The North Dakota Senate Judiciary Committee held a public hearing on House Bill 1032, a proposed rewrite of state law governing municipal courts that would create a new Chapter 40‑18.1, clarify when municipal ordinance cases may be transferred to district court and set new procedural and oversight requirements, presenters said.

Supporters told the committee the bill is the result of an interim study and a multi‑party drafting effort that aimed to reorganize and clarify existing law. "House Bill 10 32 is the result of a study of municipal courts," said Stephanie Ingebretsen, appearing for the North Dakota League of Cities. Sarah Behrens, a staff attorney with the State Court Administrator's Office, described the measure as "a compromised bill" and urged the committee to give it a due‑pass recommendation.

The bill would: allow district court jurisdiction for municipal ordinance violations in cities with fewer than 5,000 residents (and in cities that have entered intergovernmental agreements); consolidate jurisdictional limits into a single section; create new procedures for "fitness to proceed" and for cases alleging lack of criminal responsibility that generally send those matters to district court for examination; require a licensed prosecutor to be present at contested hearings involving a class B misdemeanor; require itemized costs and fees be limited to those authorized by the chapter; and remove antiquated penalties such as compulsory labor for sentences. Behrens also outlined new procedures for abolishing municipal courts: smaller cities could abolish by local resolution with a minimum 90‑day transfer period for pending cases, while larger courts would require agreement among county and state court officials and a minimum 180‑day transition period.

Proponents said the bill modernizes language, clarifies which fees may be assessed and formalizes oversight and training compliance. "Although this bill doesn't give us everything we would like, it will go a long way towards providing improved oversight of municipal courts through court rules pertaining to reporting procedure, qualifications, facilities, and educational requirements," Behrens said.

Speakers from local government echoed that view. Trent Marcus, a municipal judge in West Fargo and a Municipal Judges Association board member, said municipal courts "play a vital role in our communities" and described operational constraints in smaller courts, including staff shortages that make a court‑of‑record requirement costly and difficult to maintain.

Opponents urged the committee to go further. Jackie Hall, executive director of the North Dakota Association for Justice, testified in opposition to the bill "as it was amended in the house," saying the measure stops short of important reforms. Hall said not establishing municipal courts as courts of record would require district courts to hold de novo trials on appeal rather than review a transcript, raising fairness and workload concerns. She also warned that many small jurisdictions do not timely transmit conviction data to state systems such as Odyssey and the Department of Transportation, which can affect penalties for repeat offenses such as DUI.

Committee members questioned details of the proposal and of current practice. Committee testimony cited state court data that, according to presenters, showed 54 municipal judges statewide with 21 law‑trained (about 39%); 15 municipal courts were reported to be on the Odyssey case‑management system, which the State Court Administrator's Office said is typically used by larger courts that handle about 900 or more cases per year. Witnesses said Odyssey requires staff training and steady staffing to operate reliably in small jurisdictions.

No formal action was taken. Chair Larson closed the hearing noting the committee would meet again the following morning at 9:00 a.m. for further business.