[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-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],{"_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",6386874,"mediaKeyId","2117522-a1b5a43bf55814ec696555f307669437","parentId",2117522,"title","House Judiciary committee hears public testimony for and against putting sports betting on the 2026 ballot","audioSeconds",3282,"startMs",663000,"endMs",3945000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2117522-a1b5a43bf55814ec696555f307669437&start=663&end=3945","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2117522-a1b5a43bf55814ec696555f307669437/thumbnail_663000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6386874/North-Dakota/House-Judiciary-committee-hears-public-testimony-for-and-against-putting-sports-betting-on-the-2026-ballot","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6386874-e0eafae12ae6d2cdeb11863a93347649/orig.mp4?Expires=1771214766&Signature=b7rRjymxvucMX0MjswJ~tTcjWgDteHPJ2ievKbO~lSDs2eEwqRvkbC8dHBeIIyxNmQVLqVD36rdTyXs8Ai6n2P8z8dUgXZqAi8GWJihHEWDFhzWGVxkfh0ZNCy3xUSyJRVw~ZtkmuibfI4iyqK~NGz3s88mDva2hP4JLARz-G08cXTUl7vvgtNK7LhiipvJflm3k6GlsrB4aSKZMoh7YBJlzoplsPqAKm8FIon9xSrBLExT52snohnuqLzUkrJAAZS2OcHNMcQ6fjrlSTRN20qRqB~gYs6LiFSrTn-KtsKbscz-tG7-sPLwF62nQMlFidn1BmmS9IDmlPyQb4nx2Mg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","House Judiciary, ND","date","2025-01-15T00:00:00Z","article","The House Judiciary Committee opened a hearing on House Concurrent Resolution 3002 on whether to place a constitutional amendment authorizing sports betting on the November 2026 ballot.

Representative Scott Louser, R‑Minot, who introduced the resolution, told the committee the amendment would allow wagering on professional and collegiate sports only and said revenue generated would be dedicated to K–12 education. \"This is one of those rare occasions where the legislature would consider putting something on the ballot,\" Louser said, adding the proposal would not include high school sports.

Louser framed the measure as giving voters the choice. \"This is a matter of allowing the voters of North Dakota to decide if they want to,\" he said, arguing the state currently sends wagering revenue to other states and citing national growth in legalized sports betting.

Testimony in opposition focused on harms to college students and student athletes, financial impacts on lower‑income households, and increases in problem gambling and related social problems. Katie Fitzsimmons, director of student affairs for the North Dakota University System, urged a \"do not pass\" recommendation, saying the negative consequences for student athletes and college students are \"deeply concerning.\" Fitzsimmons cited studies she said link legalized sports betting to increased household financial distress, higher rates of bankruptcy and overdrafts, and greater risk of gambling disorder among young men.

Representatives of student groups and campus leaders echoed those concerns. Carter Gill, vice president of governmental affairs for the North Dakota Student Association, said student delegates oppose expansion of sports betting because it targets college‑age men and has been associated with increased online abuse and harassment of athletes. He referenced university reports of increased counseling demand tied to gambling. Jacob Thompson, a policy analyst for North Dakota Family Alliance Legislative Action, and David Tamesia of the North Dakota Catholic Conference also testified in opposition, warning that tax revenue would not offset social costs and that sports betting would \"spoil the nobility of sport.\"

Committee members asked questions about revenue estimates, administrative costs, and safeguards. Louser estimated potential revenue in the range of $25 million to $30 million annually and said regulation and taxation details would return to the Legislature if voters approved the ballot measure; he said the Legislature would set the regulatory framework in the 2027 session. He said gaming regulation is currently administered in the Attorney General’s office but that the Legislature could later move authority to a gaming commission.

Opponents pressed for narrower language if the committee advanced the resolution, requesting exclusion of collegiate athletics and proposition (\"prop\") bets to protect student athletes. Fitzsimmons and Gill described studies they said show heightened rates of problem gambling and abusive online behavior tied to prop bets and college sports in other states.

The committee received written testimony submitted online in support of the resolution but took no formal vote during the hearing; the panel closed the hearing after receiving multiple in‑person and written statements.

