Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics And Lobbying topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ethics Commission seeks one‑word caption change to clarify lobbying ban applies to elected — not appointed — officials
Summary
The Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on a one‑word caption change proposed by the North Dakota Ethics Commission to make clear the state’s lobbying prohibition applies to elected public officials rather than to appointed officials.
Get email alerts on the Ethics And Lobbying topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 2052, a proposal from the North Dakota Ethics Commission to change a section caption so it explicitly reads that the constitutional prohibition on lobbying applies to “elected public officials.” The commission said the one‑word edit is intended to reduce confusion about whether appointed officials are covered by the constitutional bar against serving as lobbyists while in office or for two years afterward.
Rebecca Binstock, executive director of the Ethics Commission, told the committee the commission receives repeated questions from appointed public officials — such as cabinet members and members of boards and commissions — who wonder whether the constitutional prohibition applies to them. Binstock said the underlying constitutional text already restricts “an elected public official” from lobbying while in office and for two years after leaving office; the bill would align the code caption with that text and create a legislative record for the clarification.
Opponents cautioned the committee that similar provisions have faced constitutional challenges elsewhere. Jeff Simon, a registered lobbyist and former chair of the opposition committee to the 2018 ethics measure, cited an Eighth Circuit opinion addressing a Missouri provision and warned there could be a First Amendment challenge. Simon said he expects this constitutional question could ultimately be decided by courts if litigated.
What happened next: The committee adopted a due‑pass recommendation on the bill by voice/roll call and assigned a senator to carry the measure to the next stage.
Ending note: The Ethics Commission described the change as a narrow housekeeping fix aimed at reducing confusion; opponents urged attention to potential constitutional questions but did not prevent committee advancement.
