948 N.W.2d 1
N.D.2020Background
- The Sponsoring Committee submitted an initiated constitutional amendment (Measure 3) addressing military-overseas ballot transmission, paper audit trails, open primaries and runoff procedures, ranked-choice voting, and legislative redistricting.
- The Secretary of State approved the petition as to form and assigned a petition title; final signed petitions were submitted and the Secretary certified Measure 3 for the November 3, 2020 ballot.
- Petitioners (Haugen and others) sought a writ enjoining placement of Measure 3, arguing the petition failed to contain the measure’s full text and that the title was inadequate.
- Measure 3’s Section 1 required the Secretary to transmit ballots to covered military-overseas voters “for all elections covered in N.D.C.C. section 16.1-07-19,” but did not reproduce the text of that statute (which lists the covered elections).
- The court treated the Secretary’s petition-review duty as ministerial and reviewed his decision de novo under Article III, which mandates that petitions include the “full text of the measure.”
- Relying on Dyer v. Hall and related precedent, the Court held that incorporating a statute by reference into a constitutional amendment petition violates the full-text requirement, set aside the Secretary’s approval, and enjoined placement of Measure 3 on the ballot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition complied with Article III §2’s full-text requirement (i.e., whether incorporating a statute by reference is permissible) | Haugen: petition omitted the full text by referencing N.D.C.C. §16.1-07-19 instead of reproducing it, violating the Constitution | Jaeger/Sponsoring Committee: Dyer is distinguishable (only a single citation here) and modern electronic access to statutes mitigates transparency concerns | Held: Incorporation by reference into a constitutional amendment petition is prohibited; petition failed the full-text requirement; writ granted |
| Whether the petition title adequately represented the measure’s substance | Haugen: title was insufficient to inform voters of the measure’s contents | Jaeger/Sponsoring Committee: title was adequate (implicitly argued); Court did not need to resolve this | Held: Court did not reach title issue because full-text defect was dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Dyer v. Hall, 199 N.W. 754 (N.D. 1924) (holds constitutional amendment petitions may not incorporate statutes by reference; full-text requirement protects clarity and permanence of the Constitution)
- Anderson v. Byrne, 242 N.W. 687 (N.D. 1932) (discusses the purpose of full-text requirements in constitutional amendments)
- McCarney v. Meier, 286 N.W.2d 780 (N.D. 1979) (distinguishes ministerial acts from discretionary functions regarding review)
- Mun. Services Corp. v. Kusler, 490 N.W.2d 700 (N.D. 1992) (supreme court reviews secretary of state’s petition decisions de novo)
- North Dakota State Bd. of Higher Ed. v. Jaeger, 815 N.W.2d 215 (N.D. 2012) (describes Secretary of State’s limited, ministerial petition-review responsibilities)
- RECALLND v. Jaeger, 792 N.W.2d 511 (N.D. 2010) (notes Article III’s petition requirements are mandatory)