AN ACT to amend and reenact subsection 6 of section 39-01-15 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the display of mobility-impaired parking permits; and to provide a penalty.
Summary
HB 1137 amends North Dakota law governing mobility-impaired parking permits. The bill requires a certificate issued under section 39-01-15 to be hung from the rearview mirror or placed on the dashboard whenever a vehicle is parked in a space reserved for the mobility impaired and is being used by a mobility-impaired individual, or by another person transporting that individual. It also specifies that no part of the certificate may be obscured.
The bill adds an enforcement provision by allowing a five-dollar fee to be imposed for a violation of the display requirement. In practical terms, the measure clarifies how disability parking credentials must be displayed and creates a small penalty for noncompliance, while leaving the underlying eligibility for mobility-impaired parking privileges unchanged.
Impact
HB 1137 directly amends subsection 6 of section 39-01-15 of the North Dakota Century Code, tightening the statutory display rules for mobility-impaired parking certificates. It affects drivers using accessible parking spaces, including both mobility-impaired individuals and those transporting them, and gives enforcement authorities a specific penalty option for improper display. The bill does not change who qualifies for the permit, but it does create a clearer compliance standard for permit holders and vehicle operators.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have received broad, unanimous support. It passed the House 90-0 and the Senate 45-0, with no recorded opposition in either chamber. The lack of committee transcript discussion and the unanimous votes suggest the measure was viewed as a straightforward administrative clarification rather than a controversial policy change.
Contention
There is little evidence of substantive contention around HB 1137. The only potentially notable issue is the enforcement mechanism: the bill authorizes a five-dollar fee for violations of the display requirement, which could raise questions about whether the penalty is sufficient to ensure compliance or whether it adds unnecessary administrative burden. However, no recorded debate or dissent indicates that lawmakers disagreed meaningfully on that point.