AN ACT to amend and reenact sections 37-01-03 and 37-01-43 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the operation and regulation of the North Dakota national guard.
HB 1074 updates North Dakota law governing the National Guard and military justice by conforming state statutes to current federal military law. It replaces the referenced version date for the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual for Courts-Martial with the 2024 versions, ensuring state law tracks the most recent federal military justice framework. The bill also clarifies that offenses committed while on military duty status, including state active duty, may still be tried by court-martial after duty ends, and that commanders may impose nonjudicial punishment for such offenses without the service member demanding a court-martial.
The bill also revises North Dakota’s military civil relief provision so that individuals called or ordered to active service for 30 consecutive days or longer receive the protections of the federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act as in effect on December 31, 2024. In practical terms, the measure updates cross-references and preserves the state’s alignment with federal protections for service members, while continuing to allow state authorities to choose between military and civilian prosecution when conduct could be charged under either system.
HB 1074 amends North Dakota Century Code sections 37-01-03 and 37-01-43. Its main legal effect is to incorporate the 2024 federal military justice materials into state law and to update the state military civil relief act to mirror the current federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. The bill affects National Guard members, other individuals on military duty status or state active duty, commanders exercising disciplinary authority, and service members eligible for civil relief protections during extended active service.
The bill appears to have been noncontroversial and broadly supported. It passed the House 93-0 and the Senate 47-0, indicating unanimous approval in both chambers. The absence of recorded committee testimony or debate suggests the measure was viewed as a routine technical update rather than a policy dispute.
No significant contention is evident in the available record. The bill’s changes are largely conforming and administrative, focused on updating federal references and clarifying existing military justice and civil relief provisions. The only potential policy consideration is the continued discretion for commanders and approving officers to route certain offenses either through military discipline or civilian courts, but there is no indication that this issue generated opposition.