ND Supreme Court Hears Urgent Cross Ranch Case on Signatures

UPDATE: The North Dakota Supreme Court is currently deliberating a pivotal case regarding the Cross Ranch legislation, which could affect the state’s park system. The hearing, held on October 19, 1979, centers on rejected signatures from a petition aimed at bringing this legislation to voters.

Petitioners argue that Secretary of State Ben Meier improperly disqualified signatures due to a lack of “full post office addresses.” The $2.6 million legislation, passed by the legislature to add the 10,000-acre Cross Ranch to the state park system, now hinges on the court’s ruling.

At the heart of the matter is the definition of a legally acceptable “post office address.” During the hearing, attorney Patrick Conmy, representing retired businessman Robert P. McCarney, questioned the state’s criteria for acceptable addresses. Conmy highlighted that signatures from residents of larger towns like Bismarck or Grand Forks were rejected if they only included their city names, such as “Bismarck,” without additional details.

Conmy argued, “What in the hell is a post office address?” emphasizing that the term should encompass various mailing options, including street addresses, post office boxes, and rural routes. He contended that the sample petition previously approved by Meier did not require extensive address details, raising questions about the consistency of the Secretary of State’s decisions.

Assistant Attorney General Murray G. Sagsveen, representing Meier, countered that without specific addresses, the integrity of the petition process could be compromised. He noted that of the 360 postcards sent to petitioners with incomplete addresses, a staggering 290 were returned as undeliverable.

The stakes are high; the petition to challenge the Cross Ranch legislation fell short of the required 12,356 signatures due to these rejections. Conmy criticized the handling of the petitions, stating that after some signatures were rejected, McCarney was given insufficient time to correct the addresses, further complicating the matter.

As the justices deliberate this critical issue, the implications of their decision could resonate throughout North Dakota’s political landscape. The case raises essential questions about voter representation, the legislative process, and the power of citizens to challenge government decisions.

This developing story is one to watch closely, as the court’s ruling could redefine the parameters of petitioning practices in the state and set a precedent for future legislative challenges.

Stay tuned for updates on this urgent case as it unfolds, impacting not just the Cross Ranch legislation but also the rights of North Dakota voters to engage in their democratic processes.