Jerod Tufte
Non-Partisan | North Dakota
Candidate Profile
Moderate
BIOGRAPHY
EDUCATION
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, JD, 1999-2002
Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, B.S. Computer Eng'g, 1993-1997
WORK & MILITARY
North Dakota Army National Guard, Major, 2008-2016
North Dakota Supreme Court, Justice, 2017-2026
North Dakota District Court, Judge, 2014-2016
Kidder County, State's Attorney, 2005-2011
North Dakota Governor, Legal Counsel, 2011-2014
Tufte Law Office, Lawyer, 2005-2011
Brown & Bain, Associate Attorney, 2003-2005
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, Law Clerk, 2002-2003
AFFILIATIONS
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES HELD
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES SOUGHT
Candidate did not provide
ENDORSEMENTS
CONSERVATIVE (2)
Ed Schafer
Jack Dalrymple
OTHER (2)
Kevin Cramer
Janne Myrdal
SELECTED CONTRIBUTIONS
CONSERVATIVE
GIVEN BY CANDIDATE (2)
State Republican Party Organizations (2013)
John Sidney McCain (2008)
RECEIVED BY CANDIDATE (0)
OTHER INFORMATION
In Bjerke v. North Dakota Legislative Assembly (2026), in which Justice Tufte joined the unanimous opinion, the North Dakota Supreme Court considered whether the Legislature could propose a constitutional amendment changing or repealing the state’s legislative term limits. The Court held that it could not. The North Dakota Constitution, which voters amended in 2022, specifically says the Legislature has no authority to change or repeal the term limits and reserves that power to the people through an initiative. The Court concluded the Legislature’s proposed measure was void and ordered that it not appear on the November 2026 ballot.
In Access Independent Health Services, Inc. v. Wrigley (2025), in which Justice Tufte wrote a separate opinion concurring in the result, the North Dakota Supreme Court considered whether the state’s abortion law violated the North Dakota Constitution’s protections for “life,” “liberty,” and “safety,” or was unconstitutionally vague. Tufte disagreed with the majority’s reasoning and concluded the abortion law was constitutional. He argued that the constitutional language must be understood according to its original meaning and historical context, including how North Dakotans understood the Constitution when it was adopted in 1889. He found no historical evidence that those rights included a broad right to abortion. Tufte also rejected the majority’s use of a stricter vagueness standard.
In Board of Trustees of the North Dakota Public Employees Retirement System v. North Dakota Legislative Assembly (2023), in which Justice Tufte joined the majority opinion authored by Justice Crothers, the North Dakota Supreme Court considered whether the Legislature could place sitting legislators on the state retirement system’s governing board. The Court held that the legislation was unconstitutional because it violated the North Dakota Constitution’s single-subject rule, which requires legislation to address subjects that are properly connected. The bill combined changes to the retirement board with an appropriations measure, and the Court found the provisions were not sufficiently related. The Court invalidated the entire bill without reaching the separate claims that the law violated separation of powers.
In Wrigley v. Romanick (2023), in which Justice Tufte concurred in the majority’s decision but wrote a separate concurring opinion, the North Dakota Supreme Court considered whether a state abortion law could be enforced while a constitutional challenge was pending. The Court left in place a preliminary injunction blocking the law, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to prove that the North Dakota Constitution protects a limited right to abortion when necessary to preserve a woman’s life or health. Tufte agreed with the result but used a different constitutional approach. He argued that the right to obtain a life-saving abortion follows from the Constitution’s protection of self-defense and the right to defend life and liberty.
In Interest of D.D. (2018), in which Justice Tufte authored the opinion for the North Dakota Supreme Court, the Court considered whether state and federal laws banning firearm possession by people who had been involuntarily committed for mental health treatment were unconstitutionally vague, and whether a court could order police to seize the person’s firearms. The Court held that the firearm restrictions were clear and applied to D.D. because he had been committed and continued to possess firearms in his home. However, the Court reversed the firearm seizure order, finding that the laws did not give the district court authority to order the seizure during a mental-health proceeding. Tufte emphasized the plain language of the statutes and due-process requirement that laws provide fair warning.
QUESTIONNAIRE
RIGHT TO LIFE
Was Dobbs v. Jackson rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain. (Holding: In Dobbs, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal constitution does not confer a right to abortion.)
Did not answer
Does the federal Constitution support the right to physician assisted suicide? Please explain in light of Washington v. Glucksberg (1997).
Did not answer
Human life deserves legal protection from conception until natural death.
Choose not to answer
How do you view the judiciary’s role in matters of abortion regulation following Dobbs?
Did not answer
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
Do you believe religious liberty is at risk in the United States. If so, what is the judiciary's proper role in addressing this issue?
Did not answer
Does the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment require government to be strictly secular or does it allow for the nation's religious heritage?
Did not answer
Was Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain. (Holding: The U.S. Supreme Court held tha the state may not show religious hostility when enforcing anti-discrimination laws against a business owner.)
Did not answer
VALUES
Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.
Did not answer
What is your understanding of parental rights under the Constitution regarding the upbringing of children, particularly regarding choices about education and sexual identity?
