A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 54-03 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to access to requests to the legislative council made by members of the legislative assembly.
HB 1356 would create a new section in chapter 54-03 of the North Dakota Century Code governing disclosure of legislative drafting requests made by members of the Legislative Assembly to the Legislative Council. Under the bill, the Legislative Council would be required to tell the caucus leader of the requester’s political faction the topic of the request and the requester’s name when a legislator asks for a draft bill, resolution, or a revision to one. The bill also allows a draft or revised draft to be shared with that caucus leader unless the requesting legislator opts to keep it confidential under a procedure set by the Legislative Council.
The bill is aimed at increasing internal transparency within legislative caucuses while preserving a legislator’s ability to keep draft legislation confidential if desired. It would create a new disclosure rule for legislative requests and drafts, and it would specifically exempt records disclosed under this section from the state public records law and the constitutional open-records provision cited in the bill. In practical terms, it would change how legislative drafting materials are handled inside the Legislature, but not create a public disclosure requirement to the general public.
HB 1356 would amend state legislative procedure by adding a new confidentiality-and-disclosure rule for bill drafting requests made to the Legislative Council. It would affect legislators, caucus leaders, and the Legislative Council by requiring internal disclosure of request topics and requester names, while also allowing optional confidentiality for draft bills and revisions. The bill would carve these records out of existing public records/open-records provisions for the disclosures covered by the new section.
Based on the available record, the bill appears to have had limited public debate in the provided materials, and no committee transcript or vote detail is available. Its final status was failed on February 19, 2025, which suggests it did not advance to enactment. The bill’s structure indicates an attempt to balance transparency within political factions with confidentiality for individual legislators, but the lack of recorded discussion makes broader sentiment difficult to gauge from the supplied context.
The main point of potential contention is the scope of internal disclosure: supporters may view the bill as a way to keep caucus leaders informed about members’ drafting activity, while opponents may see it as intruding on a legislator’s ability to develop proposals privately. Another likely issue is the bill’s treatment of confidentiality, since it permits disclosure of drafts to caucus leaders unless the requester affirmatively opts out, which could be seen as either a safeguard or a burden depending on perspective. The exemption from public-records and constitutional open-records requirements may also raise concerns for those favoring broader transparency.