AN ACT to amend and reenact section 1-01-49, subdivision g of subsection 1 of section 12.1-32-15, subdivision b of subsection 1 of section 14-07.6-01, section 18-01-36, subdivision j of subsection 4 of section 27-20.3-16, subsection 19 of section 45-13-01, subsection 7 of section 49-02-02, section 52-02-18, subsection 5 of section 54-10-28, section 54-52.6-02.2, subsection 3 of section 57-02-08.8, subsection 2 of section 57-38-30.3, and subsection 1 of section 57-40.5-03 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to technical corrections and improper, inaccurate, redundant, missing, or obsolete references; to repeal sections 1-01-18, 1-01-20, 1-01-21, 1-01-27, 1-01-29, 1-01-30, 1-01-36, 1-01-40, 1-01-41, 1-01-42, 1-01-45, 1-01-46, 1-01-47, and 1-01-51 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to technical corrections and improper, inaccurate, redundant, missing, or obsolete references; and to provide an effective date.

69th Legislative Assembly (2025-26)

HB 1031 corrects technical errors, redundancies, and outdated references throughout North Dakota law while repealing 14 obsolete code sections.

Filed with Secretary Of State 03/14

Legislative bill overview

HB 1031 is a technical corrections bill that amends numerous sections of the North Dakota Century Code to fix improper, inaccurate, redundant, missing, or obsolete references throughout state law. It also repeals 14 obsolete sections that are no longer functional or necessary. These are housekeeping changes designed to clean up and clarify the state's legal code.

Why is this important

Technical corrections bills ensure that state law is internally consistent and that outdated references don't create confusion or unintended legal consequences. When code sections reference non-existent provisions or contain errors, it can complicate legal interpretation, enforcement, and compliance. Removing obsolete sections prevents citizens and businesses from encountering dead-end legal references.

Potential points of contention

Scope opacity: The bill's broad technical nature makes it difficult for the public to understand specific impacts without detailed legal expertise; some changes could have unintended downstream effects on how laws are interpreted

Repeal without replacement: Removing 14 sections raises questions about whether any important provisions are being inadvertently eliminated or whether stakeholders in affected policy areas were consulted

Compressed legislative review: Technical bills often receive less scrutiny than substantive legislation, potentially allowing problematic changes to pass without thorough examination