House Judiciary amends ethics advisory-opinion authority, votes do-not-pass on bill

The House Judiciary Committee debated House Bill 1046 on advisory opinions for the North Dakota Ethics Commission and voted to recommend the bill not pass after amending how the commission could initiate opinions.

The bill, introduced at the commission's request, would have amended Section 546604.2 of the North Dakota Century Code to let the Ethics Commission issue written advisory opinions on its own initiative rather than only when a public official, candidate or lobbyist asked for one. Rebecca Binstock, executive director of the North Dakota Ethics Commission, told the committee the change was sought to give the commission a way to resolve recurring questions when those who raise them did not follow through with a formal request. "Sometimes we have multiple individuals who are asking the same or a very related question," Binstock said, and the commission wants a way to provide clarity to regulated parties.

Supporters described advisory opinions as a form of safe harbor for public officials who seek prospective guidance. Binstock said advisory opinions are issued within 90 days of a request and are published on the commission website; she told the committee the commission had issued four advisory opinions through 2024 and had two pending.

Opponents and several committee members urged caution about expanding the commission's power. Representative Steve Vetter questioned why the commission should initiate opinions rather than waiting for affected people to request them, saying: "If they didn't follow up, then obviously it wasn't that important." Representative Mary Schneider urged keeping a lower threshold for the commission to act so the panel could issue more opinions when appropriate. Representative Bernie Satrim pressed to raise the initiation threshold to unanimity, arguing that advisory opinions could take on elevated weight if issued without broad agreement.

Committee action and outcome - The committee first considered an amendment to change the bill's required vote from a majority to a unanimous vote of the entire five-member commission; that amendment failed on a committee roll call (6 yes, 8 no). - Members then adopted a narrower amendment requiring at least four of the five commissioners to vote to initiate an opinion; that amendment passed on a roll call (11 yes, 3 no). - After further debate the committee rejected a motion to report the bill as "do pass as amended." The committee then adopted a motion to report the bill "do not pass as amended"; the committee vote on that motion passed (13 yes, 1 no). Representative Bernie Satrim was assigned as the bill carrier for the committee report.

Why it matters Advisory opinions from the Ethics Commission provide nonbinding guidance that can shield officials who rely on them in good faith. The committee's discussion weighed the public value of more proactive guidance against concerns about an unelected body issuing potentially influential legal interpretations without repeated, clear requests from affected parties.

The committee record shows the commission seeks a process to resolve recurring questions, but lawmakers were split on how large a consensus the commission should need before issuing opinions. With the committee's do-not-pass recommendation, the measure will not advance unless reconsidered by the sponsor or reintroduced.

What’s next Because the committee voted "do not pass," House Bill 1046 will not move forward from Judiciary unless a member moves to reconsider the recommendation or the Ethics Commission pursues alternative legislative language in a future session.