AN ACT to create and enact section 54-01-09.4 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to concurrent federal jurisdiction on military installations.
HB 1033 creates a new section of the North Dakota Century Code establishing a process for concurrent legislative jurisdiction between North Dakota and the United States over military installations located in the state. The bill provides that the state accepts relinquishment of exclusive legislative jurisdiction from the federal government, but only when the governor gives written acceptance of a request from the military installation’s authorized representative under federal law.
The measure requires any request for concurrent jurisdiction to identify the requester’s authority, the subject matter of the request, a metes-and-bounds description of the installation, and whether future contiguous expansions are included. If the governor accepts the request, the acceptance must specify what is approved, and the request, acceptance, and property description must be filed with the secretary of state. The bill also states that North Dakota does not assume liability by accepting concurrent jurisdiction and allows state agencies or political subdivisions to enter reciprocal agreements with federal agencies to divide duties related to that jurisdiction.
HB 1033 changes state law by adding a formal mechanism for North Dakota to share legislative authority with the federal government over military installations within the state. It affects the governor, the secretary of state, state agencies, political subdivisions, and military installation officials by setting procedural requirements for jurisdictional requests and acceptance. The bill is intended to clarify legal authority on federal enclaves and may affect law enforcement, regulatory enforcement, and administrative responsibilities on military bases.
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the House 90-0 and the Senate 47-0, indicating unanimous approval among voting members in both chambers. No committee transcript or recorded debate was provided, and the voting history suggests general agreement with the bill’s administrative and jurisdictional purpose.
No notable opposition is reflected in the available record. Because the bill concerns jurisdiction over military installations, any potential points of contention would likely involve the scope of state authority, the governor’s discretion to accept requests, and the allocation of duties between state and federal officials, but none of these issues appear to have generated recorded disagreement in the available materials.