Apparently one fake mineral was flagged and removed but these two made it through to the law:
> The fake minerals are friezium and stralium, apparent references to Christopher Friez and David Straley, attorneys for North American Coal who were closely involved in drafting the bill and its amendments.
> Bjornson said a Legislative Council attorney flagged and removed a fictional mineral, “docterium,” earlier in the session from an unofficial draft of the same bill before it became part of the legislative record.
> Anderson recalls joking about finding docterium, a reference to Rep. Jason Dockter, during a committee hearing. The lawmaker said he noticed the term in an unofficial draft afterward and immediately asked Legislative Council to remove it.
> The fake minerals are friezium and stralium, apparent references to Christopher Friez and David Straley, attorneys for North American Coal who were closely involved in drafting the bill and its amendments.
> “It would be kind of embarrassing for the rest of the country to look at us and say ‘Really? Do you guys even know what you’re doing?’”
> Anderson said the amendments were prepared by a group of attorneys and legislators, including representatives from the coal industry.
So that is not embarrassing? You aren't embarrassed that ... you were clearly not doing your jobs, but just letting industry mark up the bill... And then didn't even read it?
They don't even know the difference between a mineral and an element contained in the mineral. I could see only two proper mineral names in the list: barite and bauxite. Fluorspar's generic name is fluorite. Almost the entirety of the list is fake. It is indeed relevant to name the minerals correctly since it by its definition asserts a particular concentration of a constituent element.
It's ridiculous how much of our bills are completely written by interest groups like the coal industry. I'm surprised they even reviewed it enough to catch it
In 2010 Arizona passed an anti-immigrant bill written by the private prison company Corrections Corporation of America (now CoreCivic). We know it was written by CCA because they literally left the logo on the bill
It's probably a good guess that whoever wrote it was a lawyer and not an industry expert, and presumably used these as placeholders for an industry expert could fill in that nobody ever actually replaced.
On mobile: does this article really consist of a single paragraph of text and a single illegible small screenshot, buried in an avalanche of ads, including things like "More >" links that open more ads?
Proposed constitutional amendment: Within 30 days after a bill is made law, legislators that voted must pass an automatically generated comprehension test of the legislation at a 6th grade level. On failure they lose voting privileges for 90 days. On three strikes they leave office and a new election for that seat is called.
I find the fact that nobody seems to know how those names got into the bill particularly frustrating.
Lawmakers really need to learn to use version tracking properly. It's shouldn't be possible for a single line of text to make it into a bill without a digital trail leading back to whoever added it.
There are records of who introduced and voted for each version of the bill and each change to it; individual responsibility for edits leading up to those actions are internal matters for the individual members offices, who is responsible for the content of the bill is unambiguous. The mystery being invented here is a distraction from that clear line of responsibility, and you are falling for it.
The single person who introduced the errant version is in no way guaranteed to know who wrote the changes.
Lawmakers have staff (and external interest groups) who build and shape the documents. We may optimistically presume that each lawmaker reads each change that they are proposing... but that's not true.
Nearly as bad, this website encrypts it's text using a simple cipher intentionally breaking it for those that don't successfully run all of their untrusted third party code.
The list also includes astatine, which (although a real element) has basically no use, is highly radioactive and only exists for a few hours before becoming either polonium or bismuth. And of course, you can't mine it because there are no ores of astatine nor minerals containing it.
My interpretation of what happened here is that a legislator who opposed the bill inserted the names of the lobbyists as a joke against the bill, which has now paid off. The article says that the original list did not include the names, they were added during the legislative amendment process by a legislator.
While corporate authorship of bills is a concern, I don’t think this particular mishap is a direct result of that and in fact seems to have been an attempt to subtly criticize it.
Wasn't there a joke about this happening in some movie when an English soccer team manager wrote the team name on the back of a box of cigarettes. Later he had to include the inclusion of two unknown players in the selection: The players names were Benson, and Hedges.
