Election forecasts you can inspect.Tested models, shown with their sources and their uncertainty.

Updated October 22, 2026, 09:28 UTC

State legislatures › North Dakota Senate

North Dakota Senate District 43

2026 forecast · Updated October 22, 2026, 09:28 UTC

26% chance of a Democratic win · Jeff Barta (R), Mary K. Adams (D)

North Dakota Senate District 43: ForecastNorth Dakota Senate 17: chance of a Democratic win 5%North Dakota Senate 18: not up in 2026 (held by republican); 2024 president R+11North Dakota Senate 42: not up in 2026 (held by republican); 2024 president R+17North Dakota Senate District 43: Forecast17184243
Safe DLean DToss-upLean RSafe RHatched: not up in 2026 (shaded by holder) · dashed: other state

District 43 leans Republican. Of its 3 neighbouring districts, 3 favour Republicans.

StatusForecast
Chance of a Democratic win26%
Likely margin (80% range)R+17 to D+6, middle R+5
CandidatesJeff Barta (R), Mary K. Adams (D)
Candidate list fromwikipedia
Current memberJeff Barta

How it has voted

On its current lines. Legislative contests and the top-of-ticket vote inside the district.

Legislature 2022R+6
← RepublicanDemocratic →

Who lives here

Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2019-2023.

This districtNorth Dakota
Median household income$53,365$75,949
Bachelor's degree or more (25+)37%32%
Median age3036
White (not Hispanic)77%83%
Black7%3%
Hispanic4%4%
Asian3%2%
Born abroad9%4%
Jobs in manufacturing9%7%
Jobs in farming or mining2%8%

Initial version. This model was tested on every state legislative election from 1994 to 2024 before publication, forecasting each as if it had not happened. It beat the simple rule “the party that holds the seat keeps it”, and its chamber seat counts were off by 2.9 seats on average (target: under 3). Districts with no two-party race last time are read from their own presidential vote, a change tested in advance that cut their average error from 17 to 13 points. It missed one of its five accuracy targets: in 2024, the calmest year on record, its ranges were wider than they needed to be (92% of results fell inside its 80% ranges; target: at most 88%). Treat the ranges as cautious. The full test record and code.