[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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",[32,76,87],{"_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",6342409,"mediaKeyId","2255148-410deb73c16d620391f093473b7ddff6","parentId",2255148,"title","House bill would reshape gaming oversight, shift sanction authority from AG to a larger commission","audioSeconds",2647,"startMs",125000,"endMs",2772000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2255148-410deb73c16d620391f093473b7ddff6&start=125&end=2772","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2255148-410deb73c16d620391f093473b7ddff6/thumbnail_125000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6342409/North-Dakota/House-bill-would-reshape-gaming-oversight-shift-sanction-authority-from-AG-to-a-larger-commission","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6342409-920910bc165a3338bff60adb66bf00de/orig.mp4?Expires=1771112516&Signature=bS~B41jbQa6bVloUqFCGjQZ55tNE0Q1YSBqZsaImHGHEwh2AtEnIzUt7h5qfLdyHDR~F8twGdKbEQCmkdKRJhJLxPcbxoqpvucCpwmDd4t-SVtvuzBDy5LObUsyVX-m~hvhFiNZcfxzkzlN1farcSR6Jqmnhyj8jK26-nnnJQgTnYP7LEbUTh05botGAoAvS8Dgpd4hbe1NQ9KO9DOg8aIMkq-zc1kVoourAkg2ZILaMeQIgB1l6r-2V8AYNSYJl7zVXzbWsBWS81N5oWoKxAVnt2rD0T7SKmglm0hzAU7mSHbywNX5Ti1c-xtjhnkx4ZY27CA4ssurvRCtPJMy62Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","North Dakota State Legislature","date","2025-02-10T00:00:00Z","article","Representative Don Koppelman, sponsor of House Bill 1525, told the House Judiciary Committee he has narrowed the bill’s original scope so it focuses on charitable gaming and the oversight problems the current system creates. He said the proposal expands the five-member commission to nine members and adds industry stakeholders, arguing the change would improve engagement and accountability.

Koppelman said the current system delegates promulgation and investigation to the Attorney General’s gaming division, which approves charities and investigates complaints, but that sanction decisions are made outside open meetings. “The attorney general then, kind of has the unilateral ability to decide what's going to happen there. It's not done in, under a context of an open meeting,” Koppelman told the committee. He said the amended bill would send sanctionable civil matters to the gaming commission to be decided in open meetings and televised hearings.

Why it matters: The bill alters who decides sanctions for charitable gaming and authorized sites, and it would add a public-review layer where the gaming division currently acts unilaterally. Sponsors say the change brings transparency; opponents say it risks conflicts of interest if people with industry ties sit on a sanctioning board.

Supporters and structure: Koppelman described the proposed nine-member commission as a mix of legislative appointees, city representatives, a bar owner, and representatives from large, small, and rural charities. He said the governor would appoint six members, the speaker of the house and senate pro tem would each appoint a legislator to serve on the commission, and he proposed the lieutenant governor — or the governor’s appointee — chair the commission to ensure consistent meetings.

The bill would preserve the Attorney General’s gaming division role in investigations and audit work but require the division to refer civil sanction findings to the commission for public hearings. Koppelman said that if the commission levies fines or sanctions, affected parties could appeal to an administrative law judge and then to district court.

Concerns from the Attorney General’s office: Deb McDaniel, director of the gaming division in the Office of Attorney General, testified in opposition. She told the committee the division already operates under North Dakota open-records and administrative rules statutes and that charitable gaming organizations are not a profession in the same way as licensed trades. McDaniel provided staffing and workload numbers for the gaming division — 20 FTEs, 350 gaming organizations, and thousands of devices and sites — and cautioned the committee that the amendments increase the commission’s sanctioning authority and raise fiscal and operational questions about holding public hearings and producing recordings.

Industry reaction: Bruce Johnson, executive director of the Horse Racing Commission, said he had not seen the amended bill before the hearing but that the commission would likely have opposed the bill in its original form and indicated the amended language may be acceptable.

Fiscal and implementation notes: Committee members asked whether the bill creates a full-time executive director or additional staff. Koppelman said his amended version no longer creates an executive director position; the gaming division would continue to prepare investigative materials for the commission. Several members pressed for an updated fiscal note accounting for increased meeting costs, commissioner pay, and video-televising hearings; Koppelman said he expected the Appropriations Committee to review fiscal impacts when the bill is referred.

Where the measure stands: The committee opened and closed the public hearing on HB 1525 and heard several people testify for and against the amendment. No committee vote on final passage of HB 1525 was recorded on the transcript segment provided. The sponsor asked that the committee consider attaching his amendments if the bill moves forward.

