A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 54-66-04.2 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to ethics commission advisory opinions.
HB 1046 would revise North Dakota’s ethics commission advisory-opinion process. It authorizes the Ethics Commission to issue written advisory opinions in response to requests from public officials, candidates for elected office, or lobbyists, and also allows the commission itself to initiate an opinion by a vote of four of its five members. The bill limits opinions to hypothetical facts or prospective conduct involving Article XIV of the North Dakota Constitution or state ethics-related laws and rules covering transparency, corruption, elections, and lobbying.
The bill also sets procedural deadlines and clarifies the legal effect of opinions. The commission would have 14 days to notify a requester whether it will provide an opinion and 90 days after that notice to issue the opinion. A person acting in good faith in accordance with an opinion would be shielded from criminal and civil penalties if the material facts are substantially the same as those presented in the request. Requests and opinions would generally be open records, but names of persons would be exempt, and all issued opinions would have to be published on a public website.
HB 1046 would amend section 54-66-04.2 of the North Dakota Century Code, expanding and clarifying the Ethics Commission’s authority to issue advisory opinions and establishing a more formal process for doing so. It would affect public officials, candidates, lobbyists, and others seeking ethics guidance, while also increasing public access to commission opinions through publication requirements and open-records rules with a limited name exemption. The bill would also strengthen reliance protections for individuals who follow an opinion in good faith.
The available record shows little direct debate or recorded vote detail, but the bill was introduced by the Judiciary Committee at the request of the Ethics Commission, which suggests institutional support for clarifying the advisory-opinion process. The bill ultimately failed, indicating that it did not secure enough support to advance. With no committee transcript or vote breakdown provided, the overall sentiment can only be characterized as procedurally favorable from the Ethics Commission’s perspective but unsuccessful in the legislature.
The main points of potential contention are the scope of the Ethics Commission’s authority and the legal consequences of its opinions. Some lawmakers may have been concerned about allowing the commission to issue opinions on its own initiative, the breadth of who may request opinions on behalf of officials or lobbyists, or the extent to which advisory opinions should shield conduct from civil and criminal penalties. Transparency issues may also have been debated, including whether requests and opinions should be public records and how much identifying information should be exempt.