AN ACT to amend and reenact subsection 6 of section 12.1-32-08 and sections 27-03-05, 27-05.2-03, and 29-26-22 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to court fees.
SB2057 revises several North Dakota court fee provisions and increases a number of filing and administration charges across the criminal and civil court systems. In civil cases, it raises district court filing fees for general civil actions, answers, small claims, and miscellaneous filings, and it increases the Supreme Court filing fee for appeals and original-jurisdiction petitions. It also increases the cost assessment tied to restitution orders involving insufficient-funds checks, while keeping the existing cap on that assessment.
In criminal cases, the bill increases court administration fees for convictions by offense class and adds or preserves an indigent defense and court facilities fee, along with a community service supervision fee. It also clarifies how those revenues are distributed among the general fund, indigent defense administration fund, court facilities improvement and maintenance fund, and community service supervision fund. The bill retains the court’s ability to waive certain fees for indigent defendants and allows installment payments, while continuing the authority to docket judgments for fines and fees and to waive unpaid amounts after successful completion of an approved adult drug court program, except restitution.
The bill amends four sections of the North Dakota Century Code governing court costs and filing fees: restitution-related costs in criminal cases, Supreme Court filing fees, district court civil filing fees, and criminal court administration fees. Its practical effect is to raise the amount paid by litigants and defendants in many court matters and to redirect or expand revenue streams supporting the judicial branch, civil legal services, displaced homemaker assistance, indigent defense, court facilities, and community service supervision. It also changes the allocation thresholds for certain fee revenues and increases the amounts deposited into state and county funds.
The available voting record suggests the bill was generally supported, passing the Senate 44-3 and the House 64-24, which indicates broad bipartisan approval but not unanimity. Because the bill was requested by the Supreme Court and focuses on court funding and fee adjustments, the overall tone appears administrative and fiscally oriented rather than ideologically driven. The lack of committee transcript material limits more detailed insight into debate, but the recorded votes show that a substantial majority accepted the fee increases and funding reallocations.
The main point of contention is likely the higher cost burden on court users, especially civil litigants, criminal defendants, and people seeking divorce or filing appeals. Fee increases affecting family law matters, small claims, and criminal convictions may raise access-to-justice concerns, particularly for low-income parties, even though indigency waivers remain available. The split House vote suggests some members were concerned about affordability or the fairness of funding court operations through user fees, while supporters likely viewed the bill as necessary to finance judicial administration, indigent defense, and court infrastructure.