Ending: Committee members signaled they want a revised fiscal note and additional clarifying language on who chairs the commission and whether referrals to the Attorney General for prosecution should be mandatory or discretionary. The bill will proceed through the committee process; the sponsor indicated he can offer additional technical amendments as it moves to Appropriations.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Judiciary Mon, Feb 10, 2025 9:00 AM-12:00 PM","oneSentenceSummary","Representative Don Koppelman told the House Judiciary Committee that House Bill 1525, narrowed by amendment, would refocus the state gaming commission on charitable gaming and expand its membership to nine people while shifting some sanction authority into open, televised commission proceedings.","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":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6342400,"Committee amends and advances several reentry and corrections bills; mixed votes and procedural referrals follow",0,3600000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2255148-410deb73c16d620391f093473b7ddff6&start=3600&end=3600","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2255148-410deb73c16d620391f093473b7ddff6/thumbnail_3600000.jpg","/articles/6342400/North-Dakota/Committee-amends-and-advances-several-reentry-and-corrections-bills-mixed-votes-and-procedural-referrals-follow","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6342400-c422289ba4de97518dd2c914d371a519/orig.mp4?Expires=1771112516&Signature=BtVy8RoHa9haMtFMkL3IUD172tCRlTbezjCSnwDa624FSPJ77jKp-iZ7ikww6T3YlAjr8rTzGkNwkato7YJcQpYdZj9MSo~YFJbVKwjEnRHpO~XNp4DSaRCAcA-ojhZaZb00J-OAkbMRf67UKCkN61~6OCeH4Rtpm2Najgduq8MiC4K2uYaDQxvpc5Z6SVNJf7unR-KbMLZ0hOga5fAlAKtCQQfq4YnIXvwpeneG8Gi0JiLoz9cOlislaWpWWDX9hGGpjwQwXOk5FWltOmAQUJWach6bXf5EPrcuL~OwW3yoFsRIsLtm3YoqQxbmr79f3xMo2BXDiTmWI8sBqh7q9Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Judiciary Committee spent a substantial portion of the hearing on a trio of bills intended to affect reentry, supervision and fees for justice-involved individuals. Committee members debated amendments, fiscal impacts and whether the three bills should advance together as a package.

HB 1425 — pretrial diversion and prosecution-led supervision pilot: The committee adopted sponsor amendments clarifying definitions of behavioral health conditions, narrowing implementation and setting the start date. The amendment reduced the intended staffing in the pilot from seven FTEs to a single FTE with third-party contracts for supervision. After committee discussion, the committee voted to give HB 1425 a due-pass recommendation as amended and re-refer it to Appropriations; the committee roll call recorded 9 yes and 5 no.

HB 1417 — supervision, revocation and indigent defense funding: Members adopted an amendment that added an appropriation to the Commission on Legal Counsel for Indigence (a $350,000 appropriation tied to a $3.50 fee proposal in the amendment). Committee debate produced a tied roll call (7-7) on a motion to give a due-pass recommendation; subsequent procedural moves produced a committee decision to send HB 1417 to the next stage without a committee recommendation (vote to send without recommendation carried 10-4). Committee discussion highlighted differing views on technical violations and the financial impediments fines and fees pose for people trying to comply with supervision conditions.

HB 1549 — grants to support reentry and data studies: The bill provides for grant funding to support reentry services at discharge (IDs, Medicaid enrollment, housing coordination) and tasks for studying racial disparities and housing barriers. Committee members adopted two amendments: one to express legislative intent that the Department of Corrections apply for federal Justice Department grants, and another to remove an original requirement that would have directed the Supreme Court’s committee to provide certain reports; the committee instead deleted that reporting section. After amendment the committee gave HB 1549 a due-pass recommendation as twice amended; the committee vote was 8 yes to 6 no. Representative Will (name from transcript) was noted as the bill carrier in committee remarks.

Context and fiscal questions: Committee members repeatedly asked for updated fiscal notes for the package. Sponsors and supporters said the bills are intended to reduce imprisonment, cut recidivism and lower pressure on prison capacity by addressing technical violations, improving pretrial diversion and funding reentry services. Opponents and some members raised concerns about fiscal impacts and urged Appropriations to weigh cost details.

