URGENT UPDATE: The North Dakota Supreme Court is currently deliberating a pivotal case regarding the validity of signatures on a petition aimed at referring the controversial Cross Ranch legislation to voters. This case, heard on October 18, 1979, stems from the rejection of signatures due to incomplete addresses, a decision that has significant implications for public participation in state legislation.
The hearing, held at the Baker Moot Courtroom at the University of North Dakota Law School, saw intense arguments over what constitutes a “post office address.” Attorney Patrick Conmy, representing petition organizer Robert P. McCarney, challenged the decision made by Secretary of State Ben Meier to reject signatures that lacked full addresses, a requirement outlined in the state constitution. “What in the hell is a post office address?” Conmy questioned the justices, emphasizing the confusion faced by residents in larger cities.
The Cross Ranch legislation, which allocated $2.6 million in Vietnam veterans’ bonus funds to expand the state park system by adding the 10,000-acre Cross Ranch, faces a critical hurdle. The rejection of signatures left the petition drive short of the necessary 12,356 signatures needed to reach the ballot.
Conmy argued that many signatures from city residents were disqualified simply for listing their city as their address. He highlighted that a sample petition approved by the secretary of state was deemed valid with just a city name, raising questions about the inconsistency in the office’s standards. “There is no way the secretary of state can look at an address and know whether it is the legal mailing address of the signer,” he stated, pointing to the multiple ways residents receive mail.
Assistant Attorney General Murray G. Sagsveen, defending Meier’s actions, argued that residents in larger cities must provide more specific addresses to receive mail. He mentioned that out of 360 postcards sent to petitioners with insufficient addresses, 290 were returned as undeliverable, undermining the validity of the signatures.
The court’s decision could have lasting effects on how public petitions are conducted in North Dakota. As the justices deliberate, the outcome remains uncertain but crucial for maintaining voter engagement in state affairs. The implications of this case extend beyond just the Cross Ranch legislation, potentially altering how signatures are gathered and verified in future initiatives.
As the situation develops, all eyes are on the North Dakota Supreme Court. The justices have taken the matter under advisement, and a ruling is anticipated soon. Stay tuned for further updates on this significant legal battle that could redefine petition requirements across the state.
