Menu
North Dakota · individual fact

North Dakota crime

Reported violent and property crime, police reporting coverage, and North Dakota public-safety context.

Reported violent-crime rate258 per 100k2024 · #34 of 50 · highest first
Reported property-crime rate1,710 per 100k2024 · #24 of 50 · highest first
Police population reporting coverage99.8%2024 · #13 of 50 · highest first

North Dakota over time

Explore North Dakota readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. North Dakota officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a North Dakota effect.

Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a North Dakota change.

Enacted / issuedDid not proceedPending / in progressStatus unclear

Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.

Reported violent-crime rate North Dakota · source units
North DakotaPublished U.S. benchmark

Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.

Reported violent-crime rate2024: 258 per 100k241.8 per 100k294 per 100k346.1 per 100kNorth Dakota, 2015: 254.5 per 100kNorth Dakota, 2016: 251.9 per 100kNorth Dakota, 2017: 283.2 per 100kNorth Dakota, 2018: 269.9 per 100kNorth Dakota, 2019: 284.2 per 100kNorth Dakota, 2020: 336 per 100kNorth Dakota, 2021: 263.3 per 100kNorth Dakota, 2022: 287.9 per 100kNorth Dakota, 2023: 282.3 per 100kNorth Dakota, 2024: 258 per 100k201520192024
✦ Major events & context · 33National context · Booker makes federal sentencing guidelines advisory · 2005-01-12Federal sentencingNational context · Adam Walsh Act establishes new registration standards · 2006-07-27Adam Walsh ActNational context · Survey changes disrupt the 2006 victimization comparison · 2006-12-312006 survey breakNational context · Congress strengthens firearm background-check records · 2008-01-08NICS records lawNational context · Second Chance Act expands reentry support · 2008-04-09Second Chance ActNational context · Heller recognizes an individual firearm right · 2008-06-26Heller decisionNational context · Financial crisis deepens during the Great Recession · 2008-09-15Financial crisisNational context · Shepard–Byrd Act expands federal hate-crime law · 2009-10-28Federal hate-crime lawNational context · McDonald applies the firearm right to the states · 2010-06-28McDonald decisionNational context · Fair Sentencing Act changes federal crack penalties · 2010-08-03Fair Sentencing ActNational context · FBI expands the rape definition · 2013-01-01Rape definition expandsNational context · Violence Against Women Act reauthorized · 2013-03-07VAWA reauthorizationNational context · DOJ publishes Ferguson policing findings · 2015-03-04Ferguson investigationNational context · Murder rates rise in 2015 and 2016 · 2016-12-312015–2016 murder riseNational context · First Step Act enacted · 2018-12-21First Step ActNational context · FBI launches national use-of-force data collection · 2019-01-01Use-of-force reportingNational context · COVID-19 characterized as a pandemic · 2020-03-11COVID-19 pandemicNational context · George Floyd is killed by a Minneapolis police officer · 2020-05-25George Floyd killedNational context · Murder rises sharply while property crime declines · 2020-12-312020 murder surgeNational context · FBI transitions to incident-based reporting · 2021-01-01NIBRS transitionNational context · COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act improves review and reporting · 2021-05-20Hate-crime reportingNational context · Executive order sets federal policing safeguards · 2022-05-25Federal policing orderNational context · Bruen changes the test for firearm restrictions · 2022-06-23Bruen decisionNational context · Bipartisan Safer Communities Act enacted · 2022-06-25Safer Communities ActNational context · FBI annual report again includes summary submissions · 2023-10-16Reporting coverage growsNational context · Vehicle theft rises while total property crime falls · 2023-12-31Vehicle-theft surgeNational context · Victimization survey tests a redesigned questionnaire · 2024-01-01NCVS redesign beginsNational context · Supreme Court rejects ATF’s bump-stock classification · 2024-06-14Bump-stock rulingNational context · Rahimi upholds disarmament for a credible domestic threat · 2024-06-21Domestic-threat rulingNational context · Federal policing executive order is revoked · 2025-01-20Policing order revokedNational context · Court sustains ATF’s rule covering some firearm kits · 2025-03-26Firearm-kit rulingNational context · Executive order redirects federal law-enforcement support · 2025-04-282025 policing policyNational context · FBI publishes 2025 annual crime estimates · 2026-08-142025 crime data release● North Dakota Legislature · 4● U.S. Congress · North Dakota delegation · 0No reviewed actions match these filters.◆ Governor · 0No reviewed actions match these filters.■ North Dakota agencies · 0No reviewed actions match these filters.2005-01-012026-08-31

4 of 4 reviewed North Dakota actions match · 4 date markers shown. 33 major events shown separately.

North Dakota · 2024: 258 per 100k · Rank #34 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: Not available

FactVote sums the 12 monthly state offense rates returned by the FBI Crime Data Explorer for each calendar year. The accompanying coverage value is the mean of the 12 monthly population-coverage percentages returned with the same query. These are crimes reported to law enforcement, not all crimes that occurred. North Dakota's average monthly population coverage remained at or above 99.6% throughout this series, but coverage still varies and does not equal complete statewide reporting. Reporting systems, agency participation, and later revisions can change the published series. Annual observations use December 31; monthly observations use the first of the month. Lines connect consecutive readings and do not supply values between them. Missing observations break the lines.

View observations and export data
North Dakota Reported violent-crime rate · source units
PeriodNorth DakotaRankU.S. benchmark
2024258 per 100k#34 of 50Not available
2023282.3 per 100k#32 of 50Not available
2022287.9 per 100k#36 of 50Not available
2021263.3 per 100k#36 of 50Not available
2020336 per 100k#26 of 50Not available
2019284.2 per 100k#36 of 50Not available
2018269.9 per 100k#36 of 50Not available
2017283.2 per 100k#37 of 50Not available
2016251.9 per 100k#37 of 50Not available
2015254.5 per 100k#36 of 50Not available
Federal Bureau of Investigation · Crime Data Explorer summarized state trends ↗
How major events are selected

The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.

Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.

North Dakota · state comparison

Reported crime over time

Compare the same calendar year across states. A lower reported rate can reflect fewer crimes, incomplete reporting, or both.

North Dakota · 2024258 per 100k
North Dakota rank#34among all 50 states
U.S. benchmarkNot availableSame measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

Reported violent-crime rate

FactVote sums the 12 monthly state offense rates returned by the FBI Crime Data Explorer for each calendar year. The accompanying coverage value is the mean of the 12 monthly population-coverage percentages returned with the same query.

These are crimes reported to law enforcement, not all crimes that occurred. North Dakota's average monthly population coverage remained at or above 99.6% throughout this series, but coverage still varies and does not equal complete statewide reporting. Reporting systems, agency participation, and later revisions can change the published series.

Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.

North Dakota
Reported violent-crime rate history in North Dakota239.3 per 100k294 per 100k348.6 per 100k20152024
2024 · North Dakota: 258 per 100k · Rank #34 of 50, highest first · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
North Dakota Reported violent-crime rate history
PeriodNorth DakotaCompare
2015254.5 per 100k
2016251.9 per 100k
2017283.2 per 100k
2018269.9 per 100k
2019284.2 per 100k
2020336 per 100k
2021263.3 per 100k
2022287.9 per 100k
2023282.3 per 100k
2024258 per 100k

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. North Dakota stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. North Dakota has a dark outline.

Lower value · 102.6 per 100kHigher value · 744.7 per 100kStriped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

North Dakota · 258 per 100k2024 · Rank #34 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare North Dakota with every state · 50 ranked
Reported violent-crime rate · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1New Mexico744.7 per 100k—
#2Alaska731.9 per 100k—
#3Tennessee604.3 per 100k—
#4Arkansas589.6 per 100k—
#5*Louisiana504.5 per 100k82.0% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#6Colorado486.8 per 100k—
#7California478.4 per 100k—
#8Kansas474.7 per 100k—
#9Missouri472.7 per 100k—
#10Michigan442.6 per 100k—
#11South Carolina440.8 per 100k—
#12Arizona433 per 100k—
#13Oklahoma429.3 per 100k—
#14Montana428 per 100k—
#15Maryland425.9 per 100k—
#16Nevada408.6 per 100k—
#17Texas397.8 per 100k—
#18New York392.2 per 100k—
#19North Carolina382.9 per 100k—
#20Alabama380.8 per 100k—
#21Delaware368.4 per 100k—
#22*South Dakota356.9 per 100k89.6% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#23*Indiana349.2 per 100k87.2% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#24Oregon341.1 per 100k—
#25Washington331.8 per 100k—
#26Georgia328 per 100k—
#27Massachusetts317.9 per 100k—
#28Ohio311.9 per 100k—
#29Illinois294.5 per 100k—
#30Wisconsin287.6 per 100k—
#31West Virginia263.8 per 100k—
#32*Florida262 per 100k81.0% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#33Minnesota259.4 per 100k—
#34North Dakota · your comparison258 per 100k—
#35Pennsylvania251.3 per 100k—
#36Iowa247.2 per 100k—
#37Utah237.8 per 100k—
#38Idaho236.6 per 100k—
#39Hawaii230.3 per 100k—
#40Vermont227.1 per 100k—
#41Kentucky226.7 per 100k—
#42Nebraska224.6 per 100k—
#43Virginia223.7 per 100k—
#44New Jersey221.9 per 100k—
#45*Mississippi219.6 per 100k65.1% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#46*Wyoming212.5 per 100k89.9% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#47Rhode Island154.9 per 100k—
#48Connecticut139.2 per 100k—
#49New Hampshire112.3 per 100k—
#50Maine102.6 per 100k—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

Federal Bureau of Investigation · Crime Data Explorer summarized state trends ↗

Reported violent-crime rate

258 per 100,0002024

Violent offenses reported to law enforcement per 100,000 residents in participating jurisdictions.

This source snapshot keeps its own definition and period. A rank shown elsewhere applies only to that comparison’s measure and period.

Method and limitations

FactVote sums the 12 monthly state offense rates returned by the FBI Crime Data Explorer for each calendar year. The accompanying coverage value is the mean of the 12 monthly population-coverage percentages returned with the same query.

  • These are crimes reported to law enforcement, not all crimes that occurred.
  • North Dakota's average monthly population coverage remained at or above 99.6% throughout this series, but coverage still varies and does not equal complete statewide reporting.
  • Reporting systems, agency participation, and later revisions can change the published series.
  • Average monthly population coverage in 2024 was 99.8%; this is not complete statewide reporting.
Federal Bureau of Investigation · Crime Data Explorer summarized state trends ↗

Reported property-crime rate

1,710 per 100,0002024

Property offenses reported to law enforcement per 100,000 residents in participating jurisdictions.

This source snapshot keeps its own definition and period. A rank shown elsewhere applies only to that comparison’s measure and period.

Method and limitations

FactVote sums the 12 monthly state offense rates returned by the FBI Crime Data Explorer for each calendar year. The accompanying coverage value is the mean of the 12 monthly population-coverage percentages returned with the same query.

  • These are crimes reported to law enforcement, not all crimes that occurred.
  • North Dakota's average monthly population coverage remained at or above 99.6% throughout this series, but coverage still varies and does not equal complete statewide reporting.
  • Reporting systems, agency participation, and later revisions can change the published series.
  • Average monthly population coverage in 2024 was 99.8%; this is not complete statewide reporting.
Federal Bureau of Investigation · Crime Data Explorer summarized state trends ↗
North Dakota · state comparison

Firearm mortality

Firearm deaths include suicide, homicide, and other intents. Mortality is separate from reported crime.

North Dakota · 202495
North Dakota rank#47among all 50 states
U.S. benchmarkNot availableSame measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

Firearm deaths

Deaths with firearm injury recorded as the cause, all intents.

