AN ACT to amend and reenact subsection 2 of section 53-06.1-03 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to securing approval for a gaming site authorization.
House Bill 1615 revises North Dakota’s charitable gaming licensing process by changing how eligible organizations obtain approval to operate at a specific site. Before applying to the attorney general for a gaming license, an organization must first secure a site authorization from the city or county governing body where the proposed site is located. The bill requires that any denial of site authorization be based on an ordinance or written policy adopted or amended after public comment, and it sets out limits on what local governments may require or prohibit when deciding whether to approve a site.
The bill specifically bars local governments from conditioning site authorization on donations of gaming proceeds to the city, county, or local programs, from denying authorization solely because the organization has not previously conducted gaming at the site, and from requiring an organization to locate at a specific site or lease from a specific organization. It also allows local governments to require a signed agreement between the organization and the site owner, to limit the types and number of games or devices at a site, to set qualifications for eligible organizations, and to charge a $100 site authorization fee. Local governments may still adopt stricter rules than state law where otherwise permitted and may deny authorization for just cause, including violations of law or local rules.
The bill also updates the annual licensing process with the attorney general. Eligible organizations must apply each year by July 1 and pay a $175 license fee for each city or county that approves a site authorization, with $25 of each fee deposited into the charitable gaming technology fund. The attorney general may allow a consolidated license for organizations that only conduct raffles or calcuttas in multiple jurisdictions. The attorney general may deny or refuse to renew a license if the organization or site is not in compliance with applicable laws and rules, and organizations must reapply if they materially change their purpose or character.
Overall, the bill appears to have been broadly supported. It passed the House 79-10 and the Senate 44-0, indicating strong bipartisan approval and no recorded opposition in the Senate. The available record does not include committee testimony or floor debate, so the precise arguments for or against the bill are not documented here, but the vote totals suggest the measure was viewed as a practical clarification of local approval standards for charitable gaming sites rather than a controversial policy shift.
HB1615 amends North Dakota Century Code section 53-06.1-03 governing charitable gaming licenses and site authorizations. It changes the authority of city and county governing bodies by limiting the grounds and conditions under which they may approve or deny a gaming site authorization, while preserving local power to adopt stricter rules, impose certain site limits, and deny authorization for just cause. It also adjusts fee collection and licensing procedures administered by the attorney general, including annual licensing deadlines, per-jurisdiction fees, and a consolidated licensing option for certain raffle or calcutta operators.
The bill’s voting history shows strong support and little visible controversy. It passed the House by a wide margin and the Senate unanimously, suggesting legislators generally favored the bill’s attempt to standardize site-authorization procedures and prevent local governments from imposing certain financial or location-based conditions. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded debate excerpts, the public discussion reflected in the available record is limited, but the final votes indicate a broadly positive reception.
The main points of potential contention involve the balance of power between local governments and charitable gaming organizations. The bill restricts cities and counties from requiring donations of gaming proceeds as a condition of approval, from forcing organizations into specific sites or leases, and from denying authorization solely because gaming has not previously occurred at the site. Local governments may have viewed these limits as narrowing their discretion, while supporters likely saw them as preventing arbitrary or coercive local conditions. The bill still preserves local authority to set stricter rules, limit game types and site counts, and deny authorization for just cause, which may have helped reduce opposition.