A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 54-06 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to state contracts with certain companies that boycott energy, mining, and production agriculture; and to provide for application.
Summary
HB 1309 would prohibit state agencies and political subdivisions from entering into contracts paid with public funds with certain for-profit companies unless the company provides a written verification that it does not engage in specified boycotts. The bill defines a boycott broadly to include refusing to do business with companies involved in fossil fuel-based energy, timber, minerals, hydroelectric power, nuclear energy, mining, production agriculture, or firearms and ammunition, as well as companies that do business with those industries, when the refusal is not based on an ordinary business purpose.
The bill also defines the covered companies as profit-making entities with at least 10 full-time employees and at least $100,000 in value, and it excludes sole proprietorships. It applies to contracts entered after the effective date and requires renewal of preexisting contracts to comply if they would otherwise violate the new law. A narrow exception allows a governmental entity to proceed without the verification if the goods or services are not available on commercially reasonable terms or if the requirement conflicts with constitutional or statutory duties.
Impact
HB 1309 would add a new section to Chapter 54-06 of the North Dakota Century Code and would impose a contracting restriction on state and local governments. In practice, it would require vendors seeking public contracts to certify they are not participating in certain boycott activities tied to energy, mining, agriculture, and firearms-related industries, and it would also tie eligibility to a state investment-board-related list of financial institutions. The measure would affect procurement practices across state agencies and political subdivisions and could limit the pool of eligible contractors for publicly funded goods and services.
Sentiment
The bill did not advance, failing on House second reading by a wide margin, 12 yeas to 76 nays. That vote suggests substantial opposition in the chamber, with only a small minority supporting the proposal. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record shows sentiment primarily through the decisive floor vote rather than through recorded debate.
Contention
The central point of contention is the bill’s use of state contracting power to discourage or penalize companies that boycott or limit business with politically sensitive sectors, especially fossil fuels, agriculture, and firearms. Supporters likely viewed the measure as protecting North Dakota’s key industries and aligning public spending with state economic interests, while opponents likely saw it as an ideological contracting restriction that could interfere with private business decisions and reduce competition for public contracts. The breadth of the boycott definition, including indirect business relationships and environmental standards beyond law, also appears likely to have been controversial.