A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 53-06.1-01.1, subsection 3 of section 53-06.1-14, and section 53-06.1-15.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the gaming commission, gaming stamp requirements, and the attorney general's regulation of gaming; to provide a penalty; and to provide an appropriation.
SB 2224 would revise North Dakota’s charitable gaming laws in three main ways. First, it updates the membership rules for the state gaming commission, including clarifying eligibility standards, compensation, meeting requirements, and the commission’s rulemaking authority over gaming operations, equipment, recordkeeping, and enforcement. Second, it changes the gaming stamp requirement for licensed distributors by requiring North Dakota gaming stamps on specified gaming products, while creating an exemption for certain raffle-board events where numbered squares are sold only on the day of the event.
The bill also expands and clarifies the attorney general’s enforcement authority over gaming. It authorizes inspections, audits, seizures, training requirements, prohibitions on participation in gaming, prize-payment determinations, license or permit suspension and revocation, monetary fines, civil collection actions, and injunctive or declaratory relief. It adds a formal process for hearings when serious violations are alleged and preserves a right of appeal to district court. The bill further includes a $25,000 general fund appropriation for the attorney general to cover gaming commission operating costs for the 2025-2027 biennium.
In practical terms, the bill would affect the gaming commission, the attorney general’s office, licensed charitable gaming organizations, distributors, manufacturers, and third-party gaming businesses. It would amend sections of the North Dakota Century Code governing charitable gaming oversight and enforcement, and it would create a new one-time funding item for administration. The bill also preserves existing regulatory structures while tightening compliance tools and clarifying penalties for violations.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history appears mixed and ultimately unfavorable. The bill passed the Senate on first consideration and overwhelmingly passed the House on second reading, but then failed on a later Senate second reading vote by a wide margin. That pattern suggests the proposal had some support for stronger gaming oversight, but not enough consensus to survive final Senate action.
The main points of contention likely centered on the scope of the attorney general’s enforcement powers, the added compliance burden on gaming organizations and distributors, and the appropriateness of the new appropriation. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a modernization and enforcement measure for charitable gaming, while opponents may have objected to expanded regulatory authority, penalties, or the financial and administrative impact on the gaming industry and nonprofit organizations.
SB 2224 would amend North Dakota Century Code sections governing the gaming commission, gaming stamp requirements, and the attorney general’s authority over gaming enforcement. It would strengthen administrative oversight, clarify eligibility and compensation rules for commissioners, adjust distributor stamp obligations, and expand the attorney general’s inspection, hearing, penalty, and collection powers. It also creates a one-time $25,000 general fund appropriation for gaming commission operations for the 2025-2027 biennium, affecting the attorney general’s office and regulated charitable gaming participants.
The bill’s legislative history suggests divided sentiment. It received support in both chambers at different points, including a strong House second-reading vote, but it ultimately failed in the Senate on a later second-reading vote. That indicates there was meaningful interest in tightening gaming regulation, but not enough agreement to enact the measure. The final outcome points to significant resistance, likely from members concerned about enforcement expansion, regulatory costs, or the bill’s effect on charitable gaming operations.
The most likely areas of contention were the attorney general’s expanded enforcement powers, including inspections, fines, suspensions, revocations, and the ability to require training or prohibit participation in gaming. Another likely issue was the added compliance burden on licensed organizations and distributors, especially the gaming stamp requirement and recordkeeping obligations. The $25,000 appropriation may also have drawn scrutiny as a new spending item tied to regulatory administration. Supporters would have emphasized stronger oversight and integrity in charitable gaming, while opponents likely focused on government overreach and the operational impact on nonprofits and gaming businesses.