Counts reflect population size. They do not measure shootings, crimes, or the effect of a policy.

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. North Dakota stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. North Dakota has a dark outline.

Lower value · 55Higher value · 4,389Striped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

North Dakota · 952024 · Rank #47 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare North Dakota with every state · 50 ranked
Firearm deaths · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Texas4,389—
#2Florida3,191—
#3California2,853—
#4Georgia1,985—
#5North Carolina1,835—
#6Ohio1,745—
#7Pennsylvania1,624—
#8Illinois1,563—
#9Tennessee1,448—
#10Arizona1,331—
#11Missouri1,234—
#12Michigan1,228—
#13Alabama1,212—
#14Indiana1,196—
#15Virginia1,153—
#16South Carolina1,064—
#17Louisiana1,031—
#18Colorado961—
#19Washington915—
#20New York896—
#21Kentucky870—
#22Mississippi810—
#23Oklahoma794—
#24Wisconsin735—
#25Maryland716—
#26Oregon663—
#27Arkansas638—
#28Minnesota582—
#28Nevada582—
#30New Mexico563—
#31Utah454—
#32Kansas446—
#33New Jersey393—
#34Iowa389—
#35Idaho331—
#36Massachusetts287—
#37West Virginia281—
#38Montana247—
#39Connecticut224—
#40Nebraska218—
#41Alaska182—
#42Maine181—
#43South Dakota159—
#44New Hampshire152—
#45Wyoming143—
#46Delaware123—
#47North Dakota · your comparison95—
#48Vermont76—
#49Hawaii56—
#50Rhode Island55—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · Firearm Mortality — Stats of the States ↗

Firearm deaths

952024 final data

Deaths in which firearm injury was the underlying cause, with the rate age-adjusted per 100,000 residents.

This source snapshot keeps its own definition and period. A rank shown elsewhere applies only to that comparison’s measure and period.

Population-adjusted measure

Age-adjusted firearm death rate
12.2 per 100,000
Method and limitations

CDC National Vital Statistics System death-certificate data.

  • The total combines firearm deaths across intents, including suicide, homicide, legal intervention, and unintentional or undetermined injury.
  • With a small count, the rate can be statistically unstable; it does not measure nonfatal injuries, firearm ownership, defensive uses, or policy effects.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · Firearm Mortality by State ↗
North Dakota officeholders

Explore current officeholders and explicitly reviewed historical executive officials, labeled at the time of their actions. Timeline dates, action type, status and search also filter this list. Read any record’s summary, latest recorded status and official evidence below, or open it beside the timeline.

4 of 4 reviewed North Dakota actions · newest first

Apr 3, 2025 · SB 2128 · A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact sections 12-44.1-01, 12-47-18.1, 12-48.1-01, 12-48.1-02, 12-54.1-01, 12-54.1-03, 12.1-08-02, 12.1-17-01, 12.1-32-02.1, 12.1-32-09.1, and 39-10-71 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to transparent sentencing of criminal offenders, transfer of persons between correctional facilities, work release eligibility and conditions for criminal offenders, sentences for assaulting and fleeing from law enforcement officers, and sentences for preventing arrest; to provide a legislative management report; to provide a penalty; and to provide for application. · Not enacted · House rejected passage
North Dakota Legislature · SB 2128

A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact sections 12-44.1-01, 12-47-18.1, 12-48.1-01, 12-48.1-02, 12-54.1-01, 12-54.1-03, 12.1-08-02, 12.1-17-01, 12.1-32-02.1, 12.1-32-09.1, and 39-10-71 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to transparent sentencing of criminal offenders, transfer of persons between correctional facilities, work release eligibility and conditions for criminal offenders, sentences for assaulting and fleeing from law enforcement officers, and sentences for preventing arrest; to provide a legislative management report; to provide a penalty; and to provide for application.

Apr 3, 2025 · Not enacted · House rejected passage

Rep. Karen A. Anderson · Voted for / Rep. Macy Bolinske · Voted for / Rep. TJ Brown · Voted for / Rep. Jay Fisher · Voted for / Rep. Kathy Frelich · Voted for / Rep. Pat D. Heinert · Voted for / Rep. Jared Hendrix · Voted for / Rep. Dawson Holle · Voted for / Rep. Jeff Hoverson · Voted for / Rep. Jorin Johnson · Voted for / Rep. Daniel Johnston · Voted for / Rep. Jim Jonas · Voted for / Rep. Karen Karls · Voted for / Rep. Jim Kasper · Voted for / Rep. Keith Kempenich · Voted for / Rep. Dwight Kiefert · Voted for / Rep. Ben Koppelman · Voted for / Rep. Scott Louser · Voted for / Rep. Roger A. Maki · Voted for / Rep. Carrie McLeod · Voted for / Rep. Lisa Meier · Voted for / Rep. Desiree Morton · Voted for / Rep. Mike Nathe · Voted for / Rep. Dennis Nehring · Voted for / Rep. Anna S. Novak · Voted for / Rep. SuAnn Olson · Voted for / Rep. Doug Osowski · Voted for / Rep. Todd Porter · Voted for / Rep. Nico Rios · Voted for / Rep. Karen M. Rohr · Voted for / Rep. Dan Ruby · Voted for / Rep. Matthew Ruby · Voted for / Rep. Mike Schatz · Voted for / Rep. Vicky Steiner · Voted for / Rep. Steve Swiontek · Voted for / Rep. Nathan Toman · Voted for / Rep. Bill Tveit · Voted for / Rep. Lori VanWinkle · Voted for / Rep. Daniel R. Vollmer · Voted for / Rep. Christina Wolff · Voted for / Rep. Bert Anderson · Voted against / Rep. Dick Anderson · Voted against / Rep. Mike Beltz · Voted against / Rep. Mike Berg · Voted against / Rep. Glenn Bosch · Voted against / Rep. Mike Brandenburg · Voted against / Rep. Collette Brown · Voted against / Rep. Nels Christianson · Voted against / Rep. Jayme Davis · Voted against / Rep. Gretchen Dobervich · Voted against / Rep. Jason Dockter · Voted against / Rep. Ty Dressler · Voted against / Rep. Clayton Fegley · Voted against / Rep. Lisa Finley-DeVille · Voted against / Rep. Austin Foss · Voted against / Rep. Karen Grindberg · Voted against / Rep. Jim Grueneich · Voted against / Rep. LaurieBeth Hager · Voted against / Rep. Karla Rose Hanson · Voted against / Rep. Patrick R. Hatlestad · Voted against / Rep. Dori Hauck · Voted against / Rep. Craig Headland · Voted against / Rep. Donna Henderson · Voted against / Rep. Zachary Ista · Voted against / Rep. Lawrence R. Klemin · Voted against / Rep. Mike Lefor · Voted against / Rep. Donald W. Longmuir · Voted against / Rep. Andrew Marschall · Voted against / Rep. Bob Martinson · Voted against / Rep. Alisa Mitskog · Voted against / Rep. David Monson · Voted against / Rep. Mike Motschenbacher · Voted against / Rep. Eric J. Murphy · Voted against / Rep. Jon O. Nelson · Voted against / Rep. Mitch Ostlie · Voted against / Rep. David Richter · Voted against / Rep. Mark Sanford · Voted against / Rep. Bernie Satrom · Voted against / Rep. Austen Schauer · Voted against / Rep. Mary Schneider · Voted against / Rep. Gregory Stemen · Voted against / Rep. Steve Vetter · Voted against / Rep. Don Vigesaa · Voted against / Rep. Scott Wagner · Voted against / Rep. Jonathan Warrey · Voted against / Rep. Robin Weisz · Voted against

