“Put the bulk of North Dakota primary residences on a path to zero property taxes within the next decade.”
Sources (click to view full provenance)
Propose an edit to this promise's details
Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.
Sign in and complete the Contributor Agreement to propose an edit.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
All three cited primary sources (North Dakota Office of the Governor) are reachable and support the outcome. Source 3 (Jan 7, 2025 State of the State) verbatim contains the exact promise language: "It will put the bulk of primary residences on a path to zero within the next decade." Source 1 (May 3, 2025) confirms Armstrong signed HB 1176, tripling the Primary Residence Credit from $500 to $1,600/year, funded by a dedicated Legacy Fund earnings stream estimated at $409M in the 2025-27 biennium (the Legacy Fund sentence is verbatim; the credit-increase clause is lightly paraphrased but every figure is accurate — not fabricated). Source 2 (Dec 19, 2025) verbatim confirms Armstrong and legislators "worked together last session to more than triple the PRC from $500 to $1,600 per year" and that the credit wiped out property taxes for ~30% of eligible households (~50,000). Leadership is genuine and documented: Armstrong proposed the "path to zero" plan in his State of the State, drove it through the legislature, and signed it into law — executive championing far beyond a single vote or passive support (lawmakers went "beyond the $1,550 credit he proposed"). CHAMPIONED is the correct label: real leadership plus enacted structural action directly implementing the promise, but the ultimate decade-out goal (the "bulk" of residences at zero) is not yet realized and depends on future legislatures continuing to grow the credit, so it is not FULL. The rating does not overstate the evidence.
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.
Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.
Debate
sourced community argumentsThese are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.
No arguments yet
Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.
Add a sourced argument
Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.
Sign in or create an account to add an argument.