[{"_1":2,"_121":-5,"_122":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,109],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6394102,"mediaKeyId","2104169-45954c73d53c0bb5460db57ea7ac0042","parentId",2104169,"title","Victims' notification bill draws support and opposition over default opt-in language","audioSeconds",956,"startMs",11124000,"endMs",12080000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2104169-45954c73d53c0bb5460db57ea7ac0042&start=11124&end=12080","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2104169-45954c73d53c0bb5460db57ea7ac0042/thumbnail_11124000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6394102/North-Dakota/Victims-notification-bill-draws-support-and-opposition-over-default-opt-in-language","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6394102-c2693355192182518b90387f99fcd5dd/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168177&Signature=jxj8fPi6X5gYSrRJvLsenO2oOEurmONh7sYEKbQSMr65Jlh65mjbGFpf~tbvVNOlMR10MGgPlUC4WvR2AYBvLzJSE8Zxt0-cM7SyBjCFd21yONdBq1D2OsiLoCp7M69ud71~7o3luM5cASv9tY8eXq2o~-rImpOJK8TVrQCOGzaKUg~rurHxMPmDq4Do2SUiJFd9exnIexA30I8b-FfQRkwqjGlTyyjsXSgN4imq9DgvygJl62cynUGD6MwyDDQKZ9TRui7MRmY29fs7PL2Hy1UhA5ga6FDaTzIdvUyWhdI2-ljKoQPXmLLm6lpK0z-9XytVBTmW-DTOBFCZgnYDZw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","State of North Dakota","date","2025-01-08T00:00:00Z","article","The House Judiciary Committee heard opposing testimony on House Bill 1061, a measure that would change how the state notifies victims about offender movement and release. The Department of Corrections' victim services staff asked the committee to amend notification language so victims who do not want further notices can decline them; the Attorney General's office urged a do-not-pass recommendation, saying the change could place victims at risk.

Charlie Hedden, who works on victim services for the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, told the committee the department's existing practice is to offer victims several ways to register for notifications and that some victims explicitly tell staff they do not want to receive release or movement notices because the messages re-trigger trauma. Hedden asked the committee to add the words \"when requested\" to subsection 1 and to make related edits so that notifications would be provided to victims when they request them, rather than being sent automatically.

\"Victims have told us they want it to be put in their hands,\" Hedden said, describing the department's experience offering registration through the statewide automated victim-information system and through county victim coordinators. Hedden also sought to add education-release events to the list of movements that would trigger a notice and to permit notice by an authorized representative of the parole board or parole clerk.

Attorney General's office objects
Heidi Smith, director of the Attorney General's victim-services IT division and administrator of the state's SAVN (state automated victim information and notification) system, opposed the bill. Her written and oral testimony cautioned that inserting \"when requested\" into the statute would shift responsibility onto victims to know the registration system exists and to register, potentially leaving victims unaware of critical events — including escapes or releases — that the constitution specifically requires to be notified. \"The suggested changes do not align with Article 1, Section 25 of the North Dakota Constitution,\" Smith said, and would make the automated system the sole method of notification while removing custodial authorities' duty to notify when victims are not registered.

Smith said SAVN is a tool to assist agencies and is not meant to replace in-person or direct notifications in urgent circumstances. She warned that an automated-only approach might delay or limit timely, individualized outreach when custody deaths, escapes or other high-priority events occur.

Why it matters
The dispute raises practical and constitutional questions about how the state balances victims' desire to avoid re-traumatizing notices against the state's constitutional obligation to provide timely notice of release, escape and certain other events. Proponents say limiting notices to victims who request them respects victims' wishes and reduces re-triggering; the Attorney General's office says removing custodial authorities' obligation to give notice to unregistered victims risks leaving victims unaware of critical and potentially dangerous events.

