North Dakota law lists fake critical minerals based on coal lawyers' names

Incident and immediate reactions

• Law accidentally included fake “minerals” seemingly named after coal-company lawyers; a previous fake “docterium” was caught and removed in draft.
• Some commenters argue removing the earlier fake without fully auditing the list shows a “patch, don’t fix root cause” mentality.
• Others note it’s still unclear who actually inserted the fake names; several people stress that discovering provenance should have been a priority, not quietly editing it out.

Legislative process and lobbyist influence

• Many see this as emblematic of industry-written legislation: lawyers and coal representatives heavily involved in drafting and “marking up” the bill while legislators largely rubber-stamp.
• Commenters claim this is standard at state and federal levels: lobbyists or nonprofits draft bills; lawmakers or staff introduce them with minimal changes.
• Several recount similar examples (e.g., corporate logos on draft bills, advocacy groups sponsoring complex tech/AI bills).

Do lawmakers read or understand bills?

• Widespread skepticism that legislators read long, technical legislation, especially omnibus or last-minute bills.
• Some argue individual lawmakers are structurally incentivized to follow party leadership even when they lack time to fully read or understand contents.
• One thread suggests laws should be shorter and simpler to enable real comprehension.

Technical and domain-expertise failures

• A geologically literate commenter points out the list confuses minerals with elements and trade names, implying the entire list is scientifically sloppy, not just the joke entries.
• Others suggest the fake names might have been placeholders left in by non-expert lawyers, though this is disputed.

Accountability, transparency, and reform ideas

• Multiple proposals: mandatory expert review of technical lists, constitutional-style comprehension tests for legislators, default “no” votes on unread/incomprehensible bills, automatic sunsets, or popular veto mechanisms.
• Several call for proper version tracking for legislation (line-level author attribution, public diffs) to trace who added what, though others argue power dynamics and off-record negotiations would limit its impact.

Broader cynicism

• Many commenters see this as further evidence of a “broken” system: corporate capture, opaque amendments, mega-bills no one fully understands, and voters unlikely to punish any of it.