FactVote reviewed summary

SB 2128’s second engrossment proposed changes to confinement and release rules, including which facilities count toward confinement and extending the 85% threshold to dangerous special or habitual offenders. It retained the existing 85% rule for listed violent crimes, including murder, subject to the stated release exceptions and commutation. The listed House members cast the indicated votes on this version on April 3, 2025; it failed 41–52. The bill was not enacted and did not establish new sentencing rules or a reduction in homicide or violent crime.

House rejected the measure on 2025-04-03. Second reading, failed to pass, yeas 41 nays 52. The 2025 regular session ended without enactment of this measure.

Why this record is included

The CDC measure counts resident homicide deaths. The bill’s release rules expressly cover murder under section 12.1-16-01, among other crimes; state convictions do not exactly match death-certificate coding. The proposal retained the existing 85% rule for listed violent offenses and changed other confinement and release provisions. It did not establish a mortality effect. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained North Dakota evidence context: Homicide deaths · Reported violent-crime rate. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Except as provided under sections 12-48.1-01 and 12-48.1-02, an offender who is sentenced as a dangerous special offender or habitual offender under section 12.1-32-09, or is convicted of a crime in violation of section 12.1-16-01, 12.1-16-02, subsection 2 of section 12.1-17-02, section 12.1-18-01, subdivision a of subsection 1 or subdivision b of subsection 2 of section 12.1-20-03, section 12.1-22-01, subdivision b of subsection 2 of section 12.1-22-02, or an attempt to commit the offenses, and who receives a sentence of imprisonment is not eligible for release from confinement on any basis until eighty-five percent of the sentence imposed by the court has been served or the sentence is commuted. […] For purposes of this section "confinement" does not include placement or residence in a transitional facility, halfway house, or similar facility, operating under contract, in partnership with, or under the direction of the department of corrections and rehabilitation or other correctional facility, with unsecured or minimum security housing. 5. Notwithstanding subsection 4, placement or residence at the James River correctional center, Missouri River correctional center, Heart River correctional center, or Dakota women's correctional and rehabilitation center, or county jail is "confinement" for purposes of this section, provided the order to place the inmate in the center or jail is approved by an identifiable employee of the department of corrections and rehabilitation after the employee determines, with reasonable certainty, the placement will not pose a danger to the public.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Official record ↗Rep. Karen A. Anderson’s profile ↗Rep. Macy Bolinske’s profile ↗Rep. TJ Brown’s profile ↗Rep. Jay Fisher’s profile ↗Rep. Kathy Frelich’s profile ↗Rep. Pat D. Heinert’s profile ↗Rep. Jared Hendrix’s profile ↗Rep. Dawson Holle’s profile ↗Rep. Jeff Hoverson’s profile ↗Rep. Jorin Johnson’s profile ↗Rep. Daniel Johnston’s profile ↗Rep. Jim Jonas’s profile ↗Rep. Karen Karls’s profile ↗Rep. Jim Kasper’s profile ↗Rep. Keith Kempenich’s profile ↗Rep. Dwight Kiefert’s profile ↗Rep. Ben Koppelman’s profile ↗Rep. Scott Louser’s profile ↗Rep. Roger A. Maki’s profile ↗Rep. Carrie McLeod’s profile ↗Rep. Lisa Meier’s profile ↗Rep. Desiree Morton’s profile ↗Rep. Mike Nathe’s profile ↗Rep. Dennis Nehring’s profile ↗Rep. Anna S. Novak’s profile ↗Rep. SuAnn Olson’s profile ↗Rep. Doug Osowski’s profile ↗Rep. Todd Porter’s profile ↗Rep. Nico Rios’s profile ↗Rep. Karen M. Rohr’s profile ↗Rep. Dan Ruby’s profile ↗Rep. Matthew Ruby’s profile ↗Rep. Mike Schatz’s profile ↗Rep. Vicky Steiner’s profile ↗Rep. Steve Swiontek’s profile ↗Rep. Nathan Toman’s profile ↗Rep. Bill Tveit’s profile ↗Rep. Lori VanWinkle’s profile ↗Rep. Daniel R. Vollmer’s profile ↗Rep. Christina Wolff’s profile ↗Rep. Bert Anderson’s profile ↗Rep. Dick Anderson’s profile ↗Rep. Mike Beltz’s profile ↗Rep. Mike Berg’s profile ↗Rep. Glenn Bosch’s profile ↗Rep. Mike Brandenburg’s profile ↗Rep. Collette Brown’s profile ↗Rep. Nels Christianson’s profile ↗Rep. Jayme Davis’s profile ↗Rep. Gretchen Dobervich’s profile ↗Rep. Jason Dockter’s profile ↗Rep. Ty Dressler’s profile ↗Rep. Clayton Fegley’s profile ↗Rep. Lisa Finley-DeVille’s profile ↗Rep. Austin Foss’s profile ↗Rep. Karen Grindberg’s profile ↗Rep. Jim Grueneich’s profile ↗Rep. LaurieBeth Hager’s profile ↗Rep. Karla Rose Hanson’s profile ↗Rep. Patrick R. Hatlestad’s profile ↗Rep. Dori Hauck’s profile ↗Rep. Craig Headland’s profile ↗Rep. Donna Henderson’s profile ↗Rep. Zachary Ista’s profile ↗Rep. Lawrence R. Klemin’s profile ↗Rep. Mike Lefor’s profile ↗Rep. Donald W. Longmuir’s profile ↗Rep. Andrew Marschall’s profile ↗Rep. Bob Martinson’s profile ↗Rep. Alisa Mitskog’s profile ↗Rep. David Monson’s profile ↗Rep. Mike Motschenbacher’s profile ↗Rep. Eric J. Murphy’s profile ↗Rep. Jon O. Nelson’s profile ↗Rep. Mitch Ostlie’s profile ↗Rep. David Richter’s profile ↗Rep. Mark Sanford’s profile ↗Rep. Bernie Satrom’s profile ↗Rep. Austen Schauer’s profile ↗Rep. Mary Schneider’s profile ↗Rep. Gregory Stemen’s profile ↗Rep. Steve Vetter’s profile ↗Rep. Don Vigesaa’s profile ↗Rep. Scott Wagner’s profile ↗Rep. Jonathan Warrey’s profile ↗Rep. Robin Weisz’s profile ↗
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑
Apr 2, 2025 · HB 1326 · A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 12.1-05-03 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to self-defense and the unlawful possession of a firearm; and to provide a penalty. · Not enacted · Senate rejected passage
North Dakota Legislature · HB 1326