The hearing record here is limited to testimony and committee questioning; no committee recommendation or final action was recorded in the transcript.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Judiciary II Jan 15, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The House Judiciary Committee opened a hearing on a proposed constitutional amendment, House Concurrent Resolution 3002, that would authorize sports betting on professional and collegiate athletics and dedicate revenue to K–12 education if voters approve it on the November 2026 ballot.","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},6386858,"Cities, League of Cities and sheriffs differ over proposed narrower public‑records exemptions for personnel investigations",2068,9412000,11480000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2117522-a1b5a43bf55814ec696555f307669437&start=9412&end=11480","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2117522-a1b5a43bf55814ec696555f307669437/thumbnail_9412000.jpg","/articles/6386858/North-Dakota/Cities-League-of-Cities-and-sheriffs-differ-over-proposed-narrower-publicrecords-exemptions-for-personnel-investigations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6386858-07d1a7c452ea79e4ea2e5f38f58877ff/orig.mp4?Expires=1771214766&Signature=QHydQDMTJGFjj~POOICl9ZFHkpSv4l9r97CC4xrG3cdEl-NuIs5sNQZGjkwlDS9VI0JCVEQWBd9WJR7b9HbuLqx14KJ3Wbi72BvbcrE7P-jMM-9VOLQfcvK8z-3gIEle9cByDOYDs9mU5Sh1h9r-DY~hJqEdF9JNu8Nsk2u-LfnJALw9QoOqLlZU5-ZlY6voXN5V14yNdRSZ5B7c8exLSgxk7VS2~gUkHyNjny~CIFQRgt6imT9HOzL7RKb65g0DBX8NMHgN0GSJdNhNnbTebENeGFWPuv5zeG-8twAAOMOoljQ-Z1FyfMwooRhQchH~X4J7oSTsGRevuPm6zqCt3g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Judiciary Committee heard testimony on House Bill 1185, a proposal to narrow public disclosure of certain employee personnel records and to extend a temporary exemption period for internal investigative records.

Representative Scott Louser introduced the bill and said the change would allow local governments to implement merit‑based pay systems without triggering widespread public access to personnel coaching, disciplinary records and performance evaluations. \"What we're asking for in this bill is we're asking for a sliver,\" Mike Blessum, a Minot city alderman who testified in support, said. Blessum described local budget work that prompted the city to explore performance‑based pay and said open personnel records make it difficult to document candid performance reviews.

The League of Cities offered a proposed amendment that would exempt \"employee performance and discipline records, unless part of an internal investigation,\" and would extend the current 75‑day exemption on internal investigation records to 180 days to give employers time to complete investigations and prepare reports. Stephanie Ingebretsen, deputy director and staff attorney for the North Dakota League of Cities, said the amendment narrows the prior drafting errors and advises the committee on statutory language.

Minot City Manager Harold Stewart said recent local investigations illustrated the administrative burden and potential chilling effect of immediate public access to draft investigative notes. Stewart described a police‑department investigation that required outside investigators and interviews of more than 40 employees; he said the 75‑day window began when the city first learned of issues and left little time to complete work before records could become public. \"When we started this investigation... that's when the clock started. It's not until mid‑September that I was able to identify an investigator that was qualified,\" Stewart said, arguing a longer exemption period would preserve investigative integrity and encourage employee participation.

Opponents included the North Dakota Association of Counties, which raised concerns from sheriffs that broad exemptions could impede pre‑employment background checks for law enforcement hires. Danelle Presky, executive director for the Sheriffs and Deputies Association, said the association opposed the bill as drafted and asked that law‑enforcement background records remain available to agencies conducting employment checks. The association interpreted the League amendment as exempting personnel performance and discipline records from disclosure absent an investigation and warned that would limit sheriff offices' ability to vet applicants.

