Poochigian v. City of Grand Forks, 912 N.W.2d 344

In 2015 the Grand Forks City Council approved sale/development of Arbor Park; citizens petitioned for an initiated measure to retain it as a park, prompting a special election.
The City scheduled a special election for June 20, 2017, and designated one citywide polling place at the Alerus Center.
The canvass certified the measure failed (4,722 votes cast; 180-vote margin), and the city thereafter contracted and conveyed the property to Green Jacket, LLC; the buyer began excavation before the reversion deadline.
In July 2017 more than ten electors, including C.T. Marhula, filed an election contest under N.D.C.C. § 16.1-16-03 seeking to void the special election, alleging: (1) the City lacked authority under its home-rule charter and municipal ordinances to hold the election at a single location, and (2) two absentee ballots postmarked on election day were improperly rejected.
The district court held the City permissibly designated a single polling place for “good and sufficient reasons” and upheld the canvass’s rejection of the two absentee ballots; the court dismissed the contest.
On appeal all contestants but Marhula dismissed; Marhula challenges only the single-location issue. The City moved to dismiss the appeal as moot because the property sale was completed and no injunction had been sought pre-sale.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Grand Forks lacked authority under its home-rule charter and municipal ordinances to hold the special election at a single, citywide polling place	Marhula: charter and ordinances require voting within precincts/wards; one location for whole city was unauthorized	City: state law and city authority permit a single polling place for good reasons; post-election challenge is moot	Held: challenge is moot; under Kerlin and Brandvold a post-election attack on pre-election irregularities tied to a particular election is not justiciable once election is completed
Whether the appeal presents a justiciable public-interest exception to mootness (right to vote / matters of public importance)	Marhula: voting-rights implications make the issue of great public interest and not moot	City: no bad faith or fraud alleged; no statute/constitutional provision mandates invalidation; issue is capable of pre-election challenge and is therefore moot post-election	Held: not a matter of sufficient public interest or evading review here; no basis to except the case from mootness doctrine

Gosbee v. Bendish, 512 N.W.2d 450 (N.D. 1994) (courts will dismiss actions that have become moot because events prevent effective relief)
Brandvold v. Lewis and Clark Pub. Sch. Dist., 803 N.W.2d 827 (N.D. 2011) (post-election challenges to pre-election irregularities that are peculiar to a particular election are moot once the election is completed)
Kerlin v. City of Devils Lake, 141 N.W. 756 (N.D. 1913) (statutory departures such as using one polling place are irregularities, not necessarily voiding an election absent a statute or constitutional directive)
State ex rel. Olson v. Bakken, 329 N.W.2d 575 (N.D. 1983) (recognizing the right to vote as a fundamental constitutional right)