WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1360

Protection from domestic abuse; personal information confidential; Attorney General; Address Confidentiality Program to request certain information to not be made public; effective date; emergency.

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Jerry Alvord and 1 co-sponsor

HB 1360 gives North Dakota's Ethics Commission broader power to dismiss or refer complaints and to adopt new procedural rules, reshaping enforcement.

Becomes law without Governor's signature 05/06/2025
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1360

HB 1360 — North Dakota (Sixty‑ninth Legislative Assembly)

Status: Introduced Nov. 15, 2024; Second reading — failed to pass (yeas 12, nays 81)

Sponsors: Representatives Christy, Ista, Lefor, Louser, O’Brien, Pyle; Senators Boschee, Hogue, Roers, Thomas

Purpose / Intent

HB 1360 would revise the enforcement process used by the North Dakota Ethics Commission. The bill updates definitions, clarifies when investigative and deliberative activities may be conducted in closed session, sets or clarifies procedures for filing and handling complaints, expands commission authority to adopt procedural rules, and removes several existing statutory complaint provisions.

Key changes and provisions

  • Amendments to definitions (NDCC 54‑66‑01)

    • Replaces or expands defined terms such as “accused individual,” “complainant,” “complaint,” “alleged violation,” “final commission order,” “gift,” “relevant information,” “regulated individual,” “respondent,” and “ultimate and true source.”
    • Incorporates both written and verbal complaints into defined processes and clarifies who qualifies as a complainant (e.g., ND resident, person subject to state licensing, or a party in a quasi‑judicial proceeding).

  • Closed meetings / confidentiality (amendment to 54‑66‑04(2))

    • Revises the statutory rule on when commission discussions concerning complaints, investigations, identities of complainants/accused, informal resolutions, or referrals are held in closed session. (Text replaces prior threshold language; bill ties closed‑session treatment to the status of a final commission order and related court affirmation.)

  • Complaint filing and initial screening (amendment to 54‑66‑05)

    • Confirms complaints may be oral or written and requires contact information (name, address, phone) for the commission to investigate.
    • Allows the commission to summarily dismiss complaints that fall outside jurisdiction, are insufficiently specific, or fail to comply with commission rules; alternatively, the commission can refer the matter for further action.
    • Protects complainant confidentiality: the commission may not disclose a complainant’s name/address to the accused without complainant authorization; if a complainant withholds authorization, their statement cannot be used as evidence of a violation.
    • For anonymous complaints that include documentary or physical evidence suggesting criminal conduct, the commission may refer the matter to law enforcement and otherwise withhold the documentary/real evidence.
    • Explicitly authorizes the commission to adopt rules of pleading, practice, and procedure for enforcement actions.

  • Investigations / referrals (amendment to 54‑66‑08)

    • If an informal resolution is not reached, the commission may dismiss the complaint, order staff to investigate, or hire an outside investigator. (Further text was truncated in the provided copy.)

  • Repeals

    • Sections to be repealed: NDCC 54‑66‑06, 54‑66‑07, and 54‑66‑09 (these sections concern complaint handling under current law).

Who would be affected

  • Regulated individuals: lobbyists, public officials, candidates, political committees, and contributors (the bill’s definitions describe the covered classes).
  • Complainants and those who file or are the subject of complaints — including limitations on anonymous complaints and the circumstances under which complainant identities and evidence are disclosed.
  • The North Dakota Ethics Commission (procedural authority and discretion increased).
  • Potentially the public’s access to information about ethics complaints and the transparency of commission activities (due to modified closed‑session language and confidentiality provisions).

Procedural / timeline notes

  • The bill amends and reenacts several NDCC sections and repeals three sections related to complaints.
  • At the time provided, HB 1360 failed to advance on second reading (12 yeas, 81 nays) and therefore did not become law in that legislative session.

Potential impacts / considerations

  • Increases commission discretion to dismiss or refer complaints and to promulgate formal procedural rules — could streamline handling but may reduce public transparency.
  • The confidentiality provisions expand protection for complainants but also limit the use of anonymous complainants’ statements as evidence (except for referral of documentary/real evidence of criminal conduct).
  • Repeal of existing complaint provisions suggests a consolidation or reworking of complaint procedures; absent full text of later sections, effects on appeal rights, penalties, and final‑order processes are uncertain and could invite legal challenges depending on implementation.
  • Because the measure did not pass on second reading, it was not enacted during this session.

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

Sign in to ask a question.