A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 29-15-21 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to a written demand for change of judge; and to provide for application.
SB 2102 would amend North Dakota’s law governing a party’s right to seek a change of judge in civil and criminal district court proceedings. The bill restates and clarifies the process for filing a written demand, including who may sign it, the time limits for filing, and the requirement that the demand be made in good faith and not for delay. It also specifies when a demand is no longer available, such as after the judge has ruled on a matter in which the party had an opportunity to be heard, while preserving a separate right to seek a new judge in certain post-judgment modification proceedings involving alimony, property division, child support, or child custody.
The bill would also reinforce the role of the presiding judge in handling these requests. Upon filing, the clerk must notify the presiding judge and the challenged judge; the challenged judge is barred from deciding the demand’s validity and must stop acting in the case unless the presiding judge later invalidates the request. The presiding judge would continue to assign a replacement judge when a demand is timely and valid, and the bill limits repeated or successive change-of-judge demands.
In practical terms, the bill would affect section 29-15-21 of the North Dakota Century Code and the administration of district court cases statewide. It would not create a new substantive cause of action, but it would alter procedural rights and responsibilities for litigants, attorneys, judges, clerks, and presiding judges in both civil and criminal matters. The application clause limits the bill to actions or proceedings commenced after the effective date.
The overall sentiment from the available record appears negative, as the bill failed on Senate second reading by a wide margin, 4-43. No committee testimony is provided, so the recorded vote is the main indicator of legislative reaction. The broad defeat suggests significant opposition to the proposed changes or to the need for revising the existing judge-disqualification procedure.
The main point of contention appears to be whether the bill’s procedural changes were necessary or desirable, especially the provisions limiting when a judge may be challenged and the rules governing repeated demands. Because there are no transcript excerpts, the specific arguments for or against the bill are not available, but the vote indicates that most senators were not persuaded to support the amendment.
SB 2102 would amend North Dakota Century Code section 29-15-21, changing the procedure for a written demand for change of judge in district court civil and criminal cases. It would affect filing deadlines, signature requirements, the timing and validity of demands, the authority of the challenged judge, and the presiding judge’s role in assigning a replacement judge. It also clarifies that certain post-judgment modification proceedings are separate actions for purposes of seeking a new judge.
The available legislative record shows clear opposition to the bill. It failed on Senate second reading by a vote of 4 yeas to 43 nays, and there are no committee transcripts indicating any supportive or opposing testimony. The recorded outcome suggests the chamber was largely unconvinced by the proposal.
The likely areas of contention were the bill’s tightening and clarification of the change-of-judge process, including the ten-day filing window, the bar on demands after a judge has ruled on a matter, and the restrictions on successive demands. Opponents may have viewed these changes as unnecessary or as limiting litigants’ ability to seek an impartial judge, while supporters likely saw them as procedural clarifications to prevent delay and forum shopping. The decisive floor vote indicates the proposal did not gain broad support.