A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 27-09.1-05 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the master jury list; and to provide a contingent effective date.
SB2054 revises North Dakota’s master jury list statute. The bill updates the sources counties may use to compile the master list of prospective jurors, including actual voters and several supplemental lists such as motor vehicle registrations, driver’s licenses, public utility customers, property taxpayers, and tribal registries if provided by a federally recognized tribe. It also requires custodians of those lists to make them available to the court in electronic form and keeps the master list open to public examination.
The bill contains a second version of the statute that specifically adds recipients of public assistance and child care assistance as potential source lists for the master jury list, while making clear that information used from those two categories is confidential and may be used only for creating the master list. It also directs the Department of Health and Human Services to seek a state plan amendment so those lists can legally be disclosed, and makes the public-assistance-related changes contingent on that federal/state approval before taking effect.
If enacted, SB2054 would amend North Dakota Century Code section 27-09.1-05 governing jury pool compilation, expanding and clarifying the categories of records counties may use to build the master jury list. It would affect county clerks, the courts, the Department of Health and Human Services, and custodians of source lists by requiring electronic access to qualifying records and by adding confidentiality protections for public assistance and child care assistance data. The bill also creates a contingent effective date tied to a state plan amendment authorizing disclosure of those assistance records.
The available context suggests the bill was treated as a technical, court-requested judiciary measure rather than a highly partisan proposal. The absence of recorded committee testimony or vote detail limits the ability to identify strong support or opposition, but the inclusion of a contingent effective date and confidentiality language indicates an effort to address privacy and legal compliance concerns while improving jury list completeness. The bill’s last recorded action was reconsideration, which suggests it remained under active legislative review.
The main point of contention appears to be the use of public assistance and child care assistance records for jury list compilation. Supporters likely view those lists as a way to broaden and diversify the jury pool, while opponents or privacy advocates may be concerned about disclosure of sensitive benefit information and the need for federal/state authorization. A secondary issue is the inclusion of tribal registries, which depends on voluntary availability from federally recognized tribes and may raise questions about data sharing and tribal consent.