A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 16.1-01-12 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to election offenses.
Summary
HB 1245 would expand and reorganize North Dakota’s election-offense statute, section 16.1-01-12, by restating a broad list of prohibited conduct related to voting, election administration, and petition circulation. The bill covers fraud involving ballots, voting more than once, voting in the wrong precinct, disobeying election officers, excluding qualified voters, false canvassing or returns, destruction of election materials, and petition-related misconduct such as signing another person’s name or submitting petitions with fraudulent signatures.
A major feature of the bill is its treatment of petition circulation and election integrity offenses. It specifies that paying circulators based on the number of signatures is unlawful, while allowing salaried or expense-based compensation if disclosure requirements are met. It also adds or clarifies penalties for conduct involving initiative, referendum, and recall petitions, including a civil penalty for certain fraudulent petition-signature activity by measure committee members or agents. The bill further states that election offenses apply equally to candidate elections and ballot questions.
Impact
If enacted, HB 1245 would amend North Dakota Century Code section 16.1-01-12 and strengthen the statutory framework governing election crimes and petition fraud. It would classify various violations as either class A misdemeanors or class C felonies, impose organizational fines and business-authorization consequences for offending organizations, and authorize the attorney general to seek civil penalties in Burleigh County for certain petition-related fraud. The bill would also make clear that election-offense provisions apply not only to candidate elections but also to ballot measures and other questions submitted to voters.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill faced significant opposition and did not advance, failing on House second reading by a vote of 29-64. With no committee transcript available, the record indicates that the measure was controversial rather than broadly supported, likely because it would tighten criminal and civil penalties around elections and petition circulation. The final action of “Failed” reflects that the chamber did not accept the proposal.
Contention
The most likely points of contention were the bill’s stricter penalties and its regulation of petition circulation, especially the prohibition on compensation tied to signature counts and the criminalization of fraudulent petition activity. Another likely area of debate was the breadth of the offense list, including provisions affecting organizations, measure committees, and agents working on ballot initiatives and referendums. Supporters would have viewed the bill as an election-integrity measure, while opponents likely saw it as overly punitive or burdensome for political organizing and petition drives.