Transportation committee debates adding variable speed signs to House Bill 1298, defers decision on fines and points

The Committee on Transportation opened discussion Oct. 12 on House Bill 1298, considering an amendment from Senator John Paulson to add electronic variable speed‑limit signs and a separate push from Senator Lisa Rummel to restore changes to fines and driver's‑license points that were removed in related legislation.

"Well, mister chairman, I had just sent, an amendment to every everyone. It's, 1,002. And essentially, what it does is it just, brings in the speed limit signs into the bill that that were part of the amendment that senator Rummel had proposed," Senator Paulson said, describing the amendment and its purpose to allow the use of variable speed signs to reduce speeds based on accidents or weather.

The amendment would keep the bill's 80 mph provision intact while adding the variable electronic signs. Committee members and a staff speaker clarified that the electronic signs are limited to the interstate corridors identified in the discussion: I‑29 and I‑94. "It's just for I‑twenty 9 and I‑ninety 4," one committee member confirmed during the discussion, saying signs would be used in selected areas with known traffic problems.

Senator Rummel, who has pushed companion changes to penalties and points, said the companion Senate language in bill 2243 removed provisions the committee had previously approved. "Looking at what's coming back to us is a disaster," Rummel said, criticizing the removal of municipalities' ability to double certain fines and the rollback of points for serious violations. Rummel noted that the list of more severe violations and attached points had been developed with input from the North Dakota Highway Patrol and the Department of Transportation and said she preferred restoring those provisions to the bills under consideration.

Other senators discussed whether to consolidate the points and fine language into House Bill 1298 so the measure could carry those changes as it moved forward. Senator Klein and others described the idea of combining provisions as a way to build broader support and to provide members who oppose the 80 mph provision other reasons to vote for the bill. One senator said they would "be willing to compromise and vote for that if we put 1250 back in," a reference to related bill language; the speaker's name was not specified in the transcript.

Committee members repeatedly emphasized that some details remain unresolved. The transcript records back‑and‑forth about where the points language should be restored (in 2243, in 1250, or incorporated into 1298) and whether doing so would be procedurally appropriate mid-process.

No formal motion or roll‑call vote on final passage or on the Paulson amendment appears in the transcript. Instead, the committee agreed to continue the discussion. "Tomorrow morning? Let's say 10:00," Chairman Clemens said when members proposed reconvening; the committee scheduled to resume consideration at 10:00 the next day.

Staff and a committee member also agreed to prepare a single presentation that would show options and impacts so senators could compare outcomes if the committee restored points, kept the bill as written, or adopted the Paulson amendment.

The committee closed the day's session without taking final action on House Bill 1298, leaving open whether variable electronic signs, restored fine‑doubling authority for municipalities, or adjusted driver's‑license points will be included in the bill as it moves through the Legislature.