A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 27-02 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to publication of judicial improvement survey results.
Summary
HB 1189 would require the North Dakota Supreme Court to publish the results of any judicial improvement survey in the official newspaper of each county within the judicial officer’s judicial district. The bill creates a new section in chapter 27-02 of the North Dakota Century Code and is narrowly focused on public disclosure of survey results related to judicial performance or improvement.
In practical terms, the measure would add a mandatory publication requirement for the judiciary, ensuring that survey results are printed in county official newspapers rather than remaining only in internal or limited-access formats. The bill does not appear to change how surveys are conducted, scored, or used; it only addresses where the results must be published.
Impact
If enacted, HB 1189 would impose a new publication duty on the North Dakota Supreme Court and affect the handling of judicial improvement survey results across each county in a judicial officer’s district. It would not directly alter substantive judicial standards or court procedures, but it would expand public access to survey information and create an additional administrative and publication obligation for the court system and county newspapers.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have had little support in the House, failing on second reading by a vote of 10-78. With no committee transcript available, there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate broad enthusiasm or detailed support arguments. The vote suggests the measure was generally viewed unfavorably or as unnecessary by most members.
Contention
The likely point of contention is whether judicial improvement survey results should be required to be published in official county newspapers, which raises questions about transparency, cost, administrative burden, and the appropriateness of publicizing judicial survey information in that manner. Supporters would likely frame the bill as promoting openness and accountability in the judiciary, while opponents likely viewed the mandate as excessive, duplicative, or not worth the added publication requirement. The lopsided vote indicates that concerns about the bill outweighed support.