North Dakota House Bill HB1601

North Dakota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/20/25
• Refer: 1/20/25
• Report Pass: 2/24/25
• Engrossed: 2/25/25
• Refer: 3/7/25
• Report Pass: 4/15/25

Caption

Special assistant attorneys general.

Impact

If enacted, HB 1601 would modify existing practices related to the appointment and oversight of legal counsel within state government. By formalizing the process for both employing and revoking special assistant attorneys general, the bill aims to ensure that state officials can receive competent legal advice while also preserving the oversight authority of the attorney general. This contributes to better governance by potentially increasing the professionalism and standard of legal representation in the state’s legal affairs.

Summary

House Bill 1601 proposes amendments to the North Dakota Century Code concerning special assistant attorneys general. The bill seeks to specify the conditions under which assistant and special assistant attorneys can be appointed by the attorney general to represent various state boards, commissions, and agencies. It emphasizes the necessity of consultation with relevant state officials prior to appointment and establishes protocols for revocation of appointments, promoting continuity and accountability in legal representation for public agencies.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 1601 seems generally supportive among lawmakers who recognize the importance of provisioning legal representation in state agencies. However, there may be some apprehension regarding how these changes could impact the autonomy of agencies in their legal affairs, particularly concerning which attorneys can be appointed and under what circumstances. This highlights a broader conversation about the balance of power between centralized legal oversight and the independent operational needs of state agencies.

Contention

Some potential points of contention may arise around the section that limits the revocation of special assistant attorneys’ appointments. Critics might argue that by restricting the attorney general's ability to revoke these appointments without good cause, the bill could undermine the flexibility needed to respond to changing legal dynamics. Furthermore, there may be concerns about the adequacy of oversight and whether the appointed attorneys will adequately represent the diverse needs of various state entities.