Sorum v. Dalrymple
2014 ND 233
| N.D. | 2014Background
- Sorum, an independent candidate for governor, petitioned for a writ of mandamus after the 2012 election.
- The petition sought removal of Democratic-NPL and Republican gubernatorial/lieutenant governor candidates from the ballot for improper endorsement certification.
- The district court denied the mandamus petition, citing that post-election election-law provisions are directory.
- Riemers v. Jaeger (related case) informed the court’s approach to pre-election vs post-election remedy and certification requirements.
- Sorum provided the certificates of endorsement with his petition; the court distinguished the facts from Riemers and held the post-election provisions are directory under these facts.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of mandamus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is warranted to remove ballot candidates after the election | Sorum argues §16.1-11-06(2) requires proper joint nomination; AG op. supports removal. | Defendants contend post-election provisions are directory; no obstruction to the vote shown. | No mandamus; post-election provisions are directory under facts. |
| Whether the district court misapplied Riemers in denying relief | Sorum relies on Riemers to require removal of improperly certified candidates. | Riemers authorized relief before election; here not applicable post-election. | District court properly applied law; no clear right to relief. |
| Whether due process/equal protection claims have merit | Sorum asserts constitutional violations. | Claims are unsupported and not adequately argued. | Claims waived or meritless; not considered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Riemers v. Jaeger, 2013 ND 30 (2013 ND 30) (relevance of pre-election remedies and certification requirements)
- Kiner v. Well, 71 N.W.2d 743 (ND 1955) (election-law provisions are mandatory pre-election, directory post-election)
- Werlinger v. Champion Healthcare Corp., 1999 ND 173, 598 N.W.2d 820 (1999 ND 173) (persuasive-consideration of attorney general opinions)
- Holmgren v. North Dakota Workers Ctr. Bureau, 455 N.W.2d 200 (ND 1990) (limits on agency interpretation of statutes)
- Sauby v. City of Fargo, 2008 ND 60, 747 N.W.2d 65 (2008 ND 60) (respectful attention to opinions but not binding if inconsistent with court’s view)
- City of Bismarck v. Mariner Constr., Inc., 2006 ND 108, 714 N.W.2d 484 (2006 ND 108) (election-law construction and statutory interpretation)
- Riemers v. City of Grand Forks, 2006 ND 224, 723 N.W.2d 518 (2006 ND 224) (pre-election versus post-election relief considerations)
- Wilson v. Koppy, 2002 ND 179, 653 N.W.2d 68 (2002 ND 179) (standard for mandamus review and discretion)