Status
The committee hearing recorded the competing positions and testimony but did not record a committee recommendation in the excerpted transcript.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Judiciary Jan 8, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Department of Corrections witnesses urged changes to North Dakota's victim-notification wording so victims who do not want notices need not receive them; the Attorney General's office opposed the change, arguing it would shift notification responsibility onto victims and could undermine constitutional victims' rights.","taxTitle","Judiciary, House of Representatives, Legislative, North Dakota","taxId",28895,"location","North Dakota","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6394106,"Committee clarifies misdemeanor level for short felony sentences; votes to advance bill",3246,8674000,11920000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2104169-45954c73d53c0bb5460db57ea7ac0042&start=8674&end=11920","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2104169-45954c73d53c0bb5460db57ea7ac0042/thumbnail_8674000.jpg","/articles/6394106/North-Dakota/Committee-clarifies-misdemeanor-level-for-short-felony-sentences-votes-to-advance-bill","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6394106-f0ccca98d77e10ecd5f8735a8ea09fcb/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168177&Signature=dM7YqBzAL0mUHeJu3Uh8UblVfW~JJm1XFxS1hYlfkjz9pyZZCwzoOdqKJoR3J5szxOW0eElEyHlArPAzjVH5TNXOP8b9JPPltuZwJDitLSEsFFhmtrMeAbgsc36WxZZy0LDOH7Uni8He91hmDnlgwcpSp1wQppfWwkxBlrC7qBmqNJ10jQJSxv7Ldk0U~bCZpKQdG48XoJ5k0ny54nLomK6bNzMOVDqJEu3wtVIqwAFGhTO1ZEt45Cbj1R34mQEfiV9Kw9viS-PF7JnIH5EvXy2Stf6lIjMTWIT1rR1S60RBct9dRITloFYGNlru9P27XQtz9wqeU2ypJl5dfSq8oA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Judiciary Committee voted to recommend House Bill 1059, which clarifies that a defendant convicted of a felony but sentenced to 360 days or less will be deemed convicted of a Class A misdemeanor for penalties and supervision-length purposes.

Tom Earhart, chief probation and parole officer for the North Dakota Division of Parole, Probation and Pretrial Services, told the committee the current statute is unclear about whether that misdemeanor should be Class A or Class B. \"This amendment seeks to provide consistency with the intent of that change,\" Earhart said, referencing prior changes to supervision schedules. He explained the clarification shortens maximum supervised-probation periods for those cases and focuses probation resources on higher-risk individuals.

Under the clarification, someone whose felony is reduced under the statute would be subject to Class A misdemeanor penalties and an initial supervised-probation term of up to two years; if revoked the case may revert to the felony disposition and corresponding penalties. Earhart said the clarification preserves judicial discretion about whether the court suspends a sentence or orders time served, and it aims mainly to fix ambiguity that has led some courts to impose felony-level supervision despite a misdemeanor disposition.

Committee action and outcome
The committee voted to recommend passage of House Bill 1059 on a roll call (12 yes, 2 no). Representative Steve Vetter will serve as the bill carrier.

Why it matters
The change affects sentencing records and supervision lengths in cases where courts impose short incarceration terms on felony charges. Supporters argued the clarification aligns statutory language with legislative intent and supervisory schedules set in prior justice-reinvestment work; opponents expressed concern that some judges may want discretion to reduce felonies to lower-level misdemeanors in specific situations.

Next steps
With a committee do-pass recommendation, House Bill 1059 will proceed to the House floor for further consideration.","House Bill 1059 would clarify that when a felony sentence of 360 days or less is imposed the resulting misdemeanor classification is a Class A misdemeanor. The Judiciary Committee voted to recommend the bill \"do pass.\"",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6394110,"Committee approves change letting mediators prepare summary but keep parties' signatures private",1685,6975000,8660000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2104169-45954c73d53c0bb5460db57ea7ac0042&start=6975&end=8660","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2104169-45954c73d53c0bb5460db57ea7ac0042/thumbnail_6975000.jpg","/articles/6394110/North-Dakota/Committee-approves-change-letting-mediators-prepare-summary-but-keep-parties-signatures-private","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6394110-1515f80ad8610c9ce336d1ce87d7f18d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168177&Signature=XhAsfmDapu519zCwOoz57ApRtmQTC9wLCjmYosg4E8jsXmB5uDkiy50D5W0fMyGS-2lBOJVya2WeGCpOgpoSSKymxbIrQxEk9FQ-U54mHVcVWjgfu9wfnFy5VWNGfp5iOql8q37fWFQ8VGHXLh5aEs8uFA8az64ZDT7NE6HrsGrNza5v7VpoAUbrrEN~I7n~PsSMZgRB99xzPVCztIYik9M4Uh2YEWjdQR6FbCkzbFkbR0igj3FAVF5qaah0fRoERkUqkJrdEoKrOjZW4TJTyEBbYIvsGBnU7cCqb0-YQE7AMRxmmubDm1ez~KoStf4dyr5D8yihmVaCQOaa8ByXJQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Judiciary Committee voted to recommend House Bill 1048 after adopting an amendment that restores a requirement that mediators prepare a written summary of family-mediation results for the parties but prevents the mediator from filing an unsigned agreement with the court.

Sarah Behrens, a staff attorney with the state court administrator's office, told the committee the current statute's language conflicted with mediator confidentiality and ethical duties. Under current practice mediators produce a written summary of what the parties agreed to; the parties then decide whether to convert that summary into a signed agreement and file it with the court. \"Parties don't always end up filing that agreement,\" Behrens said, and the mediator should not be required to disclose an unsigned draft to the court.

