Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mask Ban Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Judiciary amends mask ban bill, removes requirement that officers first ask protesters to unmask
Summary
The Senate Judiciary Committee approved House Bill 12‑26 with an amendment removing a provision that would have made a class A misdemeanor contingent on an officer first requesting an individual unmask. Representative Lawrence Clamine and expert witness Hannah Myers testified for the bill, which updates North Dakota's anti‑mask statute to address
The Senate Judiciary Committee approved House Bill 12‑26 as amended, advancing an update to North Dakota's anti‑mask statute that targets groups who mask their faces to conceal identities while committing or facilitating criminal acts. The committee removed a provision that would have required a law‑enforcement officer to request an individual unmask before a misdemeanor charge could be pursued.
Representative Lawrence Clamine (District 47, Bismarck) introduced the bill, saying it updates section 12.13115 of the criminal code to cover groups of individuals who wear masks to conceal identity while committing crimes and to preserve an exception for Halloween and similar celebrations. “House Bill 12‑26 amends our current law to cover the situation where groups of individuals acting together are wearing masks to conceal their identities despite a request by law enforcement to unmask,” Clamine told the committee.
Hannah Myers, called by the sponsor as an expert witness, argued the law strengthens public safety by reducing anonymity during coordinated criminal acts and said many states have constitutionally upheld anti‑mask rules when they are closely tailored to criminal conduct. “Anti‑masking laws are essential to preserving the First Amendment right to assemble…and preventing intimidation and harassment,” Myers said, describing examples where masked groups impeded arrests and vandalized property in other jurisdictions.
Committee concerns and amendment: Senators raised practical concerns about cold‑weather face coverings, occupational protective gear and the limits of officer discretion. Several members said requiring an officer to ask each masked person to unmask before enforcement could limit the law’s effectiveness during large, mobile demonstrations. Senator Merdahl moved an amendment deleting the sentence “despite a law enforcement request to unmask”; the committee adopted the amendment.
Votes and next steps: After amendment, the committee voted to give HB 12‑26 a due‑pass recommendation as amended. The committee discussion acknowledged open questions about balancing constitutional rights, cold‑weather coverings and officer discretion; supporters argued the statute is narrowly targeted to concealment with criminal intent and includes exemptions for celebrations such as Halloween.
What the bill does (as amended): HB 12‑26 strengthens the existing mask prohibition by focusing on coordinated efforts to conceal identities while committing or facilitating criminal acts, retaining categorical exemptions for Halloween and similar public celebrations. The amendment removes the clause that would have made a misdemeanor contingent on a specific officer request to unmask.
Dissenting views: Senator Brownberger expressed constitutional and civil‑liberties concerns and said he would resist the bill on those grounds. Other senators said intent and context — such as winter clothing — would inform enforcement and judicial review.
Outcome note: The committee recorded an amended do‑pass recommendation and designated a senator to carry the bill to the next stage. The amendment and committee action narrow a contested enforcement detail but do not change the statute until the legislature acts.
