Bill
HB 1189
Requires the ND Supreme Court to publish judicial improvement survey results in each county's official newspaper, boosting local transparency but creating publication costs.
Subject: Publication of judicial improvement survey results
Status (per provided record)
- Introduced: November 12, 2024 (filed).
- Sponsor: Representative Mike Toman (listed as the introducer).
- Committee referral: Referred to State Affairs.
- Recorded floor action: Second reading — failed to pass (yeas 10, nays 78).
Note: Multiple unrelated bills from other states share the number "HB 1189" in the provided materials. This summary covers the North Dakota bill titled "An Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 27‑02 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to publication of judicial improvement survey results."
Purpose and intent
- To increase public transparency about judicial improvement surveys by requiring publication of survey results to the public within the judicial officer’s district.
Key provision
- Adds a new section to NDCC chapter 27‑02 with the single operative requirement (verbatim):
"The supreme court shall publish the results of any judicial improvement survey in the official newspaper of each county within the judicial officer's judicial district."
Who or what would be affected
- North Dakota Supreme Court: tasked with publishing survey results.
- Counties and county newspapers: each county’s official newspaper would receive and publish the results.
- Judicial officers: survey results concerning judges or other judicial officers would be made publicly available to residents of each county in the officer’s judicial district.
- General public: broader local access to evaluation/survey results about judiciary performance.
Procedural / timeline aspects
- The bill would create a statutory duty for the Supreme Court to publish results in the official county newspapers; no implementation schedule or exceptions are specified in the text excerpt.
- Because the bill failed a recorded second‑reading vote (10–78), it did not advance to enactment under the status information provided.
Potential impacts and considerations
- Transparency: Publication could improve public access to information about judicial performance and processes for judicial improvement.
- Administrative/fiscal: The Supreme Court (or related administrative office) would incur publication costs (newspaper publication fees and administrative processing). The bill text does not include appropriation or funding language.
- Legal/operational questions: The measure raises practical issues not addressed in the single sentence—examples include the definition of “judicial improvement survey,” timing/frequency of publication, redaction/privacy of responses, responsibility for survey administration, and appeals or corrections procedures for published material.
- Public perception/ethical concerns: Public dissemination of survey results may affect perceptions of judicial officers and could raise concerns about survey methodology, representativeness, or potential misuse of results.
If you want, I can:
- Draft potential implementation language (definitions, timing, privacy safeguards, cost provisions), or
- Prepare a short briefing note on likely administrative costs and operational steps for the Supreme Court to comply.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
