In re Poochigian, 912 N.W.2d 344

In 2015 Grand Forks Council approved commercial development of the Arbor Park area; citizens petitioned to retain it as a park, prompting a special election.
The City scheduled the special election for June 20, 2017, and designated a single citywide polling place at the Alerus Center.
The canvassing board certified the measure defeated (4,722 votes cast, 180-vote margin) on June 26, 2017; the city executed a sale and deed to Green Jacket, LLC shortly thereafter.
More than ten electors, including Marhula, sued post-election under N.D.C.C. § 16.1-16-03 to contest the election, claiming the single polling place violated the home rule charter and municipal ordinances and also challenging rejection of two absentee ballots.
The district court held the city had statutory authority to use one polling place for the special election, found the reasons for a single site were ‘‘good and sufficient,’’ rejected the absentee-ballot challenge, and dismissed the contest.
On appeal all contestants except Marhula withdrew; Marhula limited his appeal to the single-polling-place issue. The city moved to dismiss the appeal as moot because the sale was completed and no injunction had been sought pre-election.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Grand Forks lacked authority under its home rule charter and ordinances to hold the special election at a single citywide polling place	Marhula: charter/ordinances require voting within ward precincts; a single site violated those rules	City: statutory authority allowed a single central polling place; use was reasonable and permitted	Court affirmed district court: single site was authorized and not invalidating under statutes; designation upheld
Whether the post-election challenge is justiciable or moot	Marhula: right to vote and public importance make issue non-moot	City: challenge is moot because election is complete and property sale occurred; no pre-election injunction sought; post-election challenge cannot provide effective relief	Court: challenge is moot under Brandvold and Kerlin; no statutory/constitutional directive to void election for this irregularity; dismissal affirmed

Brandvold v. Lewis and Clark Pub. Sch. Dist., 803 N.W.2d 827 (2011 ND 185) (post-election challenges to pre-election irregularities peculiar to that election are moot once the election is completed)
Kerlin v. City of Devils Lake, 141 N.W. 756 (N.D. 1913) (departure from statutory polling-place rules is an irregularity; election will be sustained absent a statute or constitutional provision declaring such a vote void)
Gosbee v. Bendish, 512 N.W.2d 450 (N.D. 1994) (courts will dismiss cases that have become moot because effective relief cannot be rendered)