A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 54-03 and two new sections to chapter 54-66 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to immunity from criminal prosecution and an affirmative defense for individuals voting on legislation, closure of a matter and issuance of guidance by the ethics commission, and the discretionary referral of an investigation to an outside attorney or investigator by the ethics commission's executive director; to amend and reenact sections 12.1-13-02 and 54-66-01, subsection 2 of section 54-66-04, and sections 54-66-12 and 54-66-18 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to immunity from criminal prosecution when adhering to legislative rules, definitions related to state government ethics, confidential records related to an alleged violation of an ethics law or rule, and conflicts of interest in the legislative assembly; to repeal sections 54-66-05, 54-66-06, 54-66-07, 54-66-08, 54-66-09, and 54-66-10 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the complaint process of the ethics commission; and to declare an emergency.
HB1277 would revise North Dakota’s ethics and legislative-conflict laws in several ways. Most notably, it would provide criminal immunity, and in one instance an affirmative defense, for members of the Legislative Assembly who vote on legislation after complying with legislative disclosure rules for personal or private interests. The bill also amends the state’s law on speculating or wagering on official action to exempt legislators from prosecution when the vote was taken in accordance with those disclosure rules.
The bill further restructures portions of the ethics commission’s complaint and enforcement process. It revises definitions in the ethics chapter, changes when meetings and records are confidential, allows the ethics commission executive director to close matters and issue guidance letters after informal investigation, and permits the executive director, with commission approval, to refer formal investigations to outside attorneys or investigators. It also repeals several existing sections governing the ethics commission complaint process and declares the act an emergency measure, meaning it would take effect immediately if enacted.
If enacted, HB1277 would narrow the circumstances under which legislators could be criminally prosecuted for voting on measures involving a personal or private interest, so long as they follow chamber disclosure rules. It would also alter the ethics commission’s procedures by replacing parts of the current complaint framework, expanding confidentiality around allegations and investigations, and giving the executive director more discretion in closing matters, issuing guidance, and outsourcing investigations. The bill would affect legislators, ethics commission staff, complainants, respondents, lobbyists, and other regulated individuals under chapter 54-66.
The available record shows no committee transcript or vote history, and the bill was ultimately withdrawn on January 15, 2025. Based on the text, the measure appears designed to clarify and limit ethics-related exposure for legislators while also streamlining ethics commission procedures. Because there is no recorded discussion in the provided materials, there is no documented public sentiment beyond the bill’s introduction and later withdrawal.
The main likely points of contention are the immunity provisions for legislators voting on measures where they have a personal or private interest, and the reduction or restructuring of the ethics commission’s complaint process. Critics could view the bill as weakening ethics enforcement or shielding lawmakers from accountability, while supporters may argue it provides clearer rules and protects legitimate legislative voting activity when disclosure requirements are met. Another possible point of debate is the expanded confidentiality of complaints and investigations, along with the executive director’s authority to close matters or refer investigations outside the commission.