I would like to see a nation whose laws are limited to what people can remember.
Ie. In a court, a jury makes their decision about if the accused has broken the law simply on their recollection of the law.
In turn, this means all rules must necessarily be far simpler and less precise.
Lawmakers wouldn't write laws so much as advertise what they think the law should be, and if the population remembered and agreed with the new law then it becomes the law, since that would be what the courts are enforcing.
26 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 49.6 ms ] thread> The fake minerals are friezium and stralium, apparent references to Christopher Friez and David Straley, attorneys for North American Coal who were closely involved in drafting the bill and its amendments.
> Bjornson said a Legislative Council attorney flagged and removed a fictional mineral, “docterium,” earlier in the session from an unofficial draft of the same bill before it became part of the legislative record.
> Anderson recalls joking about finding docterium, a reference to Rep. Jason Dockter, during a committee hearing. The lawmaker said he noticed the term in an unofficial draft afterward and immediately asked Legislative Council to remove it.
https://northdakotamonitor.com/2025/05/02/lawmakers-pass-bil...
https://ndlegis.gov/assembly/69-2025/regular/bill-overview/b...
> “It would be kind of embarrassing for the rest of the country to look at us and say ‘Really? Do you guys even know what you’re doing?’”
> Anderson said the amendments were prepared by a group of attorneys and legislators, including representatives from the coal industry.
So that is not embarrassing? You aren't embarrassed that ... you were clearly not doing your jobs, but just letting industry mark up the bill... And then didn't even read it?
Any embarrassment there? Any?
Bueller? Bueller?
In 2010 Arizona passed an anti-immigrant bill written by the private prison company Corrections Corporation of America (now CoreCivic). We know it was written by CCA because they literally left the logo on the bill
Lawmakers really need to learn to use version tracking properly. It's shouldn't be possible for a single line of text to make it into a bill without a digital trail leading back to whoever added it.
Counter-argument: there are GOPers afraid of standing up to Trump because they fear that doing so would trigger violence from MAGAland. E.g.
* https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/violent-threats-pile-u...
People used to vote for candidates in elections in public, and there was all sorts of intimidation and violence until secret ballots were rolled out.
I'm generally for political/politician transparency, but let's not ignore some of the trade-offs.
Lawmakers have staff (and external interest groups) who build and shape the documents. We may optimistically presume that each lawmaker reads each change that they are proposing... but that's not true.
>kAm%96 :?4=FD:@? @7 7:4E:@?2= DF3DE2?46D :D 36:?8 42==65 2? 6>32CC2DD>6?E 3J @?6 DE2E6 @77:4:2=[ 2 A@DD:3=6 AC24E:42= ;@<6 3J 4@2= :?5FDECJ =6256CD 2?5 >JDE:7J:?8 3J E96 =2H>2<6CD H9@ H@C<65 @? E96 3:==[ E96 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^?@CE952<@E2>@?:E@C]4@>^a_ad^`a^`h^?@CE9\52<@E2\=2H\244:56?E2==J\=:DED\72<6\4C:E:42=\>:?6C2=D\32D65\@?\4@2=\=2HJ6CD\?2>6D^Q E2C86ElQ03=2?<Qm}@CE9 s2<@E2 |@?:Ek^2m@C C6A@CE65]k^Am... etc
That's the first time I've encountered this particular affront. Nasty stuff. We should not be giving them web traffic. https://northdakotamonitor.com/2025/12/19/north-dakota-law-a... is much better in that it actually has readable text on the page.
While corporate authorship of bills is a concern, I don’t think this particular mishap is a direct result of that and in fact seems to have been an attempt to subtly criticize it.
Ie. In a court, a jury makes their decision about if the accused has broken the law simply on their recollection of the law.
In turn, this means all rules must necessarily be far simpler and less precise.
Lawmakers wouldn't write laws so much as advertise what they think the law should be, and if the population remembered and agreed with the new law then it becomes the law, since that would be what the courts are enforcing.