North Dakota GOP Votes to 'Remove Republican Brand' from Non-Attending Candidates

State Secretary of State warns the motion is not legally binding, as only the legislature can change election laws.

Mar. 29, 2026 at 8:42am

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A quiet, cinematic painting of the North Dakota state capitol building, its grand architecture and empty steps bathed in warm, diagonal sunlight and deep shadows, conveying a sense of political uncertainty and division.The North Dakota GOP's controversial motion to 'remove the Republican brand' from non-attending candidates exposes deep divisions within the party ahead of the upcoming elections.Minot Today

The North Dakota Republican Party voted to approve a motion to remove the Republican brand from candidates who did not attend the state convention. However, the Secretary of State has cautioned that the motion is not legally binding, as only the state legislature can change election laws with the governor's signature.

Why it matters

This move by the NDGOP highlights internal divisions within the party and could impact the branding and messaging of Republican candidates in the upcoming elections. It raises questions about the party's unity and the extent of its control over candidate nominations.

The details

The motion passed by a narrow margin of 318 to 312 votes at the state convention. Senate Majority Leader David Hogue said he did not support the motion, calling it a 'symbolic gesture calculated to create drama and sew division within the party.' Congresswoman Julie Fedorchak, who is running for reelection, expressed disappointment with the move, stating that it represents 'a few individuals' trying to claim they represent the larger party.

  • The NDGOP convention took place on Saturday, March 29, 2026.

The players

Michael Howe

The Secretary of State of North Dakota, who warned that the NDGOP motion is not legally binding and that only the state legislature can change election laws.

David Hogue

The North Dakota Senate Majority Leader, who did not support the NDGOP motion and called it a 'symbolic gesture calculated to create drama and sew division within the party.'

Julie Fedorchak

A Congresswoman running for reelection in North Dakota, who expressed disappointment with the NDGOP motion and stated that it represents 'a few individuals' trying to claim they represent the larger party.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Only the legislature can change election law with the governor's signature.”

— Michael Howe, North Dakota Secretary of State

“It's a symbolic gesture calculated to create drama and sew division within the party, and that's what it's doing.”

— David Hogue, North Dakota Senate Majority Leader

“It's disappointing to see a few individuals try to claim they represent a larger party, when the larger party has made their wishes known at the ballot box and will do so again in June.”

— Julie Fedorchak, Congresswoman

What’s next

The state legislature will need to review the NDGOP motion and determine if any changes to election laws are necessary. The upcoming June primary elections will also be a key test of the party's unity and the impact of this motion on Republican candidates.

The takeaway

This NDGOP motion highlights the ongoing tensions and divisions within the party, raising questions about its ability to present a united front in the upcoming elections. The Secretary of State's warning about the motion's lack of legal binding underscores the limits of the party's authority over the electoral process, which ultimately rests with the state legislature.