Bill
HB 1505
HB 1505 would immunize legislators from prosecution for votes on legislation under disclosure rules and reshape ethics enforcement and confidentiality rules.
Status & procedural history
- Introduced: March 14, 2025.
- Chief provisions primarily amend/add provisions to North Dakota Century Code chapters 12.1, 54-03, and 54-66.
- Legislative status (as provided): Second reading — failed to pass (yeas 9 / nays 84). The bill included an emergency clause.
Main purpose
HB 1505 would (1) provide immunity and statutory defenses for members of the Legislative Assembly in certain cases arising from voting on legislation, and (2) change procedures, confidentiality rules, appeal rights, and disposition options for matters handled by the State Ethics Commission. The stated intent is to protect legislators from criminal prosecution in narrowly defined circumstances and to clarify/streamline ethics enforcement procedures.
Key provisions and changes
- Immunity for legislative voting (amend 12.1‑13‑02; new section to ch. 54‑03):
- Creates immunity from prosecution under the statute that criminalizes speculating/wagering on official action for an individual who (a) was a member of the Legislative Assembly when the official action occurred, (b) the action was a vote in the Senate, House, or a legislative committee, and (c) the member complied with disclosure rules (see 54‑66‑18).
- Later drafts expand that immunity to the member and to an “organization” for which the member is an “agent” (cross-referencing definitions in ch. 12.1‑03‑04).
- Affirmative defenses based on ethics guidance (new section to ch. 54‑03):
- Reliance on informal guidance from the Ethics Commission executive director is an affirmative defense if the legislator acted in good faith and the material facts are substantially the same as those presented to the director.
- Reliance on written guidance issued under Commission rules is also a statutory defense.
- Ethics Commission enforcement and disposition (new section to ch. 54‑66):
- Requires the executive director, at the end of an informal investigation, to prepare a report and recommendation either to close the matter or request issuance of an alleged violation.
- Gives the commission explicit authority to issue alleged violations, require more informal investigation, settle and close matters, or issue advisory opinions/informal guidance as part of a settlement.
- Confidentiality changes (amend 54‑66‑12):
- Specifies categories of commission records treated as confidential (complaint contents, staff-prepared records, investigatory material, information that identifies respondents, etc.).
- Confidentiality exceptions were tied to a final commission order finding a violation and, in some drafts, a court affirming that order; disclosure permitted where required by law, necessary for investigation, or with the accused’s agreement. Also allows limited internal disclosures to public entities that are subjects of complaints.
- Appeals (amend 54‑66‑10):
- Clarifies the right and venues for judicial appeal (district court where respondent resides, Burleigh County, or where substantial part of subject matter occurred) and sets a 30‑day filing window after notice of a commission order.
- Conflicts of interest (amend 54‑66‑18):
- Drafts tie the immunities/defenses to adherence to legislative/commission disclosure rules requiring disclosure of potential personal/private interests.
Who would be affected
- Primary: members of the North Dakota Legislative Assembly (and, in some language, organizations for which they are agents).
- Secondary: complainants and respondents in Ethics Commission investigations, the Ethics Commission and its executive director, investigators, courts hearing appeals, and the public (through changes to confidentiality and disclosure).
- Practical effect: reduces criminal exposure for legislators who vote while having disclosed potential conflicts and who rely on ethics guidance; modifies transparency and enforcement procedures for ethics complaints.
Potential impacts / considerations
- Supporters would argue the bill shields lawmakers from meritless criminal prosecutions for votes and clarifies reliance on ethics advice.
- Critics could raise concerns about reduced accountability or narrower public access to complaint and investigatory information, and whether immunity/defenses could limit enforcement of conflict-of-interest rules.
- The bill contains an emergency clause (would take immediate effect if enacted).
Sections amended/added (principal citations)
- Amends: 12.1‑13‑02, 54‑66‑10, 54‑66‑12, 54‑66‑18.
- Adds: new section(s) to chapter 54‑03 (voting on legislation — immunity/defenses) and to chapter 54‑66 (issuance/closure of alleged violation).
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
