House Judiciary Committee sends amended vexatious-litigation bill forward after reconsideration

The House Judiciary Committee voted to reconsider and advance Senate Bill 23-82 on vexatious litigation, approving the measure as amended after debate over whether the Legislature should codify procedures already adopted by the North Dakota Supreme Court.

The bill, as amended, would place the substantive standard for declaring a person a vexatious litigant into statute while leaving procedural details to the Supreme Court rule. Chairman Clamine, who introduced the amendment, said the change was drafted by a Supreme Court attorney and that the court and bill sponsors had agreed to the approach.

The measure would change the threshold for a vexatious-litigant designation from three separate litigations involving vexatious conduct to two. Clamine said the Supreme Court adopted a rule effective March 1 on vexatious litigation and that sponsors and the court proposed removing procedural mechanics from statute and keeping them in court rule while codifying the substantive standard.

Representative Van Winkle objected, saying he feared labeling people could deny access to the courts and argued that “all courts shall be open” under the state constitution. Van Winkle said labeling a person vexatious could “take away their right to seek justice.”

Representative Olsen moved to reconsider the committee's earlier “do not pass” recommendation so members could review the court-drafted amendment. Representative Better seconded the motion; the motion to reconsider carried on a roll call, 7 yes, 6 no, 1 absent.

Representative Vetter moved the committee amendment prepared with Supreme Court input; Representative Satrim seconded. Representative Wolf said the amendment addressed procedural duplication and ensured that individuals already on existing lists would be carried forward into the revised system. The committee approved the amendment by roll call (motion carries 11 yes, 1 no, 1 absent).

Representative Vetter then moved a recommendation of “do pass, as amended,” seconded by Representative Satrim. After further debate reiterating constitutional concerns and the potential burden of repeated filings on opposing parties, the committee approved a do-pass recommendation as amended on a roll call vote, 7 yes, 6 no, 1 absent. Representative Carlos agreed to carry the bill to the floor.

The bill text retains the substantive standard (the lower numeric threshold) in statute while leaving procedural rules to the Supreme Court; the committee record notes the amendment was prepared by Sarah Barrons of the Supreme Court.

Votes and next steps recorded in committee: the committee overcame its earlier “do not pass” recommendation through a successful motion to reconsider, adopted the court-sponsored amendment and recommended the bill for passage as amended. The Supreme Court rule that prompted the bill remains effective independently of the Legislature’s action.