A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact sections 53-06.1-01.1 and 53-06.1-15.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the structure of the state gaming commission and the administration and regulation of games of chance; to provide an appropriation; and to provide for application.
HB 1525 would restructure North Dakota’s state gaming commission and revise how games of chance are administered and enforced. The bill changes the commission’s membership, including the number and appointment process for members, shortens the standard term length to two years, sets residency and conflict-of-interest eligibility rules, and updates compensation and meeting requirements. It also requires the commission to adopt rules governing gaming operations, recordkeeping, internal controls, equipment standards, and the use of gaming proceeds for charitable and public-spirited purposes.
The bill also expands and clarifies enforcement procedures for gaming violations. It requires hearings when the attorney general’s evidence suggests a serious violation, sets notice and decision deadlines, allows a range of sanctions including training, player bans, prize-payment orders, license suspension or revocation, and monetary fines, and provides for appeals to the Office of Administrative Hearings with expedited timelines. The attorney general’s parallel authority is also revised to include inspections, audits, civil collection actions, injunctive relief, and the ability to require use of the attorney general’s recordkeeping system. The bill includes a $25,000 general fund appropriation for gaming commission operations and an application section that ends current commission terms on June 30, 2025, to reset the membership structure.
Overall sentiment appears mixed but generally supportive in the House, where the bill passed second reading 72-13, but it was rejected in the Senate on second reading 13-34, causing the bill to fail. The House vote suggests substantial support for the restructuring and enforcement changes, while the Senate vote indicates significant opposition or concern with the proposal as amended.
The main points of contention likely centered on the scope of the restructuring, the balance of authority between the gaming commission and the attorney general, and the bill’s expanded enforcement powers and penalties. The changes to commission composition, term limits, and eligibility rules may also have raised concerns about representation, independence, and how gaming interests are overseen. The appropriation and the requirement to reset existing commission terms may have been additional issues for opponents.
HB 1525 would have amended North Dakota Century Code sections 53-06.1-01.1 and 53-06.1-15.1, changing the legal structure governing the state gaming commission and the attorney general’s role in regulating games of chance. It would have altered appointment, membership, term, and qualification rules for the commission, expanded rulemaking and enforcement provisions, and modified appeal procedures and sanctions for gaming violations. The bill also would have appropriated $25,000 in one-time general fund support for gaming commission operations and reset existing commission terms to implement the new structure.
The bill received strong support in the House but failed decisively in the Senate. The 72-13 House second-reading vote indicates broad approval at that stage, while the 13-34 Senate second-reading vote shows the measure lost substantial support in the upper chamber. With no committee transcript available, the recorded votes are the best indicator of sentiment: favorable in one chamber, but ultimately insufficient to advance the bill.
The most likely areas of disagreement were the bill’s governance changes and enforcement expansion. Critics may have objected to shifting or concentrating authority between the gaming commission and the attorney general, the mandatory reset of current commission terms, and the new appointment structure that changes who sits on the commission. The bill’s stronger penalties, expedited hearings, live-recording requirement, and broader authority to suspend licenses, fine parties, and require recordkeeping systems likely also drew concern from gaming organizations, distributors, manufacturers, and site owners affected by the regulation.