North Dakota lawmakers hear extensive testimony on controversial library bill

BISMARCK — North Dakota lawmakers listened to lengthy testimony Tuesday, March 18, on a bill that would require schools and public libraries to hide materials with “obscene” content from minors.

Senate Bill 2307

would direct such facilities to move “offensively sexual” content out of the main area of a library to a restricted section — whether that be in a cabinet, a roped-off aisle or on a higher shelf.

Another section of the bill requires school districts, state agencies and public libraries to filter out material found to be obscene in online library resources.

If passed, entities would be tasked with reviewing, removing and/or relocating those materials by January 2026 and providing the state with a compliance report before May 2026.

Those found to be in violation of the law could lose all state funding.

The cost associated with implementing the bill is over $2 million.

Confusion around what content would be considered obscene, ways a person could file a complaint about such content, and how someone could be found guilty of violating the rules was discussed at length during a three-hour House Judiciary Committee hearing on the bill Tuesday.

Bill sponsor Sen. Keith Boehm, R-Mandan, said the bill is purely about protecting children.

“This bill is not an attack on library staff or schools,” he said. “It is a necessary safeguard against a small number of activists who exploit legal loopholes to push an agenda that does not align with the values of our families and communities.”

Boehm brought

a similar bill

during the 2023 legislative, which was passed by lawmakers but vetoed by former Gov. Doug Burgum,

who said enacting the law would have an “enormous burden” on libraries.

SB 2307 adds to House Bill 1205, enacted in 2023, which bans “sexually explicit” materials from the children’s section of a library and allows people to ask libraries to remove such content if they find it to be “inappropriate.”

Sara Planteen, a mother from Cogswell, said her concerns about materials she found to be offensive weren’t taken seriously at the local level.

“When schools fail to follow their own policies, when they dismiss parental concerns, then it is the duty of the elected officials to step in,” she said.

Rep. Mike Brandenburg, R-Edgeley, Rep. Vicky Steiner, R-Dickinson, and a family therapist also voiced their support of the bill.

Opponents then lined up to share their testimony in person, except for Kelsi LeBaron, a sixth grader from Williston, who testified remotely.

“I understand that some books deal with difficult topics, but I believe that removing them from schools and libraries will do more harm than good,” LeBaron said. “For some students, reading a certain book might be the first time they feel understood.”

LeBaron also said parents, teachers and librarians should be guiding what children read, not the government.

A librarian, a bookstore owner and the North Dakota Library Association echoed LeBaron’s plea.

They collectively characterized the bill as a costly one-size-fits-all solution that would unjustly stigmatize certain books, disproportionately impact small and rural libraries, and jeopardize First Amendment rights.

“Parents are responsible for approving content for the children, not the state. It is also not one family’s right to decide what is appropriate for other families to access,” said Gail Reiten, chair of Right to Read North Dakota.

Those who provided neutral testimony Tuesday maintained that regulating access to explicit material while fulfilling educational needs is a delicate balance.

Over 370 entries of online testimony had been submitted before the hearing. Nearly 85% opposed the bill, including dozens of North Dakota libraries and individual librarians, as well as social work associations, education lobbying groups, university leaders, parents and teachers.

Those in favor were Christian lobbying groups, South Dakota-based therapists and around a dozen North Dakotans.

The committee did not take any immediate action on the bill Tuesday.