Representative Bill Twite offered an amendment to reinstate the word \"shall\" so the mediator would prepare the written summary; the committee approved that amendment unanimously on a roll call. After further discussion the committee voted to recommend the bill \"do pass as amended,\" and Representative Sue Ann Olsen volunteered to be the bill carrier.

Why it matters
The change clarifies mediator duties and protects confidentiality by codifying current practice: the mediator prepares a written summary for the parties to use at their discretion, while the court is notified only whether mediation occurred and whether an agreement was reached. That avoids creating a court record containing an unsigned draft that the parties might later decline to adopt.

What to expect next
The Judiciary Committee's do-pass recommendation will send the bill to the House floor with the committee's amendment. Representative Sue Ann Olsen is the committee's bill carrier.","House Bill 1048 would align the family mediation statute with current mediator practice by allowing mediators to prepare a written summary for parties rather than filing an unsigned draft with the court; the committee amended and voted to recommend passage.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":92,"_45":92,"_47":104,"_49":95,"_51":105,"_53":106,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":107,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":108,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6394115,"Court administrator seeks limited counseling for jurors exposed to graphic evidence",0,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2104169-45954c73d53c0bb5460db57ea7ac0042&start=6975&end=6975","/articles/6394115/North-Dakota/Court-administrator-seeks-limited-counseling-for-jurors-exposed-to-graphic-evidence","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6394115-b03245423a07729f2cd30464b4c100ae/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168177&Signature=aDxqY6PWW9NF1fyt4DarEBSWvG31SQyiE0kHLU8KY8E3EZzd1fu2l136eAtxf15rG9FLF6yWWou3Ifgm9zRgTyjV62VT2kaP3rT3uDqGMWND5wrBKAJZ5RdY2UGClQ~7s7yAD8hs7~SQlsQTrkBe4Pz1QSgrobHCHM-axzJY-jY~7q9JyDr3TyADgNxe5Stbur5lhuDoW05ghJQKx9UYrzJRMBrQzfyRMwZcZLznV6ZKDfsmZi8TkzGEzslQkfD9uFVY~~cW4EzYNRx0HhTLFRksW-TFQCdAuyaqolh99fswLWePICOw3RkYtzFmL5XLhtC9zGtEwbwRUh7v5QtbYA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","State Court Administrator Sally Holeva told the House Judiciary Committee that House Bill 1047 would let courts provide up to 10 hours of counseling, at state expense, to jurors who served on trials involving extraordinarily graphic, gruesome or emotional evidence.

Holeva, who said the measure was requested by the Supreme Court, said the counseling would be available within 180 days after a jury was discharged and would be limited to up to 10 hours per juror. She told members the proposal is modeled on an Alaska program and estimated the first-biennium cost at about $10,000; the fiscal note submitted with the bill lists $10,000 for the next biennium and $12,000 for the following one.

\"Jurors have to look,\" Holeva said, describing evidence such as 911 calls or graphic images that jurors must study and discuss. \"This is an opportunity for them to work that out so that they're not carrying it with them for the next, you know, two years or five years or 10 years.\" Holeva said prior group-style critical-stress debriefings were sometimes offered but that the state's employee-assistance provider no longer supplies that service.

Supporters at the hearing included Greg Kosowski of the Children's Advocacy Centers of North Dakota, who said such counseling could reduce barriers to jury service and help jurors focus on evidence in difficult child-abuse cases. Travis Fink, executive director of the Commission on Legal Counsel for Indigence, testified that practicing defense attorneys and other court practitioners also experience vicarious trauma and supported the bill.

Scope and delivery
The bill defines qualifying trials to include homicide, certain sexual offenses, child- abuse and other cases involving extremely graphic evidence; the measure authorizes counseling provided by court staff, a state agency or a contractor and explicitly allows telehealth. Holeva said other states who enacted similar programs most often contracted for telemedicine counseling.

Why it matters
Holeva told the committee that jurors can experience post-traumatic symptoms or vicarious trauma for years after exposure to graphic trial evidence, and that the program is narrowly tailored and usage in Alaska has been low (Alaska reported under 1 percent usage over five years). Proponents argued the cost would be small compared with the state's overall budget and would address a recurrent but limited need among jurors and criminal-justice professionals.

Status
House Bill 1047 received supportive testimony in committee but the transcript does not record a committee vote during that hearing.

