POLISCOPE
Back to bills
Part ofLibraries →

The civic record

Read. Follow. Verify.
SB 2307NORTH DAKOTASession 69State BillVetoed by the governor
Did Not Advance

North Dakota bill establishes content restrictions and safety filters for public and school libraries

Original title: AN ACT to create and enact a new subsection to section 12.1-27.1-01 and two new sections to chapter 12.1-27.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the definition of a public library, required safety policies and technology protection measures, and the state's attorney's review of public libraries, school districts, and state agencies for compliance with statutes protecting minors from explicit sexual material; to amend and reenact subsection 5 of section 12.1-27.1-01, subsection 2 of section 12.1-27.1-03.1, and sections 12.1-27.1-03.5 and 12.1-27.1-11 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to obscenity control; to provide for a report to the legislative management; and to provide a penalty.

Last action · April 29, 2025: Filed with Secretary Of State 04/29Sponsors: Keith Boehm and 5 others

Bill progressHistory & official text ↓
Introduced
Committee
Floor Vote
Passed
Law

Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.

Public stanceCommunity reactions are separate from the official record and reporting.

What This Bill Proposed

Senate Bill 2307 prohibits public libraries and school districts from maintaining in children's collections and requires digital library databases to use filtering technology. It establishes a review process involving local state's attorneys, who can direct the withholding of state funds if noncompliant institutions fail to correct violations within ten days.

Why it matters

Public libraries, school districts, and state agencies face mandatory collection reviews, potential contract withholding from database vendors, and the risk of state funding freezes if they fail to remove or filter following public complaints.

Who It Would Have Affected

Groups the bill's text would have affected, as described in the record. Being affected is not a position for or against it.

Directly affected

Public libraries

Must establish collection review policies, remove or relocate explicit sexual material from children's areas, ensure digital database filtering, and face funding withholding if violations are uncorrected.

Directly affected

School districts

Must review library inventories, implement digital database safety measures, process public complaints, and risk having funds withheld by the superintendent of public instruction for noncompliance.

Directly affected

State agencies

Must ensure digital library resources provided to K-12 students comply with technology protection filters and establish reporting and complaint procedures.

Directly affected

Digital database resource providers

Must verify compliance with safety and filtering policies or face withheld payments and contract breaches.

Key Facts

You don't have to trust us. Each fact below is taken straight from the official document - click any one to see the exact passage, highlighted in the original.

Frequently Asked Questions

What happens if a digital database provider fails to filter explicit sexual material?
The school district, state agency, or public library must withhold further payments from the provider and treat the failure as a breach of contract.
How can an individual challenge library materials they believe are inappropriate?
An individual can utilize the library or school district's established review and complaint procedure, and if unsatisfied, request a formal review by the local state's attorney after exhausting local remedies.

What else do you want to know?

News Coverage

No news coverage found yet. Articles are indexed twice daily.

Follow the record

Votes, people, money & the original source

Where This Stands

This bill did not become law - Vetoed by the governor.

Procedural history

23 actions
  1. Apr 29, 2025Senate
    Filed with Secretary Of State 04/29
  2. Apr 25, 2025Senate
    Veto sustained, yeas 25 nays 20
  3. Apr 25, 2025Senate
    Consideration of Governor's veto
  4. Apr 24, 2025Senate
    Vetoed by Governor 04/22
  5. Apr 18, 2025SenateEnrolled
    Sent to Governor
  6. Apr 18, 2025Senate
    Signed by President
Show 17 earlier actions
  1. Apr 18, 2025House
    Signed by Speaker
  2. Apr 15, 2025Senate
    Returned to Senate
  3. Apr 15, 2025House
    Motion to reconsider failed
  4. Apr 14, 2025HouseFloor
    Second reading, passed, yeas 49 nays 45
  5. Apr 11, 2025HouseCommittee
    Reported back, do not pass, placed on calendar 22 1 0
  6. Mar 18, 2025House
    Rereferred to Appropriations
  7. Mar 18, 2025HouseCommittee
    Reported back, do pass 12 1 1
  8. Mar 18, 2025HouseCommittee
    Committee Hearing 09:00
  9. Feb 25, 2025HouseIntroduced
    Introduced, first reading, referred Judiciary Committee
  10. Feb 21, 2025House
    Received from Senate
  11. Feb 20, 2025SenateFloor
    Second reading, passed, yeas 27 nays 20
  12. Feb 20, 2025SenateCommittee
    Amendment adopted
  13. Feb 20, 2025SenateCommittee
    Amendment proposed on floor
  14. Feb 20, 2025SenateCommittee
    Amendment adopted, placed on calendar
  15. Feb 19, 2025SenateCommittee
    Reported back amended, do pass, amendment placed on calendar 6 1 0
  16. Feb 10, 2025SenateCommittee
    Committee Hearing 02:30
  17. Jan 20, 2025SenateIntroduced
    Introduced, first reading, referred Judiciary Committee

Version history

Only one version on file - nothing to compare yet. As later stages (committee substitute, engrossed, enrolled) are captured, the redline appears here.

View official text →

Lobbying Activity

No state lobbying filings in our records match this bill. Federal lobbying reports (LDA) cover Congress, so they are not listed on state bills.

Full breakdown

Who this bill affects and the strongest case for and against it, written only from the bill’s own text.

Sponsors

Keith BoehmSenate · District 33RepublicanPrimary sponsor
Robert ErbeleSenate · District 28RepublicanCosponsor
David HogueSenate · District 38RepublicanCosponsor
Vicky SteinerHouseRepublicanCosponsor
Bill TveitHouseRepublicanCosponsor
Show 1 more sponsor
Kent WestonSenate · District 15RepublicanCosponsor

Discoveries

1 pattern noticed across the record

Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.

policy shift98% confidence

Introduction of State's Attorney Enforcement and Funding Withholding

The bill shifts enforcement of library content rules from internal administrative handling to mandatory state's attorney reviews backed by state funding withholdings.

North Dakota Century Code

Connected Entities

Keith Boehm, Kent Weston, David Hogue and 6 more
PersonKeith Boehm“Primary sponsor of Senate Bill 2307”Map →
PersonKent Weston“Co-sponsor of Senate Bill 2307”Map →
PersonDavid Hogue“Co-sponsor of Senate Bill 2307”Map →
PersonRobert Erbele“Co-sponsor of Senate Bill 2307”Map →
PersonVicky Steiner“Co-sponsor of Senate Bill 2307”Map →
PersonBill Tveit“Co-sponsor of Senate Bill 2307”Map →
PersonMichael Howe“Secretary of State certifying the legislative proceedings”Map →
PersonGovernor Armstrong“Governor who returned the bill with objections”Map →
OrganizationNorth Dakota Century Code“State statutory code amended by the bill”Map →

Sources

Open source document

ndlegis.gov

Analysis Score

0–100
  • Significance85
    How much this matters to a regular citizen
  • Controversy90
    Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
  • Entertainment40
    Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
  • Buzz75
    Current news / social attention level

Publisher tools

Share or embed this record

POLISCOPE publisher tools

Share or embed this record