Haugland v. Meier, 10472
Decision Date | 01 July 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 10472,10472 |
Citation | 335 N.W.2d 809 |
Parties | 12 Ed. Law Rep. 531 Brynhild HAUGLAND, Chester Reiten, and Rolland Redlin, Petitioners, v. Ben MEIER, Secretary of State, State of North Dakota, Respondent. Civ. |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
McGee, Hankla, Backes & Wheeler, Minot, for petitioners; Russel G. Robinson, Minot, on brief; argued by Orlin W. Backes, Minot.
Robert O. Wefald, Atty. Gen., Bismarck, for respondent; argued by Terry L. Adkins, Asst. Atty. Gen.
This is an original proceeding to review the decision of the secretary of state approving, as to form, a petition to refer House Bill No. 1500 changing the name of Minot State College to Dakota Northwestern University. We conclude that the petition contains impermissible statements, 1 even though it otherwise is in proper form, and, accordingly, we set aside the decision of the secretary of state approving the petition form.
The Forty-eighth Legislative Assembly passed House Bill No. 1500 and, after it was signed by the governor, the bill was filed on April 19, 1983 with the secretary of state. On May 23, 1983 the secretary of state approved the form of the petition to refer House Bill No. 1500 presented by a sponsoring committee chaired by V.R. Steinwand. 2
On June 22, 1983 Brynhild Haugland, Chester Reiten and Rolland Redlin 3 commenced this proceeding, seeking the review of the decision of Ben Meier, Secretary of State, in approving the form of the referral petition.
The power to refer legislative acts for either the approval or rejection by the electors is reserved to the people of North Dakota by Article III, North Dakota Constitution. Article III is declared to be self-executing and all of its provisions are mandatory. Some statutes have been enacted to facilitate and safeguard the referral powers 4, but none relate to the mechanics of the approval of the form of the petition by the secretary of state nor to the scope of the review contemplated thereof by this court.
The only portion of the petition attacked by Haugland, Reiten and Redlin is the following labeled "Statement of Intent," near the top of the petition:
Prior to a renumbering of articles and sections of the North Dakota Constitution, the provisions with which we are here concerned were a part of Article 105. Some of the statements in McCarney v. Meier, 286 N.W.2d 780 (N.D.1979) are particularly applicable to this case. As we noted in McCarney:
McCarney, supra, 286 N.W.2d at 783.
We concluded that we were not bound by the secretary of state's interpretation of the constitution and that a question of law as to the sufficiency of the petition vests no discretion in the secretary. In other respects McCarney v. Meier is distinguishable on its facts from this case and did not involve what is now Section 2 of Article III.
Unlike in McCarney, we have in this case a challenge of the approval of the form of the petition at a time when a determination of insufficiency still affords time for correction or amendment. See Section 6, Article III, North Dakota Constitution.
This court's review of decisions by the secretary of state is specifically authorized by Sections 6 and 7 of Article III, North Dakota Constitution.
Haugland, Reiten and Redlin argue that the act being referred (H.B. 1500) does not involve "commensurate increases in state funding," and that that statement "is improper editorial comment, and is misleading and incorrect." It is pointed out that for the 1983-1985 biennium the Legislature funded the operation of Dakota Northwestern University at $1,806,762, less than was appropriated for Minot State College for the biennium 1981-1983.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
N.D. State Bd. of Higher Educ. v. Jaeger
...alsoN.D.C.C. §§ 16.1–01–09 and 16.1–01–10. We have described those limited responsibilities as ministerial in nature. Haugland v. Meier, 335 N.W.2d 809, 811 (N.D.1983); McCarney v. Meier, 286 N.W.2d 780, 783 (N.D.1979). The Secretary of State's limited responsibilities under those mandatory......
-
Sklar v. Town of Fountain Hills
...misleading information and even to mudslinging and partisan tactics." Kromko, 168 Ariz. at 59, 811 P.2d at 20 (quoting Haugland v. Meier, 335 N.W.2d 809, 811 (N.D.1983); Lips v. Meier, 336 N.W.2d 346, 347 (N.D.1983)). Accordingly, we affirm the superior court's Attorneys' Fees Request ¶ 23 ......
-
Kromko v. Superior Court In and For County of Maricopa
...or statutes arguably opens "the process to misleading information and even to mudslinging and partisan tactics." Haugland v. Meier, 335 N.W.2d 809, 811 (N.D.1983); Lips v. Meier, 336 N.W.2d 346, 347 (N.D.1983). See also Columbia River Salmon & Tuna Pack. Ass'n v. Appling, 232 Or. 230, 233, ......
-
Municipal Services Corp. v. Kusler
...the applicants' contention that the Secretary must examine the substance and merit of a proposed initiated measure. In Haugland v. Meier, 335 N.W.2d 809, 811 (N.D.1983), we held that the Secretary should not have approved a referendum petition that contained in its Statement of Intent an ex......