Representative Nels Christensen introduced House Bill 1263, which proposes revisions to the statute governing petitions to seal criminal records. Christensen said the bill aims to lower barriers to employment and housing for people who have completed the terms of their sentence and demonstrated reformation; the bill would allow petitioners to appeal a denied sealing petition and would permit refiling a petition after one year following a denial.

Multiple witnesses testified in support. Christopher Davis, a Grand Forks resident and Veterans Wellness Court mentor who has lived with the consequences of a conviction, described how sealing a record opened opportunities for work and housing and said he supported removing the requirement that a petitioner prove "the benefit outweighs the presumption of openness." Adam Martin (FI Project / Ridge Treatment and Reentry Center) said sealing had helped him and others he’s worked with obtain licenses and employment. Brad Peterson of Protection & Advocacy said his organization supports striking the presumption of openness because it places a heavier evidentiary burden on petitioners; he argued the petition process should be evaluated on a level evidentiary playing field. Jackie Hall of the North Dakota Association for Justice also testified in support and emphasized that judges retain discretion to set conditions for re‑filing and to assess public safety concerns.

Committee members questioned technical aspects of the bill, including whether a denied petition’s refiling period was discretionary under current law and whether the bill shortens waiting periods. Several witnesses and supporters said petitioners would still need to meet existing criteria — such as completion of sentence, payment of restitution and a waiting period (three years for misdemeanors, five for felonies) — before a clerk would accept a sealing petition, and that the proposed changes mainly affect the standard applied at the court hearing and the right to refile sooner after a denial.

Why it matters: Supporters framed the bill as second‑chance legislation to reduce barriers that criminal records create for employment, housing and reentry. Opponents were not recorded during the hearing; committee members sought clarification on how the bill would interact with existing waiting periods and judicial discretion.

What’s next: The committee closed the hearing on HB 1263 after extended testimony in support and indicated further consideration during committee work.