Committee hears rewrite of municipal‑court law; debate over court‑of‑record, prosecutor presence and costs (House Bill 1032)

The Political Subdivisions Committee opened a hearing on House Bill 1032, a statutory rewrite that would reorganize and update state law governing municipal courts, add procedures for fitness to proceed and criminal responsibility, and create a new chapter titled “Municipal Courts” (proposed chapter 40-18.1).

Proponents described the bill as a compilation and modernization of scattered code sections and said it was the product of a multi‑party interim study involving the Judiciary Interim Committee, the North Dakota Supreme Court, the League of Cities, and municipal judges. Senator Yana Bridal, who introduced the bill on behalf of legislative management, said the draft resulted from that collaboration and asked the committee to hear detailed presentations from the Supreme Court and the League of Cities.

The court’s staff attorney, Sarah Behrens of the State Court Administrator’s Office, told lawmakers the rewrite primarily reorganizes current law and adds detail where procedures were unclear. “We have 73 municipal courts. 54 total judges, not including the alternates. Of those 54, 21 are law trained,” Behrens said, and she handed the committee a fact sheet listing court sizes and the smallest and largest jurisdictional populations (the smallest city with a court reported as Springbrook, population 37; the largest city without a municipal court reported as Watford City, population 6,207).

Key provisions and points of debate The draft statute would do the following (summarized from committee testimony and the printed bill): - Consolidate jurisdictional rules for municipal courts and joint municipal courts into a single statutory chapter. The draft retains the current statutory limit that municipal courts may handle violations of ordinances and, for some judges, first‑offense DUI cases; municipal courts would continue to lack jurisdiction over most domestic‑violence offenses and juvenile delinquency matters. - Create a fitness‑to‑proceed procedure that generally transfers cases to district court for evaluation when mental fitness is in doubt, with remand to municipal court if the defendant is found fit. - Add a criminal‑responsibility (formerly “insanity”) procedure mirroring district court practice: if the defense raises lack of criminal responsibility, the case would go to district court for the evaluation and resolution. - Clarify judge qualifications and vacancy procedures, including allowing part‑time judges or shared judges across multiple cities, and retain the requirement that a judge in cities with populations over 5,000 be a licensed attorney unless the city’s ordinance provides otherwise. - Require a licensed city prosecutor to be present at all contested proceedings involving Class B misdemeanors and require the city to pay legal costs and expenses for that prosecutor; leave open contracting for city prosecutors. - Provide a statutory process for cities to transfer some or all municipal cases to district court by agreement and a separate statutory mechanism for a city to abolish its municipal court (different rules for small vs. large cities to avoid sudden transfer burdens on district courts).

Supporters framed the draft as clarification and improved oversight. “This rewrite is the bill that you have before you,” Behrens said, adding the bill pulls existing provisions into one place and adds new procedural clarity where needed. The Supreme Court’s package would also authorize the court to adopt rules for municipal judges and clerks, with remedies for noncompliance overseen by the Judicial Conduct Commission.

League of Cities and municipal judges Stephanie Ingerbretson of the North Dakota League of Cities testified in support but recommended several narrow amendments and emphasized municipal concerns about cost and staffing. She confirmed the League supports the amendments distributed to the committee, including changing the term “petition” to “request” for case transfers and replacing the statutory phrase “authenticated copy of the judgment” with “certified copy,” saying the authenticated language was lifted from an out‑of‑state civil‑judgment enforcement process and a certified copy is sufficient for in‑state transfers.

West Fargo municipal judge Trent Vargas, testifying as a municipal judge and criminal defense attorney, supported the fitness‑to‑proceed provisions but warned that making municipal courts courts of record would impose meaningful staffing and financial costs on cities. Vargas said municipal courts already serve as a frontline system that processes large volumes of traffic and ordinance cases quickly and that sending all such work to district court would overwhelm district dockets. He said recording and organizing many daily hearings for a record would likely require additional courtroom staff and increase city compensation for judges.

Points of clarification and committee concerns Committee members asked several procedural and practical questions: how a court of record would change appeals (a court of record would permit review on the record rather than a trial anew), whether municipal courts audio‑record proceedings today (there is no statutory requirement to record), which fees and costs the municipal court may impose (the bill lists allowable fees; testimony indicated prosecution costs for witness fees are generally borne by the city and are not automatically assessed to the defendant under current municipal provisions), and whether an authenticated versus certified copy is needed for docketing judgments in district court (League counsel recommended certified copy language). The committee also discussed whether all municipal hearings — not just trials — would have to be recorded if the courts were made courts of record; witnesses and municipal judges said that would increase staffing demands.

No in‑room opposition testimony was recorded. The committee did not take a final vote on HB1032 during the hearing and the chair recommended more time to reconcile amendments and drafting questions; the committee adjourned to reconvene later in the day.

Ending: Committee members asked staff to reconcile the submitted amendments and to return the bill for further consideration later in the session; no final committee action was taken on HB1032 during the hearing.