AN ACT to amend and reenact sections 37-01-03 and 37-01-43 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the operation and regulation of the North Dakota national guard.
Summary
HB 1074 updates two provisions of North Dakota law governing the National Guard and military service protections. First, it refreshes the state’s incorporation of the federal Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual for Courts-Martial to the versions in effect on December 31, 2024, and clarifies that offenses committed while a person is on military duty status, including state active duty, may still be prosecuted by court-martial after the duty ends. It also preserves commanders’ authority to impose nonjudicial punishment and allows, in cases where conduct could be charged under either military or civil law, the approving officer to refer the matter to civil authorities.
Second, the bill updates the North Dakota Military Civil Relief Act so that individuals ordered to active service for 30 consecutive days or longer receive the protections available under the federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act as of December 31, 2024. In practical terms, the bill keeps state law aligned with current federal military justice and servicemember-relief standards, while maintaining the state’s existing framework for discipline, prosecution, and legal protections for Guard members and other service members.
Impact
The bill amends North Dakota Century Code sections 37-01-03 and 37-01-43, affecting the legal rules governing the North Dakota National Guard, military discipline, and civil relief protections for activated service members. It updates statutory cross-references to the most recent federal military justice and servicemember-relief authorities, ensuring state law conforms to current federal law and remains administratively current for courts-martial, nonjudicial punishment, and civil protections tied to active service.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly noncontroversial and received unanimous support in both chambers, with 93-0 in the House and 47-0 in the Senate on second reading. The lack of recorded committee testimony or dissent suggests the measure was viewed as a routine technical update requested by the Adjutant General rather than a policy dispute.
Contention
There is little visible contention around HB 1074. The only potentially sensitive issue is the continued authority to pursue military discipline or refer cases to civil authorities for conduct occurring on duty, but the bill does not appear to have generated opposition. The measure’s sponsor request from the Adjutant General and its unanimous votes indicate general agreement on keeping state military law aligned with federal updates and preserving servicemember protections.