ND: Despite research, lawmakers OK bill keeping high-risk sex offenders from living near schools

North Dakota’s on track to have its first statewide restriction on where high-risk sex offenders can live, with lawmakers voting almost unanimously for a bill that would prohibit such offenders from residing within 500 feet of a school.

House Bill 1334, which has received little media attention, quietly passed the House in February and the Senate this week. The bill has not yet been sent to Gov. Doug Burgum, who generally does not comment on legislation before it reaches his desk, his spokesman Mike Nowatzki said Thursday, March 30.

Over two-dozen other states have imposed blanket restrictions on where sex offenders can live. But no research has shown that these restrictions prevent sex crimes. Rather, in some cases they’ve led to “loss of housing, loss of support systems, and financial hardship that may aggravate rather than mitigate offender risk,” according to a 2014 report by the U.S. Department of Justice.

The manager of North Dakota’s sex offender program, who testified against the bill, agrees that such restrictions don’t have the desired effect. “Setting up an imaginary boundary of 500 feet from a school, I think, could provide a false sense of security and that, I think, could be very dangerous,” said Barb Breiland of the state’s parole and probation division. Full Article

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

So basically, North Dakota passed a statewide residency restriction because of ONE guy who no longer lives where he did when this whole law was proposed in the first place. Sad!

‘Meier said the offender’s presence put parents and students “on guard a little bit and gave them a real uneasy feeling.”‘
Isn’t that what Megan’s Law was supposed to do, let you know where those with past sex offenses live and be on guard with them. Now that they have the law, John Q. Public wishes for blissful ignorance again rather than vigilance. Push the problem, (that was a manufactured problem in the begining), to somewhere else.

We don’t need no stinking FACTS when we can sucker those worrywart parents into believing their children are safe from preexisting phantom threats.

Snyder needs to be very transformative b/c fear is suppressing facts. What else can be expanded upon to drive registrants off? The SCOTUS better fix all this soon.

And here we find the money quote:

The lone dissenting vote against Meier’s bill came from Rep. Luke Simons, R-Dickinson, who believes decisions on sex-offender residency restrictions should be left up to local municipalities.

Simons said several representatives approached him after the vote and told him they wished they could have voted with him. “But they were afraid the news media would have ripped them up too much,” he said. “It’s such an unpopular opinion that nobody wants to talk about.”

In short, politics trumps the Constitution once again. THIS is why the registry is so out of whack!

Here is the fork in the road, so take it….

The Gov is on the hook for his political life here with empirical evidence backing sound data on one side and the irrational fears of emotional unfounded thinking on the other before he slides his pen on one line (VETO) or the other (LAW) of this bill. What will he do?! (Drum roll) People can flood the Gov’s office with their dissention still and maybe make a difference.