A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 12.1-05-03 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to self-defense and the unlawful possession of a firearm; and to provide a penalty.

Apr 2, 2025 · Not enacted · Senate rejected passage

Rep. Mary Schneider · Sponsored / Sen. Michael Dwyer · Sponsored / Rep. Pat D. Heinert · Sponsored / Sen. Kathy Hogan · Sponsored / Rep. Zachary Ista · Sponsored / Rep. Daniel Johnston · Sponsored / Rep. Lawrence R. Klemin · Sponsored / Sen. Jonathan Sickler · Sponsored / Rep. Christina Wolff · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

HB 1326 proposed denying the statutory self-defense justification to a person who possessed a firearm in violation of the specified provisions of section 62.1-02-01 and used it when the danger of imminent unlawful injury, sexual assault or detention occurred. The Senate rejected the bill on April 2, 2025, by 6–40. It was not enacted and did not change this justification or establish an effect on firearm deaths.

Senate rejected the measure on 2025-04-02. Second reading, failed to pass, yeas 6 nays 40. The 2025 regular session ended without enactment of this measure.

Why this record is included

The CDC firearm-death measure includes homicide, suicide and accidents. The proposal concerns a self-defense justification when specified prohibited possessors use a firearm, a limited aspect of firearm violence. It does not establish an effect on mortality. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained North Dakota evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

An individual is justified in using force upon another individual to defend oneself against danger of imminent unlawful bodily injury, sexual assault, or detention by the other individual, except that an individual is not justified in using force: […] If the individual: […] Possesses a firearm in violation of subdivision a or b of subsection 1 of section 62.1-02-01 and used the firearm at the time the danger of imminent unlawful bodily injury, sexual assault, or detention occurred.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Official record ↗Rep. Mary Schneider’s profile ↗Sen. Michael Dwyer’s profile ↗Rep. Pat D. Heinert’s profile ↗Sen. Kathy Hogan’s profile ↗Rep. Zachary Ista’s profile ↗Rep. Daniel Johnston’s profile ↗Rep. Lawrence R. Klemin’s profile ↗Sen. Jonathan Sickler’s profile ↗Rep. Christina Wolff’s profile ↗
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑
Mar 19, 2025 · SB 2257 · AN ACT to amend and reenact subsection 5 of section 12.1-23-05 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to grading of theft offenses of values not exceeding five hundred dollars; and to provide a penalty. · Enacted · Signed by governor
North Dakota Legislature · SB 2257

AN ACT to amend and reenact subsection 5 of section 12.1-23-05 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to grading of theft offenses of values not exceeding five hundred dollars; and to provide a penalty.

Mar 19, 2025 · Enacted · Signed by governor

Sen. Janne Myrdal · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

SB 2257 adds equivalent ordinance offenses to the existing repeat-shoplifting penalty rules for theft worth no more than $500. It retains the Class B misdemeanor classification for a first qualifying shoplifting offense, Class A misdemeanor for a second or third offense within three years, and Class C felony for a fourth or subsequent offense within four years. Sen. Janne Myrdal sponsored the bill, which Gov. Kelly Armstrong signed March 19, 2025. The amendment expands which offenses count; it does not create those penalty levels or establish a change in reported property crime.

Approved by Gov. Kelly Armstrong on 2025-03-19; 2025 Session Laws chapter 130. Signing, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.