Did not answer
Is gender identity a protected class under the Constitution? Please explain the constitutional basis for your view.
Did not answer
ABOUT YOU
Have you ever been convicted of a felony? If so, please explain.
no
Have you ever been penalized for sexual misconduct in either civil or criminal court? If so, please explain.
no
I voted in these primaries and general elections:
2016 General Election 2018 General Election 2020 General Election 2022 General Election 2024 General Election
I have voted in every primary and general election since I turned 18.
JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY
Describe your judicial philosophy.
A judge's job is to say what the law is, not what the law should be. I approach each case with an open mind. I start with the words. I give them the meaning they had when the legislature or the people enacted them. I apply them as written, even when I would have written the law differently. Policy belongs to the voters and their elected representatives, not to judges. I've applied that method for ten years. Every opinion I have written is a public document. Read my work and see for yourself.
Do you believe judges should primarily apply the law according to its original public meaning, or do you believe the law evolves over time to reflect contemporary values?
Original public meaning. Words mean what they meant to the people who enacted or ratified them. They keep that meaning until the people change them. The reason is democratic legitimacy. If judges can update the words to fit today's values, the constitution means whatever five justices say it means. Then the people's votes stop counting. North Dakota has amended its constitution many times. That is how the law changes, and it works.
Which current or past U.S. Supreme Court justice best reflects your judicial philosophy?
Justice Clarence Thomas. For more than thirty years he has applied one method to every kind of case. He starts with the text. He gives it the meaning it had when enacted. He lays out the historical evidence so readers can check his work. When the Court reasons past first principles, he writes separately and shows why. I do not agree with any judge all the time, in method or in result. But the method is the model. A close second is Justice John Marshall Harlan, who served from 1877 to 1911. In 1896 he dissented alone in Plessy v. Ferguson, writing "There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law." It took the Supreme Court fifty-eight years to agree. That is what it looks like when a judge takes the text seriously and has the discipline to follow it where it leads, even standing by himself.
Was Obergefell v. Hodges rightly decided according to the text of the Constitution? Please explain. (Holding: The U.S. Supreme Court held Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses create a right for same-sex couples to marry.)
Obergefell binds state courts. When the U.S. Supreme Court decides an issue of federal law, as a state judge I am bound to apply it. My view on how to interpret the constitution is in my opinions and other public writings.
A. How should a judge approach a case where the constitutional or statutory text is clear on its face? B. Conversely, how should a judge proceed when the text is ambiguous or silent on a disputed issue?
A. Apply it. When the text is clear, a judge does not consult his own preferences or guess what the legislature would have wanted. I have applied statutes I would have written differently and said so in writing. A harsh result is an argument for the legislature, not a judicial license to rewrite. Potts v. City of Devils Lake, 2021 ND 2, ¶¶ 30-31 (Tufte, J., concurring in the result). B. Ambiguity is not a blank check. Use the ordinary tools: context, structure, settled meaning, the canons, history. If they run out, the text does not resolve the dispute. The gap is the legislature's.
What is your view of judicial restraint versus judicial activism? How do you define each?
Activism is a judge deciding what the law should be by picking a preferred result and reasoning backward, or announcing a rule the text does not support. Restraint is staying inside the judicial role: decide the case presented, on the law as written. But restraint does not mean freezing the law where the last court left it. Refusing to revisit a prior overreach is not restraint. It compounds the error. The labels matter less than the record. Read a judge's opinions and judge for yourself.
What is the proper role of a judge?
Come to each case with an open mind. Decide each case according to the law and explain the reasoning in writing so anyone can check it. The role is narrow on purpose. A judge is not a policymaker. He does not pick winners or represent a constituency. Legislatures are representative bodies. Courts are not. Read the record. Read the law. Apply it evenly to the farmer, the business owner, the defendant, and the state alike. Written opinions are how the public holds a judge to it.
When applying or interpreting the text of a statute or constitutional provision, is it ever proper for a judge to consider present day public opinion or consequences?
Public opinion, never.
If precedent departs from the Constitution’s text or original meaning, should a judge follow it or correct the error? Please explain.
Correct it. Carefully, openly, and not lightly. Stability matters. People build their lives and businesses on what courts have said the law is. My default is to leave a sound decision alone. But honoring precedent is not the same as refusing to look at a mistake. If a decision misreads the text, or an earlier court reached past its role, the current court should say so plainly. Standing by an overreach is not restraint. It compounds the error.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE & PUBLIC SAFETY
The burden of proof in a criminal case is generally that the state must provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Some say the reason the burden of proof is so high is because we greatly value ensuring that the innocent are not unjustly imprisoned. Please comment on this topic.
Did not answer
When reviewing wrongful conviction claims, what role, if any, should judges play in determining remedies?
Did not answer
2ND AMENDMENT
What is your understanding of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms?
The U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Bruen and Rahimi bind state courts. When the U.S. Supreme Court decides an issue of federal law, as a state judge I am bound to apply it. My view on how to interpret the constitution is in my opinions and other public writings.
OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES
Which branch of government do you believe was intended to wield the most authority?
The legislative branch.
