A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 54-66-04.2 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to ethics commission advisory opinions.
Summary
HB 1046 would amend North Dakota’s ethics laws governing advisory opinions issued by the Ethics Commission. The bill allows the commission to issue written advisory opinions in response to requests from public officials, candidates for elected office, or lobbyists, and also permits the commission itself to initiate an opinion by a vote of four of its five members. It clarifies that requests may be made directly by the affected person or by another person or organization on that person’s behalf if corroborating evidence shows the request is authorized.
The bill sets deadlines for the commission to act: it must notify the requester within 14 days whether it will provide an opinion and then issue the opinion within 90 days after notice. It also provides that a person who acts in good faith in accordance with an advisory opinion will not be subject to criminal or civil penalties if the material facts are substantially the same as those described in the opinion. In addition, the bill keeps requests and opinions as open records, while exempting names of persons mentioned in them, and requires the commission to publish all written advisory opinions on a public website.
Impact
HB 1046 would have amended section 54-66-04.2 of the North Dakota Century Code, expanding and clarifying the Ethics Commission’s advisory-opinion process and public disclosure rules. It would affect public officials, candidates, lobbyists, and the Ethics Commission by establishing who may request opinions, how quickly the commission must respond, and the legal protection available when conduct follows an opinion in good faith. The bill also reinforces transparency by requiring online publication of opinions while protecting personal names in the records.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been framed as an ethics-and-transparency measure, with the Judiciary Committee introducing it at the request of the Ethics Commission, suggesting institutional support for clarifying the advisory-opinion process. However, it failed on House second reading by a wide margin, 12 yeas to 80 nays, indicating little legislative support overall. The vote suggests the chamber was not persuaded that the proposed changes were necessary or acceptable in their proposed form.
Contention
The main points of contention likely centered on the scope of the Ethics Commission’s authority and the procedural rules for advisory opinions. The bill would have allowed the commission to initiate opinions on its own by a supermajority vote and would have extended legal protection to conduct taken in reliance on those opinions, which may have raised concerns about discretion, accountability, or the practical effect of insulating conduct from penalties. Another possible issue was the balance between transparency and privacy, since the bill makes opinions public but exempts names, and it permits third parties to request opinions on behalf of officials or lobbyists with corroborating evidence.