The House Political Subdivisions Committee convened on January 30, 2025, to discuss House Bill 1273, which seeks to limit the ability of state and political subdivisions to adopt policies that restrict speech, including hate crime ordinances. The meeting featured testimonies from various stakeholders, highlighting the implications of the proposed legislation.

The first speaker, representing a local agency, expressed strong opposition to the bill, emphasizing the importance of hate crime ordinances in protecting marginalized communities. They noted that North Dakota has ranked second in the nation for hate crimes per capita, citing a specific incident involving a Somali restaurant in Grand Forks that was targeted due to its owners' ethnicity. The speaker urged the committee to remove the provision that would invalidate hate crime ordinances, arguing that such laws are essential for ensuring the safety and respect of all individuals.

Following this testimony, a representative from the North Dakota Student Association (NDSA) voiced concerns about the bill's potential to undermine student safety. The NDSA, which represents students from public universities in North Dakota, argued that the bill would void existing policies that protect students from hate crimes and harassment. They emphasized that hate crime ordinances do not limit free speech but rather enhance the legal framework for addressing crimes motivated by bias.

Molly Harrington, a representative from the Office of Management and Budget, also opposed the bill, stating that it could negatively impact workplace culture and legal compliance. She highlighted that existing policies against harassment and discrimination would be rendered ineffective, potentially leading to increased complaints and legal risks for public employers.

Stephanie Engerbretton, representing the North Dakota League of Cities, raised additional concerns about the bill's broad language, which she argued could hinder local governments' ability to regulate speech in a manner consistent with the First Amendment. She pointed out that while Fargo has implemented a hate crime ordinance at the request of its residents, the proposed bill could prevent cities from responding to community needs regarding safety and protection.

The committee members engaged with the speakers, asking clarifying questions about the implications of the bill on existing laws and policies. As the meeting concluded, the opposition to House Bill 1273 was clear, with multiple stakeholders advocating for the preservation of hate crime ordinances and the protection of vulnerable populations in North Dakota.

The committee will continue to deliberate on the bill, considering the testimonies and concerns raised during the meeting. Further discussions and potential amendments to the legislation are expected in the coming sessions.