In the Interest of Voisine
2010 ND 241
| N.D. | 2010Background
- RecallND seeks to recall U.S. Senator Kent Conrad under ND Const. art. III, §§1,10.
- Secretary of State, relying on AG opinion, refused to approve petition for circulation.
- ND Const. art. III, §10 lists state/county officers subject to recall; federal officials are not mentioned.
- Recall history shows congressional references were removed from the recall provision in 1978.
- Court exercises original jurisdiction to resolve whether recall of a U.S. Senator is permissible under ND Constitution.
- Court denies petition to recall Conrad, holding congressional officials are not subject to ND recall power.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether U.S. Senator is subject to ND recall. | RecallND contends §10 covers all elected officials. | Jaeger asserts §10 covers only state/county offices; congressional officials excluded. | Not subject to recall under ND Constitution |
| Do ND Const. arts. III, §§6-7 govern recall petitions? | Sections 6-7 provide mandatory original jurisdiction over SOS decisions. | Sections 6-7 apply to initiative/referendum, not recall. | Sections 6-7 do not govern recall petitions |
| Did SOS have authority to deny on illegality grounds? | SOS should approve if petition meets form requirements. | SOS may assess legality under §10 and constitutional limits. | SOS acted appropriately in denying; petition invalid |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) (federal uniformity in qualifications for senators)
- Kelsh v. Jaeger, 641 N.W.2d 100 (ND 2002) (interpret constitutional provisions to fulfill intent)
- Hernett v. Meier, 173 N.W.2d 907 (ND 1970) (discretion in secretary of state's petition review)
- McCarney v. Meier, 286 N.W.2d 780 (ND 1979) (initiative/referendum provisions require broad construction)
- State ex rel. Stenehjem v. FreeEats.com, Inc., 712 N.W.2d 828 (ND 2006) (conjunction/paragraph parsing clarifies constitutional interpretation)