Recallnd v. Jaeger
792 N.W.2d 511
N.D.2010Background
- RECALLND seeks to recall U.S. Senator Kent Conrad and asks the Secretary of State to approve its petition for circulation.
- Secretary relied on Attorney General opinion concluding ND law does not permit recall of a congressional official.
- ND Constitution Art. Ill, §§ 1 and 10 authorize recall but list only state, county, and district officials; Congressmembers are not expressly included.
- RECALLND argues the constitutional language should include congressional officials via §10 or by historic construction.
- Court must determine whether Sections 6-7 and recall provisions apply, and whether the Secretary acted within authority denying circulation.
- Court ultimately holds congressional officials (including U.S. Senators) are not subject to recall under ND Constitution and denies the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ND recall power covers U.S. Senators | RECALLND: §10 includes congressional officials by broad reading | Secretary: §10 covers only state/county/offices; Congressmembers excluded | ND recall power does not cover U.S. Senators |
| Whether sections 6-7 Art. III govern recall petitions | Recall petition falls within §§ 6-7 original-jurisdiction scheme | §§ 6-7 apply only to initiative/referendum, not recall | Sections 6-7 do not govern recall petitions |
| Whether the Secretary of State erred in denying recall petition circulation | Secretary must approve petitions for form; authority to decide illegality | Petition violated constitutional limits; office not subject to recall | Secretary acted within authority; petition not valid under §10 |
| Whether this Court has original jurisdiction to decide the matter | Original jurisdiction appropriate because affect sovereignty/liberties | Discretionary original jurisdiction; threshold questions premised on constitution | Court exercises original jurisdiction; outcome favors ND constitutional limits |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelsh v. Jaeger, 641 N.W.2d 100 (2002 ND) (interpret constitutional provisions to give effect to people's intent)
- Thompson v. Jaeger, 788 N.W.2d 586 (2010 ND) (interpretation principles for constitutional provisions)
- Sanderson v. Walsh County, 712 N.W.2d 842 (2006 ND) (petition requirements and constitutional construction)
- State ex rel. Stenehjem v. FreeEats.com, Inc., 712 N.W.2d 828 (2006 ND) (statutory/purpose-based interpretation guidance)
- Walker v. Weilenman, 143 N.W.2d 689 (N.D.1966) (presumption against absurd results in constitutional construction)