HB 1204 amends North Dakota’s election law governing false statements in political advertising and related campaign communications. The bill makes it a class A misdemeanor for a person to knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth, publish a political advertisement or news release containing an untrue, deceptive, or misleading factual assertion. The covered material includes statements about a candidate’s prior public record as well as communications supporting or opposing candidates, ballot measures, constitutional amendments, and other election issues.
The bill expands and clarifies the list of communication methods covered by the statute. It expressly includes radio, television, newspapers, text messages, telephone calls, pamphlets, signs, posters, billboards, websites, electronic transmissions, social media, and other public or commercial media. It also preserves an exemption for newspapers, broadcast stations, and other commercial media that are not themselves the source of the political advertisement or news release.
HB 1204 updates section 16.1-10-04 of the North Dakota Century Code by broadening the statute’s language to reflect modern campaign communications and by reaffirming criminal penalties for knowingly false or recklessly false political messaging. The practical effect is to give election officials and prosecutors a clearer basis to address deceptive campaign ads across both traditional and digital platforms, while maintaining protection for neutral media outlets that merely disseminate content created by others.
The bill appears to have been broadly supported. It passed the House 77-14 and the Senate 45-1, indicating strong bipartisan approval and little recorded opposition. No committee transcripts were provided, but the vote totals suggest the measure was viewed favorably as an election-integrity or anti-disinformation update rather than a controversial speech restriction.
The main potential point of contention is the balance between preventing deceptive political advertising and protecting political speech. Opponents of similar measures often worry that terms like “misleading” or “reckless disregard” could be applied too broadly or chill campaign speech, especially in fast-moving election contexts. Supporters, by contrast, are likely to emphasize the need to deter knowingly false claims in campaign materials and to modernize the law for social media and other digital communications.