Why this record is included

The FBI property-crime measure includes larceny-theft, burglary and motor-vehicle theft. Shoplifting is one part of larceny-theft. This connection concerns repeated taking of goods, not every theft of services or every property crime; penalties do not establish fewer reported thefts. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained North Dakota evidence context: Reported property-crime rate. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Theft under this chapter of property or services of a value not exceeding five hundred dollars is a class B misdemeanor for a first offense if: (1) The theft was committed by shoplifting; or […] A second or third offense under paragraph 1 of subdivision a, or an equivalent ordinance, occurring within three years is a class A misdemeanor. A fourth or subsequent violation under paragraph 1 of subdivision a, or an equivalent ordinance, occurring within four years is a class C felony.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Official record ↗Sen. Janne Myrdal’s profile ↗
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑
Feb 7, 2025 · HB 1585 · A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 12-63 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to a requirement for peace officers to report undocumented immigrants to United States immigration and customs. · Not enacted · House rejected passage
North Dakota Legislature · HB 1585

A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 12-63 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to a requirement for peace officers to report undocumented immigrants to United States immigration and customs.

Feb 7, 2025 · Not enacted · House rejected passage

Rep. Jim Kasper · Sponsored / Sen. Jose L. Castaneda · Sponsored / Rep. Ben Koppelman · Sponsored / Rep. Scott Louser · Sponsored / Rep. David Monson · Sponsored / Rep. Desiree Morton · Sponsored / Rep. Mike Motschenbacher · Sponsored / Sen. Bob Paulson · Sponsored / Sen. Michelle Powers · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

HB 1585, in its first engrossment, proposed requiring a peace officer with probable cause to believe an immigrant is unlawfully present to report the person to ICE or U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This version uses probable cause and contains no infraction penalty. The House rejected it on February 7, 2025, by 41–50. It created no reporting requirement and does not describe all foreign-born residents as unlawfully present.

House rejected the measure on 2025-02-07. Second reading, failed to pass, yeas 41 nays 50. The 2025 regular session ended without enactment of this measure.

Why this record is included

Foreign-born residents include naturalized citizens and noncitizens with different legal statuses. The proposal concerns people an officer has probable cause to believe are unlawfully present, a limited subgroup. Foreign birth does not establish unlawful presence. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained North Dakota evidence context: Residents who are foreign-born. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

If a peace officer employed by a criminal justice agency or a political subdivision has probable cause to believe an immigrant is in the United States illegally, the officer shall report the immigrant to United States immigration and customs enforcement or United States customs and border protection.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Official record ↗Rep. Jim Kasper’s profile ↗Sen. Jose L. Castaneda’s profile ↗Rep. Ben Koppelman’s profile ↗Rep. Scott Louser’s profile ↗Rep. David Monson’s profile ↗Rep. Desiree Morton’s profile ↗Rep. Mike Motschenbacher’s profile ↗Sen. Bob Paulson’s profile ↗Sen. Michelle Powers’s profile ↗
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑
How North Dakota action records are selected

Records come from published fact relationships or reviewed topic records with official supporting evidence and verified North Dakota officeholder attribution. Historical executive officials require evidence tied to the action date and are excluded from incumbent proposals. Inclusion follows an explicit topic review, a related state fact, or the action’s title and supporting evidence. Explicit topic reviews take priority; repeated actions use the most recent explicit review for this topic. Duplicate actions attached to several facts appear once. This topic match is not a new finding that an action caused a result, and the reviewed collection is selective. Collection reviewed Sep 16, 2026.

What candidates are saying

Explore statements about crime, victimization, policing and criminal justice from FactVote’s North Dakota candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.

0 statements from 0 candidates

No retained statements match these filters. This does not mean a candidate has never discussed the issue.

How statements are selected

This section matches specific crime, victimization, policing and criminal justice terms in retained, attributed source text from published North Dakota candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.

Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.

North Dakota incumbents

What incumbents are proposing

Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current North Dakota legislators and North Dakota’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from North Dakota’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.

19 matching sponsorships or proposals · 19 North Dakota incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.

Rep. Ben Koppelman

North Dakota House of Representatives · R–ND

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. Ben Koppelman
North Dakota Legislature · HB 1585

A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 12-63 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to a requirement for peace officers to report undocumented immigrants to United States immigration and customs.

Feb 7, 2025 · Not enacted · House rejected passage

Rep. Jim Kasper · Sponsored / Sen. Jose L. Castaneda · Sponsored / Rep. Ben Koppelman · Sponsored / Rep. Scott Louser · Sponsored / Rep. David Monson · Sponsored / Rep. Desiree Morton · Sponsored / Rep. Mike Motschenbacher · Sponsored / Sen. Bob Paulson · Sponsored / Sen. Michelle Powers · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

HB 1585, in its first engrossment, proposed requiring a peace officer with probable cause to believe an immigrant is unlawfully present to report the person to ICE or U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This version uses probable cause and contains no infraction penalty. The House rejected it on February 7, 2025, by 41–50. It created no reporting requirement and does not describe all foreign-born residents as unlawfully present.

House rejected the measure on 2025-02-07. Second reading, failed to pass, yeas 41 nays 50. The 2025 regular session ended without enactment of this measure.

Why this record is included

Foreign-born residents include naturalized citizens and noncitizens with different legal statuses. The proposal concerns people an officer has probable cause to believe are unlawfully present, a limited subgroup. Foreign birth does not establish unlawful presence. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained North Dakota evidence context: Residents who are foreign-born. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

If a peace officer employed by a criminal justice agency or a political subdivision has probable cause to believe an immigrant is in the United States illegally, the officer shall report the immigrant to United States immigration and customs enforcement or United States customs and border protection.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Official record ↗Rep. Jim Kasper’s profile ↗Sen. Jose L. Castaneda’s profile ↗Rep. Ben Koppelman’s profile ↗Rep. Scott Louser’s profile ↗Rep. David Monson’s profile ↗Rep. Desiree Morton’s profile ↗Rep. Mike Motschenbacher’s profile ↗Sen. Bob Paulson’s profile ↗Sen. Michelle Powers’s profile ↗

Rep. Christina Wolff

North Dakota House of Representatives · R–ND

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. Christina Wolff
North Dakota Legislature · HB 1326

A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 12.1-05-03 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to self-defense and the unlawful possession of a firearm; and to provide a penalty.

