North Dakota House Bill HB1277

North Dakota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/13/25
• Refer: 1/13/25

Caption

A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 54-03 and two new sections to chapter 54-66 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to immunity from criminal prosecution and an affirmative defense for individuals voting on legislation, closure of a matter and issuance of guidance by the ethics commission, and the discretionary referral of an investigation to an outside attorney or investigator by the ethics commission's executive director; to amend and reenact sections 12.1-13-02 and 54-66-01, subsection 2 of section 54-66-04, and sections 54-66-12 and 54-66-18 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to immunity from criminal prosecution when adhering to legislative rules, definitions related to state government ethics, confidential records related to an alleged violation of an ethics law or rule, and conflicts of interest in the legislative assembly; to repeal sections 54-66-05, 54-66-06, 54-66-07, 54-66-08, 54-66-09, and 54-66-10 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the complaint process of the ethics commission; and to declare an emergency.

Summary

HB 1277 would revise North Dakota’s ethics and conflict-of-interest framework, with a particular focus on legislative voting and the ethics commission’s complaint process. The bill would create immunity from criminal prosecution, and in one provision an affirmative defense, for members of the Legislative Assembly who vote on legislation while following chamber rules that require disclosure of a personal or private interest. It also amends the state’s law on speculating or wagering on official action to carve out immunity for legislators who comply with those disclosure rules when voting on a measure. The bill would substantially reorganize portions of chapter 54-66 governing the ethics commission. It would broaden and rename several definitions, make complaint-related meetings closed in most circumstances, authorize the executive director to close a matter after informal investigation and issue a guidance letter, and allow referral of a formal investigation to an outside attorney or investigator with commission approval. It would also revise confidentiality rules for complaints, alleged violations, and investigative materials, and repeal several existing sections governing the current complaint process. In addition, HB 1277 would require each legislative assembly to adopt conflict-of-interest rules that mandate disclosure of a member’s direct, unique, substantial, or individual interest in a bill and create a public record of those disclosures. If the legislature adopts rules at least as restrictive as the ethics commission’s rules, the commission’s disclosure-process rules would not apply to legislators. The bill is also declared an emergency measure, meaning it would take effect immediately if enacted. The overall sentiment reflected in the available record is limited because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes included, but the bill’s introduction suggests an effort to clarify and limit ethics-related exposure for legislators while preserving disclosure requirements. The bill was ultimately withdrawn on January 15, 2025, which indicates it did not advance to enactment in its introduced form. The main points of contention likely center on the balance between legislative immunity and ethics enforcement. Supporters would likely view the bill as protecting lawmakers from criminal liability when they follow chamber disclosure rules and as streamlining ethics commission procedures. Critics would likely focus on the expanded confidentiality, the ability to close matters and issue guidance without a full public process, the repeal of existing complaint procedures, and the potential narrowing of ethics commission oversight over legislators.

Impact

HB 1277 would have amended North Dakota criminal law and the state ethics code to create a specific immunity and affirmative defense for legislators voting on measures when they comply with chamber disclosure rules. It would also have narrowed the reach of the criminal speculation/wagering statute as applied to legislative votes, revised ethics commission definitions and confidentiality provisions, and replaced the existing complaint process with a more streamlined, commission-controlled enforcement structure. The bill would directly affect legislators, the ethics commission, complainants, respondents, lobbyists, public officials, candidates, political committees, and contributors subject to chapter 54-66.

Sentiment

The available record suggests a generally reform-oriented, pro-legislator approach to ethics enforcement, emphasizing disclosure compliance, procedural simplification, and protection from criminal prosecution for voting activity. However, because there are no committee transcripts or votes provided, there is no documented public debate in the record to show support or opposition. The bill’s withdrawal indicates it did not secure enough momentum to proceed in the 2025 session.

Contention

The likely controversy is whether legislators should receive immunity from criminal prosecution for voting on bills when they follow internal disclosure rules, and whether that protection is too broad. Another likely point of contention is the bill’s restructuring of ethics commission enforcement: critics may object to closed meetings, expanded confidentiality, the executive director’s discretion to close matters or issue guidance, and the repeal of several complaint-process sections. Supporters, by contrast, would likely argue these changes reduce ambiguity, protect legislative independence, and preserve ethics oversight through disclosure and commission review.