Votes at a glance
- HB 1425 (pretrial diversion/prosecution-led diversion pilot): Amendments adopted 14-0; due pass as amended and referred to Appropriations, 9 yes, 5 no.
- HB 1417 (supervision/indigent defense): Amendments adopted 12-2 (appropriation amendment); final committee action: sent out without committee recommendation after tied floor votes and procedural motions (final procedural vote 10 yes, 4 no to send without recommendation).
- HB 1549 (reentry grants, discharge services, studies): Two amendments adopted (including deletion of original section 3); due pass as twice amended and referred to Appropriations 8 yes, 6 no.

Ending: Committee members instructed sponsors to seek revised fiscal notes and noted Appropriations will review budgetary effects. Several members urged treating the three bills as a package while others said each can stand alone; the committee ultimately advanced the three measures under differing committee recommendations for fiscal review.","The House Judiciary Committee considered three related reentry bills—House Bills 1425, 1417 and 1549—adopted multiple amendments and split on final recommendations. HB 1425 (pretrial diversion and prosecution-led diversion pilot) passed as amended to appropriations; HB 1417 (supervision/indigent defense changes) was sent out without committee\u0000s",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6342404,"Committee advances bill to shield federal judges’ home addresses, phone numbers from state public records",628,2830000,3458000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2255148-410deb73c16d620391f093473b7ddff6&start=2830&end=3458","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2255148-410deb73c16d620391f093473b7ddff6/thumbnail_2830000.jpg","/articles/6342404/North-Dakota/Committee-advances-bill-to-shield-federal-judges-home-addresses-phone-numbers-from-state-public-records","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6342404-a5b8b48dd711b4b01262d7cabafaa271/orig.mp4?Expires=1771112516&Signature=dOT~lotQf2DfKUPC05dDOEAsN~L0ko1tXnn6atHgX4SA5D3WKmcjYgXb8I61D30TCDO7AfM~5Vdq~PV1Rc70jMz0EwsiJYsZ9ngLEoKkAiLM7m3v2QyJJteasbWjdWVSdljUWQXrtBg9LShw0QqOLnISXc152JDEbRobpCshssm-QRsQeuuhJlIOFAPnJzGHEOHJksOGxF93MeUqnBC8HUrxEf93Ag-sjEmoK60TAHNQBjQ9G-Eno2sBuf6gupHzkoBKNGQjzHqhDycAk-66w~iJJ2WsiRzUvs6i-6TGWG3Xl4gfCVQ~KBnT79OqxFpt3zjCYeDQAvxkaIh~-wZYTw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Judiciary Committee voted to give House Bill 1499 a due-pass recommendation after a committee hearing where the Attorney General’s office requested the change. The measure would expand North Dakota’s confidentiality provisions so that telephone numbers and home addresses of federal judges and magistrate judges are redacted from state public records, unless the individual requests otherwise under the bill’s subsection allowing an annual opt-in for specific record types.

Annika Lockard, assistant attorney general in the general counsel division, told the committee the Attorney General requested the bill to eliminate ambiguity between state open-records law and a recent federal statute referred to in testimony as Daniels Law. Lockard said Daniels Law protects federal judges’ personal information held by federal agencies but does not cover state records. “This bill very simply expands confidentiality of telephone numbers and home addresses for the specific public employees listed … to include federal judges and justices,” Lockard said.

Why it matters: Testimony cited the federal Daniels Law — passed after the 2020 shooting that killed a federal judge’s family member — as creating protections at the federal level but leaving potential gaps at the state level. Committee members asked whether the bill would affect social media and other publicly available information; Lockard said the bill applies only to public records held by state custodians and would not redact information already published on the internet.

Committee action and vote: Representative David Schneider moved a due-pass recommendation, seconded by Representative Jared Vedder. The committee took a roll-call vote and approved the motion on a 10-4 tally with one member recorded as absent. The committee named Representative Vedder as the carrier for the bill.

Ending: The committee’s recommendation advances the bill to the next steps of the legislative process with a favorable committee report. The Attorney General’s office said the measure is intended to harmonize state practice with federal protections and to provide the same confidentiality for federal judicial officers that the state currently extends to many state court and justice-system employees.","The House Judiciary Committee gave House Bill 1499 a favorable recommendation to extend state confidentiality protections for home addresses and telephone numbers to federal judges and magistrate judges. Attorney General staff described the change as aligning state law with federal protections enacted after high-profile threats.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

House bill would reshape gaming oversight, shift sanction authority from AG to a larger commission

Committee amends and advances several reentry and corrections bills; mixed votes and procedural referrals follow

Committee advances bill to shield federal judges’ home addresses, phone numbers from state public records