Apr 2, 2025 · Not enacted · Senate rejected passage

Rep. Mary Schneider · Sponsored / Sen. Michael Dwyer · Sponsored / Rep. Pat D. Heinert · Sponsored / Sen. Kathy Hogan · Sponsored / Rep. Zachary Ista · Sponsored / Rep. Daniel Johnston · Sponsored / Rep. Lawrence R. Klemin · Sponsored / Sen. Jonathan Sickler · Sponsored / Rep. Christina Wolff · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

HB 1326 proposed denying the statutory self-defense justification to a person who possessed a firearm in violation of the specified provisions of section 62.1-02-01 and used it when the danger of imminent unlawful injury, sexual assault or detention occurred. The Senate rejected the bill on April 2, 2025, by 6–40. It was not enacted and did not change this justification or establish an effect on firearm deaths.

Senate rejected the measure on 2025-04-02. Second reading, failed to pass, yeas 6 nays 40. The 2025 regular session ended without enactment of this measure.

Why this record is included

The CDC firearm-death measure includes homicide, suicide and accidents. The proposal concerns a self-defense justification when specified prohibited possessors use a firearm, a limited aspect of firearm violence. It does not establish an effect on mortality. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained North Dakota evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

An individual is justified in using force upon another individual to defend oneself against danger of imminent unlawful bodily injury, sexual assault, or detention by the other individual, except that an individual is not justified in using force: […] If the individual: […] Possesses a firearm in violation of subdivision a or b of subsection 1 of section 62.1-02-01 and used the firearm at the time the danger of imminent unlawful bodily injury, sexual assault, or detention occurred.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Official record ↗Rep. Mary Schneider’s profile ↗Sen. Michael Dwyer’s profile ↗Rep. Pat D. Heinert’s profile ↗Sen. Kathy Hogan’s profile ↗Rep. Zachary Ista’s profile ↗Rep. Daniel Johnston’s profile ↗Rep. Lawrence R. Klemin’s profile ↗Sen. Jonathan Sickler’s profile ↗Rep. Christina Wolff’s profile ↗

Rep. Daniel Johnston

North Dakota House of Representatives · R–ND

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. Daniel Johnston
North Dakota Legislature · HB 1326

A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 12.1-05-03 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to self-defense and the unlawful possession of a firearm; and to provide a penalty.

Apr 2, 2025 · Not enacted · Senate rejected passage

Rep. Mary Schneider · Sponsored / Sen. Michael Dwyer · Sponsored / Rep. Pat D. Heinert · Sponsored / Sen. Kathy Hogan · Sponsored / Rep. Zachary Ista · Sponsored / Rep. Daniel Johnston · Sponsored / Rep. Lawrence R. Klemin · Sponsored / Sen. Jonathan Sickler · Sponsored / Rep. Christina Wolff · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

HB 1326 proposed denying the statutory self-defense justification to a person who possessed a firearm in violation of the specified provisions of section 62.1-02-01 and used it when the danger of imminent unlawful injury, sexual assault or detention occurred. The Senate rejected the bill on April 2, 2025, by 6–40. It was not enacted and did not change this justification or establish an effect on firearm deaths.

Senate rejected the measure on 2025-04-02. Second reading, failed to pass, yeas 6 nays 40. The 2025 regular session ended without enactment of this measure.

Why this record is included

The CDC firearm-death measure includes homicide, suicide and accidents. The proposal concerns a self-defense justification when specified prohibited possessors use a firearm, a limited aspect of firearm violence. It does not establish an effect on mortality. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained North Dakota evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

An individual is justified in using force upon another individual to defend oneself against danger of imminent unlawful bodily injury, sexual assault, or detention by the other individual, except that an individual is not justified in using force: […] If the individual: […] Possesses a firearm in violation of subdivision a or b of subsection 1 of section 62.1-02-01 and used the firearm at the time the danger of imminent unlawful bodily injury, sexual assault, or detention occurred.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Official record ↗Rep. Mary Schneider’s profile ↗Sen. Michael Dwyer’s profile ↗Rep. Pat D. Heinert’s profile ↗Sen. Kathy Hogan’s profile ↗Rep. Zachary Ista’s profile ↗Rep. Daniel Johnston’s profile ↗Rep. Lawrence R. Klemin’s profile ↗Sen. Jonathan Sickler’s profile ↗Rep. Christina Wolff’s profile ↗

Rep. David Monson

North Dakota House of Representatives · R–ND

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. David Monson
North Dakota Legislature · HB 1585

A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 12-63 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to a requirement for peace officers to report undocumented immigrants to United States immigration and customs.

Feb 7, 2025 · Not enacted · House rejected passage

Rep. Jim Kasper · Sponsored / Sen. Jose L. Castaneda · Sponsored / Rep. Ben Koppelman · Sponsored / Rep. Scott Louser · Sponsored / Rep. David Monson · Sponsored / Rep. Desiree Morton · Sponsored / Rep. Mike Motschenbacher · Sponsored / Sen. Bob Paulson · Sponsored / Sen. Michelle Powers · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

HB 1585, in its first engrossment, proposed requiring a peace officer with probable cause to believe an immigrant is unlawfully present to report the person to ICE or U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This version uses probable cause and contains no infraction penalty. The House rejected it on February 7, 2025, by 41–50. It created no reporting requirement and does not describe all foreign-born residents as unlawfully present.

House rejected the measure on 2025-02-07. Second reading, failed to pass, yeas 41 nays 50. The 2025 regular session ended without enactment of this measure.

