North Dakota House Bill HB1290

North Dakota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Filed/Introduced: 2/24/25
• Introduced: 1/13/25
• Refer: 1/13/25
• Report DNP: 1/29/25

Caption

A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact subsection 4 of section 53-06.1-01.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to state gaming commission rules on electronic pull tab games and deals at the end of a quarter.

Summary

HB 1290 would amend North Dakota gaming law to limit the State Gaming Commission’s authority over electronic pull tab games and deals. Specifically, it prohibits the commission from adopting a rule that would require an electronic pull tab game or deal to be closed at the end of a quarter. The bill still allows the commission to require a report to be generated and printed at the end of a quarter, preserving some quarterly oversight without forcing the game or deal itself to shut down. The bill is narrowly focused on one aspect of gaming regulation and would modify the commission’s rulemaking authority under section 53-06.1-01.1 of the North Dakota Century Code. It would affect organizations and distributors involved in charitable gaming, especially those operating electronic pull tabs, by preventing an operational shutdown tied to quarterly reporting periods. The bill does not change the underlying tax, licensing, or charitable-use requirements, but it would constrain how the commission can regulate game continuity and reporting procedures.

Impact

If enacted, HB 1290 would amend North Dakota Century Code section 53-06.1-01.1 to restrict the State Gaming Commission’s rulemaking power over electronic pull tab games and deals. The practical effect would be to prevent the commission from requiring quarterly closure of electronic pull tab activity, while still permitting quarterly reports to be produced and printed. This would directly affect charitable gaming organizations, distributors, and manufacturers that use electronic pull tab systems, and it would limit one regulatory tool available to the commission for oversight of gaming operations.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have had limited support and ultimately failed on the House floor by a wide margin, with 6 yeas and 84 nays on second reading. That vote suggests the chamber was generally unsupportive of the proposal. Because there were no committee transcripts provided, the available record does not show detailed debate, but the decisive vote indicates the bill did not gain broad legislative traction.

Contention

The main point of contention is the balance between regulatory oversight and operational flexibility in electronic pull tab gaming. Supporters likely viewed the quarterly closure requirement as unnecessary or burdensome for charitable gaming operators, while opponents likely preferred to preserve the Gaming Commission’s ability to impose stricter controls to ensure compliance, accountability, and integrity in gaming. The bill’s failure by a large margin suggests that many legislators were unconvinced that limiting the commission’s authority was warranted.