The North Dakota House adopted new conflict of interest rules Wednesday, but the Senate rejected those same rules in a split vote.

Sen. Janne Myrdal, R-Edinburg, said she proposed removing the conflicts of interest section of the Senate rules because she worried about the “erosion” of the Legislature’s authority and she believes the Ethics Commission is overstepping.

“I think we write our own rules,” Myrdal said. “I think we govern our own body.” 

The new rules were created through consultation with the Ethics Commission after the Legislative Procedures and Arrangements Committee finished its business during the interim. The rules were designed to promote transparency and provide a clearer path for lawmakers to recuse themselves from votes in which they had a perceived conflict.

North Dakota lawmakers discuss changing conflict of interest rules

“I would ask that we stand as a body and reject this and go back to the drawing table, if need be, but that we don’t allow another fourth branch of government with no guard rails and no oversight come and demand rules upon us that we have the authority ourselves to write,” Myrdal said.

The Senate voted to remove three sections of the conflict of interest rules by a vote of 24-20.

Senate Minority Leader Sen. Kathy Hogan, D-Fargo, said she is worried that state senators won’t have the option to abstain from votes containing a perceived conflict, which the new rules would have provided. Instead they will just leave the chamber before the vote occurs, so they don’t have to vote on it. She also lamented the Senate’s general rule that requires all lawmakers on the chamber floor during a vote to cast a vote on a measure.

“They don’t want to be in the position of having to vote when they know they have a conflict and are forced to vote by the rule,” Hogan said. “So, this is a dilemma. We’ll have to reconsider our actions.” 

She added she thinks removing the conflicts of interest rules to preserve the Senate’s authority will actually do the opposite and give more power to the Ethics Commission to adjudicate potential conflicts.

Hogan said the Senate can change its rules at any time.

The House of Representatives passed the new conflicts of interest rules with one change. Lawmakers with a personal or private interest on a measure or bill must have a direct, individual and unique benefit over members of the general public to be considered conflicted. Under the version proposed by the Rules Committee, House members would have only needed one of those criteria to have a conflict of interest that would require disclosure to the full chamber.

House Minority Leader Rep. Zachary Ista, R-Grand Forks, member of the House Rules Committee, said the one word change from an “or” to an “and” caused the House to “fumble the ball at the goaline.”

“We were ready to move forward with a rules package that was responsive to the need of better, tighter conflict of interest rules,” Ista said. “The change never came up for discussion in that committee and I’m very frustrated that a last minute floor amendment was put forward without debate, without discussion, without asking ourselves what it means.”

Lawmakers must say something if they believe they stand to benefit from legislation. Their colleagues then decide whether or not to allow them to vote on the legislation.

Previously, this vote had to be decided without debate. The new House rules would allow lawmakers to discuss a conflict disclosure before voting. 

The rules also require House members who raise conflicts of interest to provide sufficient detail about their situation so other members can make an informed decision. 

Other changes include allowing lawmakers to abstain from voting even if their peers vote to allow them to participate, and creating a grace period for legislators to report conflicts of interest to leadership if they inadvertently fail to report a conflict.

House Majority Leader Rep. Mike Lefor, R-Dickinson, said the rules package was largely in line with the recommendations from the House Rules Committee.

“During the interim, we had conversations with the Ethics Commission to further define what is a conflict and what isn’t a conflict … and it gives the House of Representatives the opportunity to become the neutral reviewer,” Lefor said.

Lefor also said he is planning to propose a bill that would provide criminal immunity to lawmakers who follow the House rules regarding conflicts of interest.

“A legislator should never be criminally charged for voting on a bill,” he said.

Rep. Jason Dockter, R-Bismarck, was charged with a misdemeanor last December after the Ethics Commission referred a complaint to a prosecutor. A jury found Dockter guilty earlier this year of a conflict of interest crime related to his voting on budget bills for the Attorney General’s Office and Department of Health. Dockter is one of the owners of a building leased to those agencies.

Jury finds Rep. Dockter guilty of misdemeanor conflict-of-interest charge

Also Wednesday, the Senate adopted a rule that would exclude members of the public and lobbyists from the Senate floor 30 minutes before the chamber convenes. During that time, only lawmakers, legislative employees, legislative guests and properly identified members of the media will be allowed on the Senate floor prior to the start of the session.

Members of the public would be allowed in the balcony. They also would be allowed in the back of the chamber once the floor session begins.

Sen. Jeffery Magrum, R-Hazelton, said he was targeted by lobbyists during the 2023 legislative session with attempts to scuttle legislation he was proposing. He said he wanted more than 30 minutes to be public and lobbyist-free before the chamber convenes, but was willing to compromise.

The House did not pass any rule on Wednesday restricting the public or lobbyist access to the House chamber.