Why this record is included

Foreign-born residents include naturalized citizens and noncitizens with different legal statuses. The proposal concerns people an officer has probable cause to believe are unlawfully present, a limited subgroup. Foreign birth does not establish unlawful presence. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained North Dakota evidence context: Residents who are foreign-born. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

If a peace officer employed by a criminal justice agency or a political subdivision has probable cause to believe an immigrant is in the United States illegally, the officer shall report the immigrant to United States immigration and customs enforcement or United States customs and border protection.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Official record ↗Rep. Jim Kasper’s profile ↗Sen. Jose L. Castaneda’s profile ↗Rep. Ben Koppelman’s profile ↗Rep. Scott Louser’s profile ↗Rep. David Monson’s profile ↗Rep. Desiree Morton’s profile ↗Rep. Mike Motschenbacher’s profile ↗Sen. Bob Paulson’s profile ↗Sen. Michelle Powers’s profile ↗

Rep. Desiree Morton

North Dakota House of Representatives · R–ND

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. Desiree Morton
North Dakota Legislature · HB 1585

A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 12-63 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to a requirement for peace officers to report undocumented immigrants to United States immigration and customs.

Feb 7, 2025 · Not enacted · House rejected passage

Rep. Jim Kasper · Sponsored / Sen. Jose L. Castaneda · Sponsored / Rep. Ben Koppelman · Sponsored / Rep. Scott Louser · Sponsored / Rep. David Monson · Sponsored / Rep. Desiree Morton · Sponsored / Rep. Mike Motschenbacher · Sponsored / Sen. Bob Paulson · Sponsored / Sen. Michelle Powers · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

HB 1585, in its first engrossment, proposed requiring a peace officer with probable cause to believe an immigrant is unlawfully present to report the person to ICE or U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This version uses probable cause and contains no infraction penalty. The House rejected it on February 7, 2025, by 41–50. It created no reporting requirement and does not describe all foreign-born residents as unlawfully present.

House rejected the measure on 2025-02-07. Second reading, failed to pass, yeas 41 nays 50. The 2025 regular session ended without enactment of this measure.

Why this record is included

Foreign-born residents include naturalized citizens and noncitizens with different legal statuses. The proposal concerns people an officer has probable cause to believe are unlawfully present, a limited subgroup. Foreign birth does not establish unlawful presence. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained North Dakota evidence context: Residents who are foreign-born. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

If a peace officer employed by a criminal justice agency or a political subdivision has probable cause to believe an immigrant is in the United States illegally, the officer shall report the immigrant to United States immigration and customs enforcement or United States customs and border protection.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Official record ↗Rep. Jim Kasper’s profile ↗Sen. Jose L. Castaneda’s profile ↗Rep. Ben Koppelman’s profile ↗Rep. Scott Louser’s profile ↗Rep. David Monson’s profile ↗Rep. Desiree Morton’s profile ↗Rep. Mike Motschenbacher’s profile ↗Sen. Bob Paulson’s profile ↗Sen. Michelle Powers’s profile ↗

Rep. Jim Kasper

North Dakota House of Representatives · R–ND

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. Jim Kasper
North Dakota Legislature · HB 1585

A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 12-63 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to a requirement for peace officers to report undocumented immigrants to United States immigration and customs.

Feb 7, 2025 · Not enacted · House rejected passage

Rep. Jim Kasper · Sponsored / Sen. Jose L. Castaneda · Sponsored / Rep. Ben Koppelman · Sponsored / Rep. Scott Louser · Sponsored / Rep. David Monson · Sponsored / Rep. Desiree Morton · Sponsored / Rep. Mike Motschenbacher · Sponsored / Sen. Bob Paulson · Sponsored / Sen. Michelle Powers · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

HB 1585, in its first engrossment, proposed requiring a peace officer with probable cause to believe an immigrant is unlawfully present to report the person to ICE or U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This version uses probable cause and contains no infraction penalty. The House rejected it on February 7, 2025, by 41–50. It created no reporting requirement and does not describe all foreign-born residents as unlawfully present.

House rejected the measure on 2025-02-07. Second reading, failed to pass, yeas 41 nays 50. The 2025 regular session ended without enactment of this measure.

Why this record is included

Foreign-born residents include naturalized citizens and noncitizens with different legal statuses. The proposal concerns people an officer has probable cause to believe are unlawfully present, a limited subgroup. Foreign birth does not establish unlawful presence. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained North Dakota evidence context: Residents who are foreign-born. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

If a peace officer employed by a criminal justice agency or a political subdivision has probable cause to believe an immigrant is in the United States illegally, the officer shall report the immigrant to United States immigration and customs enforcement or United States customs and border protection.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
Official record ↗Rep. Jim Kasper’s profile ↗Sen. Jose L. Castaneda’s profile ↗Rep. Ben Koppelman’s profile ↗Rep. Scott Louser’s profile ↗Rep. David Monson’s profile ↗Rep. Desiree Morton’s profile ↗Rep. Mike Motschenbacher’s profile ↗Sen. Bob Paulson’s profile ↗Sen. Michelle Powers’s profile ↗
What sponsorship and proposal counts tell us

Only current North Dakota officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.

Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a North Dakota statistic. Collection reviewed Sep 16, 2026.

Sources & methods

Every section retains its primary sources, units, reporting periods and comparison limits. Maps, graphs and tables use the same observation and cohort. All 50 states are listed; D.C. and territories are excluded. Missing and suppressed values remain unavailable and never become zero.

#1 is the highest measured value. Equal source values share a rank and leave gaps (1, 2, 2, 4). Ranks use source precision and are descriptive, not a score of the state. Survey uncertainty and reporting coverage can limit comparisons. Published U.S. benchmarks are used where available; a state average is not substituted.

North Dakota snapshots and fiscal sources keep their own dates and accounting scope. National events and federal distribution explainers describe national context. Actions and statements are filtered to North Dakota, retain their reviewed evidence, and do not establish that a policy caused a measured change.

Retained state source collections assembled October 5, 2026. Original review and source dates remain visible. Refreshing this page does not refresh an official data release.

← All North Dakota individual facts