Senate Judiciary committee hears bill to close hearings and online records for protection orders

Senator Josh Bausche, sponsor of Senate Bill 23‑26, told the Senate Judiciary Committee the measure would close hearings and remove public online access to petition filings for assault restraining orders and domestic violence protection orders.

Bausche said the proposal inserts “the same new language in two important sections of century code,” covering both assault restraining orders and domestic violence protection orders, and that the change responds to concerns raised by people working in juvenile justice about victims’ information appearing on the NDcourts public search site.

"The Violence Against Women Act . . . states that, quote, a state, Indian tribe, or territory shall not make available publicly on the Internet any information regarding the registration, filing of a petition for, or issuance of a protection order, restraining order, or injunction . . . if such publication would be likely to publicly reveal the identity or location of the party protected under such order, end quote," Bausche said, citing the federal law and urging that North Dakota align state law with that requirement.

Seth O'Neil, representing the North Dakota Domestic and Sexual Violence Coalition, testified in support and described a gap between current administrative practice and the public web presence. He said court case files in these matters are confidential under a North Dakota Supreme Court administrative rule, but that an entry for a final protection order (which can list names, addresses and other identifying information) is still visible on the NDcourts public website and can be found by simple name searches.

"The hearings themselves are currently not closed even though [the case] provides all of that sensitive information," O'Neil said. He recommended closing the hearings and removing the filings from public web search results so information that could identify or locate protected parties is not exposed online.

Several committee members asked technical and jurisdictional questions. Senator Lewick asked whether the proposal could pose problems in cases involving tribal jurisdictions; Bausche deferred to practitioners with experience working across tribal and state systems. Senator Bridal asked whether the change would interfere with an accused person’s right to know what they are charged with; Bausche said the bill targets public access by the general public and that defense and prosecution processes remain part of the record and court proceedings.

The sponsor proposed a drafting edit to replace the word "victim" with the term used in federal law, "protected party," to cover instances where multiple people (for example, a parent and children) are collectively protected under the same order. O'Neil said he supported that amendment.

After receiving testimony in support and no formal opposition, Senator Meerdahl asked to hold the bill briefly so legislative counsel could review the suggested language changes; the committee agreed to pause further action while that technical check is completed. The bill’s hearing was closed pending that follow-up.

The hearing record includes statements, examples and a cross-reference to VAWA and to the North Dakota Supreme Court administrative rule that currently keeps underlying records confidential while some final order metadata remains publicly searchable.

If advanced later, the bill would amend statutory language in two code sections to close hearings and to prohibit public online exposure of petition filings for protection and restraining orders; the sponsor and advocates said the changes are intended to protect privacy and to ensure state compliance with federal law.

The committee did not take a final vote on SB 23‑26 at this meeting and asked staff to check with legislative counsel on the sponsor’s suggested wording changes.