A bill that would give the North Dakota Attorney General full authority over the regulation of charitable gaming has narrowly passed the state Senate and is now under consideration in the House. Senate Bill 2224 would eliminate the five-member State Gaming Commission, an appointed body that has long overseen the state’s gaming industry, and consolidate all rule making and enforcement power into the hands of the Attorney General. It is argued the move would modernize and streamline oversight in an industry that has grown increasingly complex with fast developing technologies and quickly rising revenues in the state.
Supporters contend that the Attorney General, as a statewide elected official, is better positioned to ensure accountability and act quickly in the face of violations, without the procedural delays or fragmentation that can come with a commission structure. The bill preserves existing safeguards meant to prevent conflicts of interest and unlawful conduct, while centralizing authority over game standards, tax compliance, equipment approval, and the use of proceeds for charitable purposes.
However, the proposal arrives at a time when the integrity of the Attorney General’s office is under renewed scrutiny. Current Attorney General Drew Wrigley recently revealed that his predecessor, the late Wayne Stenehjem, obstructed a federal investigation into state Sen. Ray Holmberg, who has now been convicted on child sex charges, by deleting voicemails and withholding key information. Despite being identified as a witness and having a close personal relationship with Holmberg, Stenehjem never recused himself from the case.
In that context, some critics of Senate Bill 2224 are asking whether it's wise to give any single official unchecked authority over a billion-dollar industry with ties to nonprofit and community causes. While supporters say centralization will improve responsiveness and efficiency, others argue that removing the commission eliminates an important layer of oversight and transparency and gives too much control to a single individual. With the bill narrowly passing the senate 25-21 it now moves to the House, and lawmakers must weigh not only administrative efficiency but also the risks of concentrating power without adequate checks, especially in light of past abuses and current allegations.
