A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new chapter to title 51 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to specie legal tender, the taxation of specie legal tender, and United States central bank digital currencies; to amend and reenact section 41-01-09 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the definition of United States central bank digital currency.
HB 1441 would create a new chapter in Title 51 of the North Dakota Century Code recognizing “specie legal tender” as legal tender in the state. The bill defines specie as refined precious metal bullion, and specie legal tender as gold or silver specie issued by the United States or other gold or silver specie. It also states that a person cannot be required to offer or accept specie legal tender for debts, deposits, or other purposes, unless a contract specifically provides otherwise.
The bill further provides that the exchange, purchase, or sale of specie legal tender may not create any tax liability. In addition, it declares that a United States central bank digital currency is not legal tender, and it amends existing definitions in Title 13 and Title 41 so that “money” does not include a central bank digital currency. The bill also revises Uniform Commercial Code-style definitions in the state’s commercial law to exclude central bank digital currency from the definition of money.
If enacted, HB 1441 would alter North Dakota law in two main areas: legal tender rules and commercial-law definitions. It would give state-law recognition to gold and silver specie as legal tender, while also limiting any obligation to accept it and shielding its exchange from state tax liability. It would also amend definitions in the money transmitter and commercial code provisions so that central bank digital currency is excluded from “money,” which could affect how certain transactions, payment systems, and commercial instruments are interpreted under state law.
The bill appears to reflect a pro-specie, anti-central-bank-digital-currency sentiment among its sponsors, emphasizing monetary choice, precious metals, and limits on government-backed digital currency. However, the bill ultimately failed, and there is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials to show broader legislative support or opposition. The available record therefore suggests the proposal was introduced with a clear policy purpose but did not advance.
The main points of contention are likely to have been whether the state should elevate gold and silver specie to legal-tender status, whether transactions involving specie should be exempt from taxation, and whether state law should explicitly reject central bank digital currency as money or legal tender. Supporters would likely view the bill as protecting monetary freedom and limiting digital currency adoption, while opponents could question the need for separate legal-tender treatment, the tax exemption, and the practical implications of excluding central bank digital currency from commercial definitions. No specific objections or supporter arguments are documented in the provided transcripts.