AN ACT to provide an appropriation for defraying the expenses of the attorney general; to amend and reenact sections 31-01-16, 54-12-11, 54-12-30, and 54-27-25 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to compensation and mileage and travel expenses for witnesses, the salary of the attorney general, twenty-four seven sobriety program fees, and the tobacco settlement trust fund; to provide for a report; to provide for a transfer; and to provide an exemption.
HB 1003 is the North Dakota attorney general’s appropriation bill for the 2025-27 biennium. It provides funding for the office’s salaries and operations, criminal justice information sharing, law enforcement support, prosecution witness fees, litigation costs, and several grant programs, including human trafficking victim services and forensic nurse examiner programs. The bill also includes funding for equipment and technology such as crime lab supplies, undercover vehicles, radios, intoxilyzers, a jail management system replacement, and replacement of the statewide automated victim identification and notification system.
In addition to appropriations, the bill amends several statutes affecting the attorney general’s office and related programs. It increases the per-county biennial cap on prosecution witness fees from $25,000 to $30,000, adjusts the attorney general’s salary, clarifies that twenty-four seven sobriety program fees may not be waived by a judge or referee, and revises the tobacco settlement trust fund language to reflect transfers to the community health trust fund and related enforcement uses. It also authorizes criminal history record check fees, allows contingent-fee legal services for ongoing multistate technology litigation, and carries forward certain unexpended appropriations and litigation funds into the next biennium.
The bill’s fiscal impact is substantial: it appropriates $114.7 million from all funds, including $62.9 million from the general fund, and adds 4.0 FTE positions for a total of 270.0. A notable portion of the funding is one-time or designated for specific purposes, and the bill requires reporting to future legislative committees on how those funds are used. It also directs transfers from the community health trust fund and the strategic investment and improvements fund to support tobacco settlement enforcement and statewide litigation, respectively.
Overall, the bill appears to have broad legislative support, passing the House and Senate by comfortable margins in multiple readings. The votes suggest general agreement with funding the attorney general’s core operations, law enforcement tools, and victim services. The strongest support likely came from members prioritizing public safety, prosecution support, and technology upgrades.
The main points of contention appear to be the size and scope of the appropriation, the use of special funds for litigation and enforcement, and policy provisions such as the salary increase, witness-fee cap increase, and restrictions on waiving sobriety program fees. The dedicated cybercrime staffing for a northeastern North Dakota city with at least 50,000 residents and the statewide litigation funding pool may also have drawn scrutiny because they target resources to specific needs rather than distributing them more broadly.
HB 1003 increases and directs funding for the attorney general’s office and related criminal justice programs, while amending North Dakota Century Code provisions governing witness compensation, attorney general salary, sobriety program fees, and tobacco settlement trust fund uses. It also creates or continues several funding mechanisms and exemptions, including transfers from special funds, carryover authority for unspent appropriations, and authority to charge criminal history record check fees. The bill affects the attorney general, county governments, criminal justice agencies, victim service providers, forensic nurse examiner programs, and state agencies that may receive litigation pool transfers or law-enforcement-related support.
The overall sentiment around HB 1003 was favorable and pragmatic, with strong bipartisan majorities in both chambers indicating support for the attorney general budget and associated policy changes. The bill’s repeated passage by wide margins suggests lawmakers generally accepted the need for increased funding, technology investments, and targeted public-safety programs. Any reservations did not prevent final approval and appear to have been outweighed by support for the office’s operational needs and victim- and law-enforcement-related initiatives.
The most notable areas of contention were fiscal and structural rather than ideological. Some lawmakers likely questioned the size of the appropriation, the use of one-time funding and special fund transfers, and the creation of a large statewide litigation funding pool that cannot be used to pay judgments. The increase in the witness-fee reimbursement cap, the attorney general salary adjustment, and the prohibition on waiving twenty-four seven sobriety program fees may also have been debated as policy choices affecting counties, defendants, and program administration. The bill’s targeted cybercrime staffing and specific city-based deployment requirement could also have raised concerns about geographic prioritization.