in using force:
[…]
If the individual:
[…]
Possesses a firearm in violation of subdivision a or b of subsection 1 of section 62.1-02-01 and used the firearm at the time the danger of imminent unlawful bodily injury, sexual assault, or detention occurred.
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Mary SchneiderNorth Dakota Legislature · HB 1326
A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 12.1-05-03 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to self-defense and the unlawful possession of a firearm; and to provide a penalty.
Apr 2, 2025 · Not enacted · Senate rejected passage
Rep. Mary Schneider · Sponsored / Sen. Michael Dwyer · Sponsored / Rep. Pat D. Heinert · Sponsored / Sen. Kathy Hogan · Sponsored / Rep. Zachary Ista · Sponsored / Rep. Daniel Johnston · Sponsored / Rep. Lawrence R. Klemin · Sponsored / Sen. Jonathan Sickler · Sponsored / Rep. Christina Wolff · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
HB 1326 proposed denying the statutory self-defense justification to a person who possessed a firearm in violation of the specified provisions of section 62.1-02-01 and used it when the danger of imminent unlawful injury, sexual assault or detention occurred. The Senate rejected the bill on April 2, 2025, by 6–40. It was not enacted and did not change this justification or establish an effect on firearm deaths.
Senate rejected the measure on 2025-04-02. Second reading, failed to pass, yeas 6 nays 40. The 2025 regular session ended without enactment of this measure.
Why this record is included
The CDC firearm-death measure includes homicide, suicide and accidents. The proposal concerns a self-defense justification when specified prohibited possessors use a firearm, a limited aspect of firearm violence. It does not establish an effect on mortality. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained North Dakota evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
An individual is justified in using force upon another individual to defend oneself against danger of imminent unlawful bodily injury, sexual assault, or detention by the other individual, except that an individual is not justified in using force:
[…]
If the individual:
[…]
Possesses a firearm in violation of subdivision a or b of subsection 1 of section 62.1-02-01 and used the firearm at the time the danger of imminent unlawful bodily injury, sexual assault, or detention occurred.
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Pat D. HeinertNorth Dakota Legislature · HB 1326
A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 12.1-05-03 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to self-defense and the unlawful possession of a firearm; and to provide a penalty.
Apr 2, 2025 · Not enacted · Senate rejected passage
Rep. Mary Schneider · Sponsored / Sen. Michael Dwyer · Sponsored / Rep. Pat D. Heinert · Sponsored / Sen. Kathy Hogan · Sponsored / Rep. Zachary Ista · Sponsored / Rep. Daniel Johnston · Sponsored / Rep. Lawrence R. Klemin · Sponsored / Sen. Jonathan Sickler · Sponsored / Rep. Christina Wolff · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
HB 1326 proposed denying the statutory self-defense justification to a person who possessed a firearm in violation of the specified provisions of section 62.1-02-01 and used it when the danger of imminent unlawful injury, sexual assault or detention occurred. The Senate rejected the bill on April 2, 2025, by 6–40. It was not enacted and did not change this justification or establish an effect on firearm deaths.
Senate rejected the measure on 2025-04-02. Second reading, failed to pass, yeas 6 nays 40. The 2025 regular session ended without enactment of this measure.
Why this record is included
The CDC firearm-death measure includes homicide, suicide and accidents. The proposal concerns a self-defense justification when specified prohibited possessors use a firearm, a limited aspect of firearm violence. It does not establish an effect on mortality. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained North Dakota evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
An individual is justified in using force upon another individual to defend oneself against danger of imminent unlawful bodily injury, sexual assault, or detention by the other individual, except that an individual is not justified in using force:
[…]
If the individual:
[…]
Possesses a firearm in violation of subdivision a or b of subsection 1 of section 62.1-02-01 and used the firearm at the time the danger of imminent unlawful bodily injury, sexual assault, or detention occurred.
Only current North Dakota officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.
Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a North Dakota statistic. Collection reviewed Sep 16, 2026.
Sources & methods
Every section retains its primary sources, units, reporting periods and comparison limits. Maps, graphs and tables use the same observation and cohort. All 50 states are listed; D.C. and territories are excluded. Missing and suppressed values remain unavailable and never become zero.
#1 is the highest measured value. Equal source values share a rank and leave gaps (1, 2, 2, 4). Ranks use source precision and are descriptive, not a score of the state. Survey uncertainty and reporting coverage can limit comparisons. Published U.S. benchmarks are used where available; a state average is not substituted.
North Dakota snapshots and fiscal sources keep their own dates and accounting scope. National events and federal distribution explainers describe national context. Actions and statements are filtered to North Dakota, retain their reviewed evidence, and do not establish that a policy caused a measured change.
Retained state source collections assembled October 5, 2026. Original review and source dates remain visible. Refreshing this page does not refresh an official data release.