Committee members asked about the amendment’s drafting, whether attorney notes should remain exempt, and whether the change should include an emergency clause. Witnesses and municipal officials said councils retain discretion to release records voluntarily and that an exemption does not prevent a governing body from making records public. The committee closed the hearing; no committee vote was recorded in the transcript.","House Bill 1185 would amend public‑records law to exempt certain personnel performance and discipline records (unless part of an internal investigation) and to extend the temporary exemption for internal investigative records from 75 to 180 days.",{"_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},6386864,"Committee hears bill to create court process for reinstating terminated parental rights",5136,4278000,9414000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2117522-a1b5a43bf55814ec696555f307669437&start=4278&end=9414","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2117522-a1b5a43bf55814ec696555f307669437/thumbnail_4278000.jpg","/articles/6386864/North-Dakota/Committee-hears-bill-to-create-court-process-for-reinstating-terminated-parental-rights","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6386864-7a210cbd1c06abd94e39cf22227d912a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771214766&Signature=EjIVpkdmYjkNfuQrEk-ypgH5evCOUAUFpVyKkLopVke5M2Qinygf5MRm9ravuECRe9C8p~j5yMyJYatti~dYadEYzewd0BBnhSmeQZoodwd-ZZ4-MIkrTlWJXtXYXBUUA6YtcZG8cljqtn8i7ZXUqCL3KSjzC4pDowQkbXsM0IWbUp-dt2sYhrVvcyO9G22NYWgXrGrgxU9UJ5wYDa8f7W7i8yWwS8jCoyKW1aktPRYAJAu8-A5eVfRX44KevTBOYbyTMm0So2SxhVFO6hzh1PX3XXIhqmCXdS4umBQ-4it0wszdi-5hPq4k4dBb4Q0NRcshIKMEMOuMwYL5NafOlA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on House Bill 1034, which would add a statutory process in Title 27 of the North Dakota Century Code permitting a court to reestablish parental rights that were previously terminated.

Julie Hoffman, adoptions administrator for Children and Family Services at the Department of Health and Human Services, testified in support and described the bill as the product of an interim study ordered in 2023 (House Bill 1091, sec. 20) and a workgroup that reviewed other states’ laws. \"The group reviewed information from the National Conference of State Legislatures on reinstatement of parental rights,\" Hoffman said. She said the work group compared statutes in five states and concluded a narrowly focused reinstatement process could help a small number of children for whom permanency had not been achieved.

Under the draft bill, a petition for reinstatement may be filed by an interested party from the original termination proceeding; the petition may not proceed unless at least 12 months have passed since the final termination order, the child has not been adopted or placed for adoption, the child remains in public foster care, there is no pending appeal from the original termination order, and the genetic parent demonstrates the ability to care for the child. The court would consider the child’s age, maturity and preference, appoint counsel for the child regardless of income, and set a clear‑and‑convincing evidentiary standard for reinstatement. The bill allows a court to order a trial home visit or transitional plan and permits the court, after denial, to bar subsequent petitions in appropriate cases.

Proponents including Travis Fink, executive director of the North Dakota Commission on Legal Counsel for Indigents, said the draft contains multiple safeguards. \"We built in a lot of safeguards and I think...the state's attorney in that county receives a copy of any petition,\" Fink said, adding the prima facie review step prevents spurious filings and that the high evidentiary standard protects children.

Human service zone leaders said the measure could help a limited set of families. Desiree Sorensen, director of the Mountrail‑McKenzie Human Service Zone, told the committee the bill would require additional zone policies and procedures but could be appropriate for rare cases where a parent has remedied the circumstances that led to termination and permanency was otherwise unattainable.

Committee members asked about the 12‑month threshold; Hoffman said the period was debated in the work group and that other proposals ranging from one to five years had been considered. Hoffman provided data: as of January 1, 2025, there were 119 children in foster care with termination orders granted more than one year earlier; 23 of those children were in adoptive placement and six had already been adopted, leaving approximately 90 cases for which current permanency status was unknown. Witnesses and committee members discussed how guardianships and adoptive placements would interact with reinstatement petitions; witnesses said the bill could be amended to clarify effects on guardianships and to spell out timing and procedures for trial home visits and evidentiary hearings.

Supporters urged the committee to advance the bill with opportunities for targeted amendments; no committee vote or final action was recorded in the hearing transcript.","The committee heard House Bill 1034, which would create a court process to allow parents whose parental rights were terminated to petition for reinstatement if narrow statutory criteria are met.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

House Judiciary committee hears public testimony for and against putting sports betting on the 2026 ballot

Cities, League of Cities and sheriffs differ over proposed narrower public‑records exemptions for personnel investigations

Committee hears bill to create court process for reinstating terminated parental rights