Burgard v. Burgard
2013 ND 27
| N.D. | 2013Background
- Riemers, a Libertarian, sought to remove major party gubernatorial candidates or place him on the general election ballot as Libertarian governor after the 2012 primaries.
- Libertarian endorsement in April 2012 nominated Riemers for governor and Ames for lieutenant governor; Ames failed to file a complete statement of interests, affecting eligibility.
- Secretary of State placed Riemers on the primary ballot as Libertarian governor; Ames was not placed on the primary ballot.
- Attorney General issued July 2012 opinion stating Riemers was not properly nominated for governor due to lack of a running mate and failure to meet statutory requirements for a joint governor/lieutenant governor filing.
- Secretary of State followed the AG opinion and did not certify Riemers for the general election ballot without a Libertarian lieutenant governor; Riemers sought mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and preventive relief to remove major-party candidates or to place him on the ballot.
- District court denied relief, finding no clear legal right to removal or placement on the ballot and noting the AG opinion controlled on the ballot status of Riemers; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in not ordering removal of major-party candidates | Riemers argues officers violated §16.1-11-06(2) by not listing both offices on certificates | Jaeger contends certificates complied under party-endorsed procedures and no basis to remove | Affirmed; no clear right shown to remove those candidates given record and statutory interpretation constraints |
| Whether Riemers was entitled to be certified as Libertarian governor | Riemers seeks certification despite lacking a Libertarian running mate | AG opinion persuasive; lack of running mate bars certification | Affirmed; not entitled to general election ballot as Libertarian governor under AG opinion |
| Whether quo warranto was proper remedy | Riemers seeks removal of others or quo warranto relief | Quo warranto not appropriate where right to hold office not directly at issue | Affirmed; remedy not presently available under ch. 32-13 |
| Whether injunctive relief to stop discrimination was properly denied | Req. broad injunction against alleged discrimination by SOS | Injunctions must be precise; no showing of discriminatory conduct warranted | Affirmed; district court did not err in denying injunctive relief to stop discrimination |
Key Cases Cited
- Old Broadway Corp. v. Backes, 450 N.W.2d 734 (ND 1990) (discretionary review standard for writs; injunctive relief discipline)
- Eichhorn v. Waldo Twp. Bd. of Supervisors, 723 N.W.2d 112 (ND 2006) (mandamus relief requires clear legal right and no adequate remedy)
- Ennis v. Dasovick, 506 N.W.2d 386 (ND 1993) (injunction framework in public-remedy contexts; prerogatives of law)
- State ex rel. Sathre v. Roberts, 269 N.W.913 (ND 1936) (quo warranto remedies and right to hold public office)
- State ex rel. Sathre v. Moodie, 258 N.W.558 (ND 1935) (quo warranto and public-office holding remedies)
- Johnson v. Baker, 21 N.W.2d 355 (ND 1945) (Attorney General opinions guiding public-official actions)