AN ACT to amend and reenact section 23-01-05 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the qualifications, term, and duties of the state health officer.
Summary
SB 2255 revises North Dakota law governing the state health officer. It changes the appointment qualifications from requiring a physician with administrative and public health experience to allowing a person with education, training, or experience in public health and relevant leadership experience. The bill also changes the office from a four-year term to serving at the pleasure of the governor, while keeping salary and expense provisions under executive and legislative budget limits.
The bill also updates the state health officer’s duties and emergency authority. It preserves the officer’s role in advising on public health, supporting local health services, and issuing disease-control orders, but adds limits on statewide orders: they may be issued only during a gubernatorial disaster or emergency declaration and with the governor’s consent. The bill further authorizes the officer to seek injunctions to cancel public events or close businesses when necessary to control communicable disease spread, and it adds explicit protections for religious exercise and comparable secular treatment in disease-control orders.
Impact
SB 2255 amends section 23-01-05 of the North Dakota Century Code, affecting the qualifications, tenure, compensation, and powers of the state health officer. It broadens eligibility for the office, shifts the position to at-will service under the governor, and clarifies the relationship between the state health officer, the governor, and the Department of Health and Human Services. It also adds statutory limits and judicial-review provisions for communicable disease orders, including religious-liberty protections and a cause of action for aggrieved persons.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have received generally favorable support, passing both chambers with comfortable majorities. The Senate approved it 40-6 and the House 76-16, suggesting broad agreement on updating the office’s structure and public health authority, though not unanimous support. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the vote margins indicate the measure was broadly acceptable while still drawing some opposition.
Contention
The main points of contention likely center on executive control and public health authority. Critics may object to making the state health officer serve at the pleasure of the governor rather than for a fixed term, as well as to the officer’s authority to seek injunctions affecting businesses and public events during disease outbreaks. Supporters likely emphasized clearer accountability to the governor, more flexible qualifications for the office, and explicit limits on statewide health orders. The added religious-exercise protections and requirement that statewide orders occur only during a declared emergency appear designed to address concerns about overreach and civil liberties.