WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1033

AN ACT to create and enact section 54-01-09.4 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to concurrent federal jurisdiction on military installations.

69th Legislative Assembly (2025-26)

The bill lets North Dakota assume concurrent, not exclusive, legislative jurisdiction over selected federal military lands after a federal request and the governor’s written accept

Filed with Secretary Of State 03/14
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1033

Summary — HB 1033 (North Dakota)

Title: AN ACT to create and enact section 54-01-09.4 of the North Dakota Century Code — Concurrent federal jurisdiction on military installations

Purpose

The bill authorizes North Dakota to accept relinquishment of exclusive federal legislative jurisdiction over U.S. military installations within the state and to establish concurrent legislative jurisdiction with the United States. The change enables state law to apply alongside federal law on specified military lands when the United States entity in charge requests retention of concurrent (rather than exclusive federal) jurisdiction and the governor accepts that request in writing.

Key provisions

  • Creates NDCC § 54‑01‑09.4 establishing the state’s authority to accept relinquishment of exclusive federal legislative jurisdiction and assume concurrent legislative jurisdiction over U.S. military installations located in North Dakota.
  • Concurrent jurisdiction becomes effective only after:
    • A request is filed by the installation’s principal officer or authorized representative under 10 U.S.C. § 2683 (or related authority), and
    • The governor provides written acceptance of that request.
  • The governor may not accept a request unless it includes: the requester’s name/authority; the subject matter of the concurrent jurisdiction request; a metes‑and‑bounds description of the land involved; and whether future contiguous expansions are included.
  • If accepted, the governor must file with the Secretary of State: the original request, the governor’s written acceptance, and the metes‑and‑bounds description; copies must also be provided to the requester.
  • The state expressly disclaims any assumption or incurrence of liability as a consequence of accepting concurrent jurisdiction.
  • After concurrent jurisdiction is established, state agencies or political subdivisions may enter reciprocal agreements with U.S. agencies to allocate or designate duties related to the concurrent jurisdiction.

Who is affected

  • Primary: U.S. military installations located in North Dakota and the federal agencies that control them (e.g., Department of Defense).
  • State actors: Governor’s office, Secretary of State (for indexing), state agencies and political subdivisions (which may enter intergovernmental agreements), and state courts/legislature (as state law will apply in those areas).
  • Local communities and residents adjacent to or on affected installations may see changes in the applicability of state laws and services (public safety, civil regulation, taxes, etc.).

Process, timing, and procedural notes

  • Concurrent jurisdiction is not automatic; it is triggered case‑by‑case by a federal request and the governor’s written acceptance.
  • The statute requires specific documentation and public record filing via the Secretary of State.
  • Status provided: introduced Nov. 12, 2024; filed with Secretary of State (document status note) — the bill text as provided is the enacted § 54‑01‑09.4. (Check official legislative records for final passage and effective dates.)

Potential impacts and considerations

  • Legal: Moves selected military lands from exclusive federal legislative authority to a shared (concurrent) regime, allowing state criminal and civil laws to apply in addition to federal law.
  • Administrative: May require coordination agreements (MOUs) to sort law‑enforcement, regulatory, and service responsibilities. The bill facilitates such reciprocal agreements.
  • Liability: The state avoids accepting liability by statute, but practical administrative and cost implications for state/local agencies should be assessed when particular requests are considered.
  • Implementation details (e.g., how conflicts of law will be handled in practice) will depend on the content of the federal request, the governor’s acceptance, and subsequent intergovernmental agreements.

Sponsors: Representative McCullough (primary) with cosponsors A. Collins, D. Garner, Springer. Related companion measures are listed in legislative materials; consult the North Dakota legislative website for the bill’s complete action history and final status.

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

Sign in to ask a question.