North Dakota House Bill HB1167

North Dakota 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/3/23
• Refer: 1/3/23
• Report Pass: 2/17/23
• Engrossed: 2/21/23
• Refer: 3/3/23
• Report Pass: 3/29/23
• Enrolled: 4/5/23
• Passed: 4/7/23

Caption

The governor's authority regarding polling places during a declared state of disaster or emergency.

Impact

The bill's enactment signifies a shift in governance by reinforcing the statutory stability of polling places, thereby reassuring voters that their access to the ballot will not be compromised under emergency conditions. This legislation aligns with broader national conversations about voting access and the responsibilities of state leaders during crises. The measure aims to uphold the integrity of the electoral process and mitigate any potential confusion surrounding voting logistics during emergencies.

Summary

House Bill 1167 addresses the limitations on the governor's authority regarding polling places during declared states of disaster or emergency in North Dakota. Specifically, the bill prohibits the governor from issuing executive orders to suspend or amend legal requirements concerning the minimum number of physical polling places mandated by state or local statutes. This legislative move is designed to ensure that voting infrastructure remains intact and resilient, even during crises that may affect normal operations.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 1167 appeared largely positive among legislative members, as evidenced by its significant majority vote in both the House (93-0) and Senate (39-5). Proponents argue that this legislation enhances the security of the electoral process by ensuring that all voters have equal access to polling places, regardless of the situation at hand. It suggests a unified intent to prioritize democratic practices even amidst challenges, reflecting a commitment to maintaining the framework of state laws that safeguard voting rights.

Contention

Despite the general support for the bill, there remain concerns among some legislators about the broader implications of restricting the governor's emergency powers. Critics worry that this could inhibit necessary flexibility in crisis management, potentially leading to complications in adapting voting processes to ensure public safety during emergencies. However, advocates contend that the importance of voting access supersedes these concerns, framing it as a fundamental right that should not be disregarded even in extreme situations.