A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 54-09 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to statements of ownership filed with the secretary of state; and to provide a penalty.
Summary
HB 1555 would add a new ownership-disclosure requirement for organizations registering with the North Dakota secretary of state. At the time of registration, an organization would have to certify whether it is a “foreign organization of concern,” defined by reference to foreign adversary and sanctions-related federal lists. If the secretary of state later discovers a falsified statement tied to a violation of state foreign-ownership laws, the filing must be referred to the attorney general for enforcement, and a willful violation would be a class B misdemeanor.
The bill also revises North Dakota’s foreign agricultural land reporting framework. It would require foreign persons who must report under the federal Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act to file copies of those reports with the agriculture commissioner, make those reports public, and include them in an annual report to legislative management. Failure to file could trigger a civil penalty of up to 25 percent of the fair market value of the person’s ownership interest in North Dakota agricultural land. The bill includes a contingent repeal of the state reporting section if the federal disclosure law is repealed, indicating the state provision is designed to track the federal regime.
Impact
If enacted, HB 1555 would expand state oversight of both foreign ownership interests in agricultural land and the formation/registration of organizations tied to foreign countries of concern. It would amend chapter 47-10.1 to strengthen reporting and enforcement for foreign agricultural land ownership, and it would create a new chapter 54-09 disclosure requirement for entities registering with the secretary of state. The bill would also increase enforcement authority for the attorney general and create a criminal penalty for willful noncompliance, while making certain filings public and adding reporting obligations for the agriculture commissioner.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have had mixed support in the House but strong opposition in the Senate. It passed House second reading 56-35, suggesting a meaningful level of support for tighter foreign-ownership disclosure and enforcement. However, it failed decisively on Senate second reading 3-44, indicating broad Senate resistance to the proposal as drafted.
Contention
The main points of contention likely centered on the scope and severity of the foreign-ownership restrictions, especially the new requirement for organizations to certify whether they are foreign organizations of concern and the criminal penalty for willful violations. The agricultural land provisions may also have raised concerns about the size of the civil penalty, public disclosure of filings, and the reach of state enforcement over foreign persons and entities. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a transparency and security measure, while opponents likely objected to its breadth, punitive structure, and potential burdens on business formation and investment.