WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1263

An Act establishing the Keystone Saves Program, the Keystone Saves Program Fund, the Keystone Saves Administrative Fund and the Keystone Saves Program Advisory Board; and providing for powers and duties of the Treasury Department, for investment and fiduciary responsibilities and for program implementation.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Lisa Borowski and 33 co-sponsors

ND HB 1263 tightens criminal-record sealing: requires clear and convincing evidence and explicit factors, plus a 1-year re-filing bar.

Referred to Finance
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1263

Summary — HB 1263 (North Dakota)

AN ACT to amend and reenact section 12‑60.1‑04 of the North Dakota Century Code — hearings on petitions to seal a criminal record

Purpose / Intent

The bill revises statutory procedures and standards for court hearings on petitions to seal criminal records (NDCC § 12‑60.1‑04). Its aim is to clarify the evidentiary standard and factors the court must weigh, set notice and timing requirements, and limit post‑denial re‑filing in some cases.

Key provisions

  • Standard to grant petition: the court may seal a criminal record only if it finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that:

    • the petitioner has shown good cause;
    • the benefit to the petitioner outweighs the presumption of openness of the record;
    • the petitioner has completed all terms of imprisonment and probation for the offense;
    • the petitioner has paid all court‑ordered restitution for the offense;
    • the petitioner has demonstrated reformation; and
    • the petition otherwise complies with chapter requirements.

  • Factors the court must consider include:

    • nature and severity of the underlying crime;
    • risk the petitioner poses to society;
    • time elapsed since the offense;
    • petitioner’s rehabilitation;
    • aggravating/mitigating factors (including those in § 12.1‑32‑04);
    • petitioner’s criminal record, employment history, and community involvement;
    • recommendations from law enforcement, prosecutors, corrections officials, others familiar with the petitioner and offense; and
    • recommendations of victims of the offense.

  • Timing and notice:

    • A hearing may not be held earlier than 45 days after filing the petition.
    • To the extent practicable, upon receipt of a petition the prosecutor must notify and seek input from law enforcement, witnesses, victims, and correctional authorities familiar with the petitioner and offense.
    • Prosecutors may still stipulate to sealing a record without a hearing or on an expedited basis.

  • Appeals and refiling:

    • No appeal is allowed from a denial issued by a district judge or magistrate.
    • A denial in municipal court may be appealed to district court for de novo review without a filing fee; a district court denial may not be appealed.
    • If good cause is shown, a district court denying a petition may bar the petitioner from filing a subsequent petition for up to one year following the denial (language reduces a prior three‑year bar to one year).

  • When granted: the court’s order must state that the petitioner is sufficiently rehabilitated but remains subject to § 12.1‑33‑02.1; sealed information must be released where an entity has a statutory obligation to conduct criminal background checks.

Who is affected

  • Petitioners seeking sealing of criminal records (defendants/former offenders).
  • Prosecutors, law enforcement, corrections officials, and victims (who are to be notified and may provide recommendations).
  • Courts handling petitions (municipal, district, magistrate).
  • Employers and entities with statutory criminal‑history background check obligations (limited disclosure exception).

Procedural / timeline notes

  • Introduced in the House and advanced through Judiciary committees; recorded roll‑call votes show wide support (House 93–0; Senate 45–1).
  • Legislative actions indicate the measure was filed with the Secretary of State on April 16 (documented as filed 04/16).
  • The statute amended is NDCC § 12‑60.1‑04 (hearing on petition).

Practical effect / considerations

  • Raises the evidentiary threshold (clear and convincing) and lists explicit factors courts must weigh, potentially standardizing and (in some cases) narrowing sealing outcomes.
  • Strengthens victim and law‑enforcement input in the process by requiring prosecutors to solicit and consider their views.
  • Shortens the potential moratorium on refiling from three years to one year (when a district court finds good cause to prohibit refiling), allowing earlier reconsideration in some cases.
  • Maintains prosecutors’ ability to consent to sealing without a full hearing.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.