Prison sentencing bill revised, adds study of North Dakota justice system
Rep. Lawrence Klemin, R-Bismarck, leads a meeting of the House Judiciary Committee on March 24, 2025. (Kyle Martin/For the North Dakota Monitor)
A committee passed amendments and removed a key provision in a contentious prison sentencing bill Monday.
The House Judiciary Committee still gave Senate Bill 2128 a do-not-pass recommendation.
Committee chair Rep. Lawrence Klemin, R-Bismarck, who authored some of the amendments to the bill, said it wasn't clear how the changes would affect the cost estimate of the bill.
Klemin said his intention was that a new cost estimate would be generated for the bill.
North Dakota attorney general calls for more prison time; opponents say spend more on police
The original intent of the bill, which came from North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley's office, was to ensure that criminals housed by the North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation spend more of their sentence behind bars.
The fiscal note tied to the original bill estimated the cost to the state at $22.7 million in the 2025-27 biennium and $21.3 million for the following two years.
North Dakota's prison system is already overcrowded and Rep. Steve Vetter, R-Grand Forks, wondered how the original bill could be workable.
'Where are these people going to go?' Vetter asked, adding that there is no plan to build more prison space.
Colby Braun, director of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, has contended that the original bill would cut off access to rehabilitation programs and halfway houses.
The amendments remove a key provision requiring that offenders serve at least 50% of their sentence behind bars before being eligible for a halfway house or parole.
The amendments include ensuring that prisoners are eligible to go into a halfway house for the last six months of their sentences and adding money for electronic monitoring bracelets and penalties for tampering with an electronic monitoring device.
The amendments passed on a 8-5 vote. A do-not-pass recommendation made by Rep. Bill Tveit, R-Hazen, passed 9-5.
Tveit resisted the Klemin amendments as continuing a soft-on-crime policy and said the state can afford the costs of sending prisoners to another state if North Dakota doesn't have room.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The amended bill gives Legislative Management the option to study parole and the state corrections system.
'The parole board is a really big player and we haven't heard from them,' Klemin said.
Klemin said the amended bill could be a bridge until the studies could provide legislators with more guidance.
The bill still includes additional penalties for fleeing and assaulting officers.
The amendments will need to be approved on the House floor. If approved the bill will likely be heard in the House Appropriations Committee next week, according to committee chair Rep. Don Vigesaa, R-Cooperstown.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘Keep it real and show the receipts': California Congresswoman on how to fight Trump's agenda
Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove, who represents parts of Los Angeles and sits on the House Judiciary Committee, says Trump has 'created and manufactured violence in Los Angeles to distract from the Republican budget.' She joins the Weeknight to break down Trump's escalating use of force on protesters – and what the tactics are really about.
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Yahoo
House GOP advances Marjorie Taylor Greene's transphobic bill banning gender-affirming care for trans youth
In another attack on transgender youth and their families, House Republicans on Tuesday advanced a bill that would make it a federal crime to provide gender-affirming health care to minors, targeting doctors, parents, and providers with prison time for following medically recognized standards of care. Keep up with the latest in + news and politics. The bill, H.R. 3492, known as the 'Protect Children's Innocence Act,' was introduced by far-right Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and backed by more than 40 Republican lawmakers. It passed the House Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote and now heads to the full House of Representatives. If enacted, the bill would criminalize puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries, which are already rare for transgender people under 18, even when supported by families and recommended by their doctors. Related: Trump signs executive order banning federal support of gender-affirming care for anyone under 19 'This is just another attempt by extremist Republican politicians to further their anti-transgender agenda,' said gay California U.S. Rep. Mark Takano, chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus. 'It is outrageous that House Judiciary Committee Republicans just voted to advance a bill that would throw parents and doctors in jail for providing medically necessary care to young trans people.' The bill labels gender-affirming medical care as 'genital mutilation' and 'chemical castration,' while excluding gender dysphoria from the definition of legitimate health conditions. Yet the legislation carves out specific exemptions for surgeries on intersex infants, many of which are non-consensual and medically unnecessary — a practice widely condemned by human rights groups. David Stacy, vice president of government affairs at the Human Rights Campaign, said the bill is not about protecting children but about weaponizing transgender people to score political points. Related: Utah Republicans ignore study supporting gender-affirming care for trans youth. It's research they demanded 'Deeply personal health care decisions belong between families and their doctors, not politicians,' Stacy told The Advocate in a statement. 