A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 54-66-01, subsection 2 of section 54-66-04, and sections 54-66-05, 54-66-08, 54-66-10, and 54-66-12 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the enforcement process for the North Dakota ethics commission; and to repeal sections 54-66-06, 54-66-07, and 54-66-09 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to complaints filed with the North Dakota ethics commission.
HB 1360 would revise the North Dakota Ethics Commission’s complaint and enforcement procedures. The bill replaces references to “complaints” in several places with the broader concept of an “enforcement action,” and it updates definitions for terms such as accused individual, complainant, respondent, alleged violation, final commission order, and regulated individual. It also clarifies who may file a complaint, how oral and anonymous complaints are handled, when the commission may dismiss or refer matters, and how criminal allegations are coordinated with law enforcement.
The bill also changes confidentiality and appeal provisions. It would keep commission discussions closed while an enforcement action is pending, expand confidentiality protections for information submitted to or created by the commission, and specify when information may be disclosed to enforcement authorities or to the respondent. It further revises the appeal process so that a respondent may appeal a final commission order to district court within 30 days. Finally, the bill repeals several existing sections governing complaint procedures, informal resolution, and related enforcement steps, replacing them with the new framework.
HB 1360 would amend multiple sections of Chapter 54-66 of the North Dakota Century Code, which governs ethics commission enforcement. Its practical effect would be to restructure the commission’s process for receiving allegations, investigating possible violations, handling confidential information, coordinating with criminal law enforcement, and issuing appealable final orders. It would also repeal existing provisions on complaints, informal resolution, and enforcement referrals, shifting the statutory framework toward a more unified “enforcement action” model for ethics cases involving lobbyists, public officials, candidates, political committees, and contributors.
The bill appears to have been a procedural and administrative measure rather than a policy expansion, and the available record shows no committee transcript or recorded vote details indicating strong public debate in the materials provided. Its failure on February 24, 2025 suggests it did not advance, but the text itself reflects an effort to clarify and streamline ethics enforcement rather than to broaden substantive ethics prohibitions. Overall, the sentiment inferred from the bill language is neutral-to-supportive of clearer enforcement rules, though the lack of recorded discussion limits certainty.
The main points of potential contention are likely to have been the scope of confidentiality, the handling of anonymous or confidential complainants, and the extent of the ethics commission’s authority to investigate and refer matters. The bill would prevent use of a complainant’s statement as evidence if the complainant refuses to be identified to the accused individual, and it would allow the commission to pause its own action when a criminal referral is accepted by law enforcement. Those provisions could draw concern from transparency advocates, complainants seeking anonymity, or respondents concerned about due process, while supporters would likely view them as necessary procedural safeguards.