Next steps
Committee members will decide whether to recommend the bill for floor consideration; no vote was reported in the hearing record.","State Court Administrator Sally Holeva told the House Judiciary Committee that House Bill 1047 would authorize up to 10 hours of counseling for jurors exposed to extraordinarily graphic evidence; estimated cost in the fiscal note is $10,000 for the first biennium.",{"_33":110,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":111,"_41":112,"_43":113,"_45":114,"_47":115,"_49":116,"_51":117,"_53":118,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":119,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":120,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6394120,"House Judiciary amends ethics advisory-opinion authority, votes do-not-pass on bill",3316,2965000,6281000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2104169-45954c73d53c0bb5460db57ea7ac0042&start=2965&end=6281","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2104169-45954c73d53c0bb5460db57ea7ac0042/thumbnail_2965000.jpg","/articles/6394120/North-Dakota/House-Judiciary-amends-ethics-advisory-opinion-authority-votes-do-not-pass-on-bill","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6394120-b4c47a687581f198a43680bf54263a56/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168177&Signature=OplKreYWuMsJczuDyQQejT79S2RG6HsWCu-0v7P28Rk~D52evxgAHIqs0S8kyfnPeaGbtr4CWIgHxSn4WrCL0uZepuXJuW1Oufazszf0c~10piw41hkb3JaMVf6xoGsKTTovM4gf-nzskKFy9tx3sqVd1CuMJQ2P2lUX640mj~BRt9TigDwQbqxS82bXkp3WLRxnBgXeH0HmESvAT1ooy4f8X0rZZacj4AN0RYm5sdipShRAfuXj3mpJH8380Bf0wcTLayBUcujYRLhN715naWwAoBT09xFAaA09kOWb-jdwsmlNH4lmZLkhUeCtuFWSRzTEFyi8vdLOk3dCf~e4RQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Judiciary Committee debated House Bill 1046 on advisory opinions for the North Dakota Ethics Commission and voted to recommend the bill not pass after amending how the commission could initiate opinions.

The bill, introduced at the commission's request, would have amended Section 546604.2 of the North Dakota Century Code to let the Ethics Commission issue written advisory opinions on its own initiative rather than only when a public official, candidate or lobbyist asked for one. Rebecca Binstock, executive director of the North Dakota Ethics Commission, told the committee the change was sought to give the commission a way to resolve recurring questions when those who raise them did not follow through with a formal request. \"Sometimes we have multiple individuals who are asking the same or a very related question,\" Binstock said, and the commission wants a way to provide clarity to regulated parties.

Supporters described advisory opinions as a form of safe harbor for public officials who seek prospective guidance. Binstock said advisory opinions are issued within 90 days of a request and are published on the commission website; she told the committee the commission had issued four advisory opinions through 2024 and had two pending.

Opponents and several committee members urged caution about expanding the commission's power. Representative Steve Vetter questioned why the commission should initiate opinions rather than waiting for affected people to request them, saying: \"If they didn't follow up, then obviously it wasn't that important.\" Representative Mary Schneider urged keeping a lower threshold for the commission to act so the panel could issue more opinions when appropriate. Representative Bernie Satrim pressed to raise the initiation threshold to unanimity, arguing that advisory opinions could take on elevated weight if issued without broad agreement.

Committee action and outcome
- The committee first considered an amendment to change the bill's required vote from a majority to a unanimous vote of the entire five-member commission; that amendment failed on a committee roll call (6 yes, 8 no).
- Members then adopted a narrower amendment requiring at least four of the five commissioners to vote to initiate an opinion; that amendment passed on a roll call (11 yes, 3 no).
- After further debate the committee rejected a motion to report the bill as \"do pass as amended.\" The committee then adopted a motion to report the bill \"do not pass as amended\"; the committee vote on that motion passed (13 yes, 1 no). Representative Bernie Satrim was assigned as the bill carrier for the committee report.

Why it matters
Advisory opinions from the Ethics Commission provide nonbinding guidance that can shield officials who rely on them in good faith. The committee's discussion weighed the public value of more proactive guidance against concerns about an unelected body issuing potentially influential legal interpretations without repeated, clear requests from affected parties.

The committee record shows the commission seeks a process to resolve recurring questions, but lawmakers were split on how large a consensus the commission should need before issuing opinions. With the committee's do-not-pass recommendation, the measure will not advance unless reconsidered by the sponsor or reintroduced.

What’s next
Because the committee voted \"do not pass,\" House Bill 1046 will not move forward from Judiciary unless a member moves to reconsider the recommendation or the Ethics Commission pursues alternative legislative language in a future session.","Lawmakers debated House Bill 1046, which would let the North Dakota Ethics Commission initiate written advisory opinions without a requester; the committee amended the vote threshold to require at least four commissioners and ultimately voted that the bill should not pass.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Victims' notification bill draws support and opposition over default opt-in language

Committee clarifies misdemeanor level for short felony sentences; votes to advance bill

Committee approves change letting mediators prepare summary but keep parties' signatures private

Court administrator seeks limited counseling for jurors exposed to graphic evidence

House Judiciary amends ethics advisory-opinion authority, votes do-not-pass on bill