'No one should need Marjorie Taylor Greene's permission to get the best practice, medically necessary care that their family needs. This bill is not about public health—it's about emboldening discrimination and using the transgender community as a weapon to divide the country and try to obscure failings of the Trump administration and their enablers in Congress.' Under the bill's sweeping provisions, even helping a trans teenager cross state lines or access telehealth services for care could result in a decade-long prison sentence. The law would not apply to cisgender youth seeking similar interventions, such as breast reduction, puberty suppression for precocious puberty, or other medically approved procedures. Related: What to expect in this week's landmark gender-affirming care U.S. Supreme Court case The legislation arrives at a volatile moment for transgender rights. In January, President Donald Trump issued an executive order banning gender-affirming care for young people, but federal courts have intervened and put that order on hold. However, as soon as Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling in United States v. Skrmetti, a case challenging Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors. Advocates warn that a ruling upholding the law could create a legal precedent for sweeping national restrictions on trans health care, effectively turning cases like Greene's bill from political stunts into enforceable federal doctrine. Legal scholars and public health experts have warned that such a ruling would be devastating. Writing in The Advocate, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health professor Harry Barbee called U.S. v. Skrmetti a 'public health disaster' that could codify discrimination and strip life-saving care from some of the country's most vulnerable youth. Research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other institutions shows that gender-affirming care significantly reduces rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide among trans adolescents. Related: Doctors warn of 'terrifying' effects as Trump creates snitch line to report gender-affirming care patients Medical organizations representing over 1.3 million doctors, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and the Endocrine Society, continue to endorse gender-affirming care as evidence-based and medically necessary. They have denounced efforts like Greene's bill as politically motivated and dangerous.
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Yahoo
North Dakota governor's veto ‘clear and unambiguous,' attorney general says
Attorney General Drew Wrigley and Chief Deputy Attorney General Claire Ness talk to reporters June 11, 2025, about an opinion related to Gov. Kelly Armstrong's veto. (Mary Steurer/North Dakota Monitor) North Dakota's attorney general said Wednesday Gov. Kelly Armstrong's veto was 'sound,' dismissing a differing conclusion by legislative staff that his intent was unclear and the Legislature should hold a special session to fix the error. The opinion by Attorney General Drew Wrigley means $35 million for housing programs Armstrong's office unintentionally crossed out in a May line-item veto can move forward unless the matter is challenged in court or the Legislature reconvenes. Armstrong's veto message for the Industrial Commission budget described cutting $150,000 set aside for a Native American-focused organization to fund a homelessness liaison position. But a markup of the bill also crossed out a $35 million appropriation for affordable housing and homelessness — funding Armstrong had intended to leave intact. His office later said there had been a 'staff markup error.' 'Prudent remedy' for veto error is special session, Legislative Council advises Since then, the Legislature has been trying to figure out what actions, if any, must be taken to address the veto — including the possibility of calling a special session. Wrigley found that the unintentional markup does not change the substance of the veto because Armstrong's written veto message was 'clear and unambiguous' about what parts of Senate Bill 2014 he intended to cut. He said in a Wednesday press conference that a 'visual image' should not 'take precedence over the written orders, the detailed description offered by the one person with the power to veto.' Attorneys for North Dakota's legislative branch in a Friday memo took a very different position, advising the Legislature that calling a special session would be the 'prudent remedy' for the mistake. In its memo, Legislative Council said legal precedent suggests the marked-up bill is part of the official veto document. 'It would not be appropriate to allow the Governor and Attorney General to resolve the ambiguity by agreement,' the memo states. Doing so could have unintended consequences for how ambiguous vetoes are handled in the future, Legislative Council said. Wrigley called the Legislative Council memo a 'political document' and said the Attorney General's Office has the final say on the matter unless the issue is challenged in court. 'The power in question is strictly the governor's power and it has to be in compliance with the constitution and laws of North Dakota,' he told the North Dakota Monitor last week. 'That's the only assessment here. There's no role for this in Legislative Council. They have no authority in this regard.' Armstrong, whose office requested the opinion, in a statement agreed with Wrigley's findings. 'We appreciate the Attorney General's determination, which clarifies the matter, avoids the cost of a special session and nullifies the flawed interpretation that initially blew this up into something much bigger than it needed to be,' he said. A special session is estimated to cost $65,000 per day, Legislative Council has said. The Legislature could still decide to reconvene for a special session to override the veto if it chooses to, Wrigley said. Legislative Council Director John Bjornson said the office did not immediately have a statement on the opinion. This story was updated. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE Attorney General Opinion
