WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1616

prohibiting state agencies and political subdivisions from advertising or expending funds to advertise vaccines in the state of New Hampshire.

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Judy Aron and 7 co-sponsors

Expands access to North Dakota's central voter file to any person for election-related use, with strict use limits, exemptions, and safeguards on sensitive records.

Lay HB1616 on Table (Rep. Layon): MA DV 293-18 03/11/2026 HJ 7 P. 166
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1616

Summary — HB 1616 (North Dakota): Availability of Voter Lists

Bill number: HB 1616
Primary subject: Amend and reenact NDCC § 16.1‑02‑15 — availability of voter lists
Introduced: December 13, 2024
Reported procedural status (from materials provided): Second reading — failed to pass (yeas 0, nays 88)

Main purpose / intent

The bill would revise who may obtain voter lists or reports generated from North Dakota’s central voter file and clarify handling of those requests and any fees collected. The stated intent is to broaden access to election‑related voter data while maintaining limits on how that data may be used and preserving certain exemptions for sensitive records.

Key provisions and changes

  • Expands authorized recipients: replaces the prior limitation (candidate, political party, political committee) with language allowing “any person located within or outside the state” to obtain a voter list or a report from the central voter file — but only for “election‑related purposes.”
  • Use restriction: data obtained for election‑related purposes may not be sold or distributed for non‑election purposes.
  • Exempt records retained: information in the central voter file remains an exempt record except for information specifically identified in subsections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10 of NDCC § 16.1‑02‑12 (the bill makes those enumerated items eligible to be disclosed for election‑related use).
  • „Secured active“ designation: an individual record designated “secured active” is an exempt record and is not available to requesters (including candidates, parties, committees or any person), except for the limited items identified under subsections 1, 2, and 7 of § 16.1‑02‑12.
  • Request metadata protected: any information submitted by a requesting party to the Secretary of State to obtain information under the secured‑record provision is itself an exempt record.
  • Fee handling: any funds received by the Secretary of State to cover the costs of producing reports or lists must be deposited into the Secretary of State’s general services operating fund.

Who would be affected

  • Potential recipients: candidates, political parties, political committees, outside organizations, consultants, consultants’ vendors, researchers, journalists, or any individual or entity (in‑state or out‑of‑state) seeking election‑related voter data.
  • Voters: changes affect how widely voter‑file derived personal data can be accessed; implications for voter privacy depend on what specific fields are made available per § 16.1‑02‑12.
  • Secretary of State office: administrative responsibility for fulfilling broader requests and depositing fees into the designated fund.
  • Entities concerned with data privacy and election integrity: would have an interest in the scope and safeguards of the expanded access.

Potential impacts and considerations

  • Increased access: the bill would make it easier for a broader set of actors (including out‑of‑state groups) to obtain voter‑file reports for election‑related activity, potentially facilitating outreach, research, or campaign targeting.
  • Privacy and misuse risks: although sale/distribution for non‑election uses is prohibited and some records remain exempt (including secured active records), broader access may raise concerns about targeted solicitation, data aggregation, doxxing, or other privacy harms — especially depending on which specific data fields (those enumerated in § 16.1‑02‑12) are disclosed.
  • Administrative/financial: fee receipts must be routed to the SOS general services operating fund; the SOS would need procedures for handling requests and exempt records.
  • Enforcement and definition questions: the meaning of “election‑related purposes,” the practical boundaries on re‑use, and enforcement/remedies for misuse would shape how protections operate in practice.

Procedural status

According to the information provided at the top of the record, HB 1616 was introduced December 13, 2024, and on second reading failed to pass (yeas 0, nays 88). The draft text amends NDCC § 16.1‑02‑15 as summarized above. (If you want, I can check current official legislative status or the final text in the North Dakota Legislative branch records to confirm whether the bill was subsequently amended, passed, or refiled.)

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

Sign in to ask a question.