North Dakota Stockmen’s Association deposed in beef commission lawsuit

The attorney representing ranchers that sued the state of North Dakota over the makeup of the beef commission deposed the North Dakota Stockmen’s Association on March 6, 2026.

Robby Dube is lead counsel for the Ranchers’ Rights Initiative, a group of cattle producers who sued North Dakota, alleging that the state law giving preference to members of the North Dakota Stockmen’s Association for seats on the North Dakota Beef Commission is unconstitutional. The lawsuit also alleges that producers who request a refund of state Beef Checkoff dollars should be eligible to serve on the NDBC because those producers are contributing to the budget via the mandatory federal Beef Checkoff. Current state law prevents individuals from serving on the NDBC who have requested a refund in the prior three years.

The North Dakota Stockmen’s Association is a private membership organization focused on influencing policy that impacts the cattle and beef industries. The North Dakota Beef Commission is a governor-appointed board that collects and oversees the spending of Beef Checkoff dollars. The NDBC collects $2 per head for every beef or dairy animal sold in the state. Under federal law, $1 must be collected for the federal Beef Checkoff and under state law, $1 must be collected for the state Beef Checkoff. The state Beef Checkoff is refundable if certain forms are requested, completed and returned within 90 days of the sale. The NDBC is responsible for sending half of the federal dollar to the national Cattlemen’s Beef Board. It has oversight of the remaining half of the federal dollar and the entire state dollar. The NDBC budget is around $1.6 million per year.

The current state law effectively requires that four of the nine NDBC seats be reserved for members of the NDSA. One seat is saved for a member of the state dairy association, one for the state livestock marketing association, and the other three seats are “at large” beef producer seats.

In the lawsuit, the RRI alleges that even the at large seats have always been awarded to members of the NDSA or individuals with close ties to the NDSA. They say this is unconstitutional because it denies non-members a fair opportunity to serve on the NDBC. Essentially, the lawsuit says that the NDBC maintains too cozy of a relationship with NDSA leaving North Dakota cattle producers who choose not to belong to NDSA no hope of serving on the Beef Commission or having any voice in how their checkoff dollars are spent.

Dube said the North Dakota Stockmen’s Association made several admissions under oath he believes could impact the outcome of the case.

Dube said that in the state’s archived files regarding appointments over the past several years, one particular application stood out. Frank Tomac, a Sioux County rancher applied for an “at large” seat on the NDBC in 2017. A sticky note on Frank’s application included this handwritten comment: “Nancy Jo Bateman and Julie Ellingson would not support this application for appt.”

Nancy Jo Bateman was the Executive Director of the North Dakota Beef Commission in 2017. Julie Ellingson was the Executive Vice President of the North Dakota Stockmen’s Association at the time. By law, neither individual should have had any input into the selection of an “at large” seat on the NDBC.

The NDSA spokesman deposed today told Dube that the note couldn’t be true.

The NDSA has historically opposed legislative efforts to change the makeup of the NDBC. “The NDSA’s official position under oath was that the reason they oppose elections for the Beef Commission is that there wouldn’t be enough people to fill the slots,” said Dube.

Dube said that the NDSA testified under oath that the NDSA does not require its members to own cattle.

NDSA also said that any independent beef producer or other organizations such as the Independent Beef Association of North Dakota would be just as capable of nominating people to the beef commission as the NDSA.

The NDSA testified that, when determining which individual the organization will nominate for the NDBC, it accepts self-nominations from members and also suggestions from within the membership. NDSA also said it has not supported legislative efforts to give cattle producers the right to vote on NDBC representatives because the current system is adequate. The NDSA spokesman also said it supports the provision in law that prohibits refund-seekers from serving on the board. “The Stockmens’ position was that if someone is seeking a refund of state Checkoff funds, he or she is not committed to the Checkoff and shouldn’t get to have a say, even though they are aware that every producer is forced to fund the NDBC through the mandatory federal Checkoff,” said Dube.

Dube breaks down the lawsuit’s allegations:

• The Beef Commission Act is unconstitutional because it violates the privileges and immunities clause by giving mandatory preference to trade groups as compared to unaffiliated cattlemen. This is a “facial” challenge meaning the law is unconstitutional “on its face” or as written. 

• The Beef Commission act is unconstitutional as applied, because the Governor has nearly always appointed Stockmen’s Association members to the “at large” seats.

• The law is unconstitutional by preventing producers who request a refund from applying for a seat on the board within three years of their last refund. The first three points violate article I, § 21.

• The Beef Commission Act is a special law that treats similarly situated cattlemen differently, violating North Dakota Constitution, article IV, § 13.

• Finally, in the alternative, the Beef Commission Act is a law of a general nature that does not have a uniform operation, violating North Dakota Const. article I, § 22.

NDSA did not immediately respond to a request for comments.