House Majority Leader Mike Lefor, R-Dickinson, testifies in support of a bill during a committee hearing on Jan. 31, 2025. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor)
BISMARCK (North Dakota Monitor) – A bill debated Friday would give North Dakota lawmakers immunity from conflict-of-interest crimes if they disclose potential conflicts and follow legislative ethics rules.
House Majority Leader Mike Lefor, R-Dickinson, said he sponsored House Bill 1505 to give citizen lawmakers clarity on how to navigate potential conflicts when voting on bills.
Meanwhile, a separate bill that seeks to overhaul how the North Dakota’s Ethics Commission handles complaints encountered opposition from the state Attorney General’s Office on Friday.
Lefor’s proposal provides immunity to lawmakers if they disclose conflicts and follow rules such as those adopted by the House in December. For example, the rules require members to disclose sufficient detail about a conflict so other lawmakers can decide whether to allow them to vote. The rules also allow a member to abstain from voting and provide a grace period so lawmakers can disclose conflicts after voting on a bill.
It’s unclear what impact the bill would have on the Senate, which has not yet adopted similar conflict-of-interest rules.
The bill also allows lawmakers who act following written guidance of the Ethics Commission to use that as a defense if they are prosecuted for voting on a bill.
Emily Thompson, legal division director for Legislative Council, outlined some of the language changes on potential conflicts. Instead of saying lawmakers with a “direct, substantial” benefit from a bill have a potential conflict, lawmakers with a “unique” interest in a bill have a potential conflict.
As an example, she said changes to property taxes may directly benefit a lawmaker, but because the benefit is not unique to an individual lawmaker, there would not be a conflict.
Conflict-of-interest issues were elevated last year when Rep. Jason Dockter, R-Bismarck, was convicted of a misdemeanor crime related to votes he submitted on the House floor.
Dockter was the part-owner of a building with space being leased by two agencies. Dockter voted on budget bills that included money for those leases.
McLean County State’s Attorney Ladd Erickson, the prosecutor in the Dockter case, submitted written testimony in support of the bill. He said the bill would not have changed the outcome of that case. Erickson said the bill would provide lawmakers assurance that they won’t be in legal jeopardy if they disclose conflicts and follow the Legislature’s conflict rules.
Rep. Lori VanWinkle, R-Minot, said she was struggling to understand how the bill would reduce corruption if it offers lawmakers immunity.
Thompson said the bill does not grant lawmakers immunity from taking a bribe or other bad act, just the official act of voting on a bill.
Rebecca Binstock, executive director of the North Dakota Ethics Commission, speaks during a committee hearing on Jan. 31, 2025. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor)
Ethics Commission Executive Director Rebecca Binstock filed written testimony against the bill, but said amendments Lefor introduced Friday addressed most of the concerns.
The House Government and Veterans Committee did not act on the bill or on another bill related to the Ethics Commission, House Bill 1360.
The North Dakota Ethics Commission, created by voters in 2018, has received 84 complaints since it was established. An investigation by the North Dakota Monitor and ProPublica published earlier this month showed that the commission has yet to substantiate a single complaint.
In addition, the commission often receives information about potential ethical issues it can’t investigate unless a formal complaint is filed.
Binstock explained for the committee how the bill seeks to streamline the Ethics Commision process and would alter how it handles complaints. Changes include eliminating the word “complaint” and replacing it with the term “relevant information.”
Binstock said one of the biggest changes is that it would allow legislators implicated with misconduct to address the situation publicly, rather than wait for the end of a sometimes lengthy review.
It also allows some cases to be dismissed or dealt with more quickly.
But Deputy Attorney General Claire Ness testified against the bill, saying it strips away some protections for those accused, gives the Ethics Commission too much leeway in rulemaking and takes away enforcement authority from the Legislature.
Rep. Austen Schauer, R-West Fargo, chair of the House Government and Veterans Committee, expressed frustration after the testimony from Ness.
“We’re here … going through this bill for an hour, and then the Attorney General’s Office comes in and basically blows it up,” Schauer said.
Ness said her office provided input to the Ethics Commission and lawmakers on both bills, and she testified in support of the immunity bill.
“It is our duty to explain what our concerns are,” Ness said. “We are in absolutely no way trying to blow anything up.”
YOU MAKE OUR WOR
Comments