sorum response to bahr

8/12/2019 Sorum Response To Bahr

1/21

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA IN DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF BURLEIGH SOUTH CENTRAL JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Paul J. Sorum )

Petitioner ) CASE NO. 08-2014-CV-00173

)

vs. ))

Jack Dalrymple, Governor of North Dakota ) RESPONSE TO BRIEF INDrew Wrigley, Lt. Governor of North Dakota ) OPPOSITION TO PETITION

Ryan Taylor, 2012 Dem. Candidate for Governor of ND ) FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUSEllen Chaffee, 2012 Dem. Candidate for Lt. Governor of ND )Al Jaeger, North Dakota Secretary of State )

)

Respondents )

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Representing Respondents Jack Dalrymple, Drew Wrigley, and Al Jaeger, counsel Douglas Bahr

states in his Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Opposition Brief) that Petitioner, Paul

Sorum, filed a petition to North Dakota District Court South Central Judicial District, Burleigh

County for a Writ of Mandamus (Petition) requesting the results of the 2012 June Primary Election

and the 2012 November General Election be invalidated because the Certificate of Endorsement form

prepared and authorized by the Secretary of States office did not comply with the law.

While admitting that Respondents violated North Dakota's election laws, Mr. Bahr argues in his

Opposition Brief that these defects only comprise 'technical noncompliance.' However, these

violations of North Dakota's election laws are very significant. In fact, these violations of the state's

election laws are so significant that the North Dakota Secretary of State removed the Libertarian

candidate for governor, Roland Riemers, from the November General Election ballot after the 2012

Primary Election for exactly the same violations of election law. The standard that these violations

are an essential part of the gubernatorial election has been set by the North Dakota Supreme Court

who upheld the 2012 decision of the Secretary of State that the Libertarian candidate for governor

should be removed from the ballot for the same violations of North Dakota's election law as in this

instance.Riemers v. Jaeger, 2013 ND 30, 827 N.W.2d 330

Based on the Respondents admitted violation of North Dakota State Constitution Article V, 3 and

North Dakota North Dakota Century Code 16.1-11-06(2), the results of the 2012 June Primary

Election and the 2012 November General Election are currently invalid.

Respondents Dalrymple and Jaeger admit they authorized, issued and filed Nominating Certificates

which did not comply with North Dakotas election law N.D.C.C. 16.1-11-06(2) which requires, I


2/21

2

the petition or certificate of endorsement is for the office of governor or lieutenant governor, the

petition or certificate must contain the names and other information required of candidates for both

those offices. (emphasis added)

North Dakotas executive branch, Governor Jack Dalrymple and the secretary of state Al Jaeger,

authorized and issued the nominating certificate forms used in the 2012 gubernatorial election

process.

ARTICLE V of the North Dakota State Constitution entitled EXECUTIVE BRANCH Section 7

states:

The governor is the chief executive of the state. The governor shall have the responsibility to

see that the state's business is well administered and that its laws are faithfully executed.

North Dakota Constitution Article V, 7

Douglas Bahr, in his Opposition Brief, admits that Governor Jack Dalrymple failed in his duty in this

instance to ensure that the states election laws were faithfully executed as is mandated of him by the

North Dakota State Constitution. In failing in his constitutionally mandated duties as governor, Mr.

Dalrymple, along with the other Respondents, have invalidated the results of the gubernatorial race in

the 2012 June Primary Election and the 2012 November General Election.

Respondents claim they used the Nominating Certification Forms authorized and issued by the

Governor and therefore they did not violate the state's election laws, clearly implyingthey were

unaware that they were not in compliance with state election laws.

In Riemers v. Jaeger, representing Secretary of State Jaeger admitted in sworn testimony that heknew the nominating forms he was issuing have been out of compliance with the law since he took

office. Mr. Bahr stated (emphasis added):

Secretary of State Jaeger, of course, accepts the Attorney Generals opinion and, although this

form has been used for decades, since before Secretary Jaeger came into the office, the

Attorney General, on page four of his opinion, which I think is page 37 of the appendix, held,

implied, indicated that those forms should be together. Because of that, Secretary Jaeger is

working with his general council to address that. But that doesnt mean...

Riemers v. Jaeger, 2013 ND 30, 827 N.W.2d 330 (See also N.D. Attorney General Opinion 2012-L-07)

Further, Bahrs implied claim of ignorance of the law, i.e. the Candidates gubernatorial

candidates and candidates for Lieutenant Governor used the authorized Certificate of Endorsement

form is not an excuse to violate the law. In Shevlin-Carpenter Co. v. Minnesota, the Minnesota

Supreme Court stated the following (emphasis added): In other words, innocence cannot be asserted


3/21

3

of an action which violates existing law, and ignorance of the law will not excuse. Shevlin-

Carpenter Co. v. Minnesota, 218 US 57 - Supreme Court 1910

In Berg v. Hogan the North Dakota Supreme Court stated: Even in criminal law the axiom

that ignorance of the law does not justify an excuse applies, and we see no reason why the same

concept should not apply to civil matters. We do not believe that civil matters are subject to a greater

standard than criminal matters. Berg v. Hogan, 322 NW 2d 448 - ND: Supreme Court 1982

After Respondents Dalrymple and Jaeger authorized, issued, and filed nominating certificates which

did not comply withN.D.C.C. 16.1-11-06(2), Respondent Al Jaeger, as Secretary of State,

wrongfully certified Respondents Dalrymple, Wrigley, Taylor and Chaffee for the June Primary and

November General election ballots for governor and lieutenant governor thereby invalidating the

results of the 2012 gubernatorial election.

LAW AND ARGUMENT

This Petitioner is not requesting that the results of the 2012 June Primary Election and the 2012

November General Election by invalidated. Based on the admissions of the Respondents represented

by Douglas Bahr, the current results are already invalid with respect to the gubernatorial election

process.

This petitioner is requesting that the court compel Mr. Dalrymple and Mr. Jaeger to comply with the

law by removing those candidates -- Respondents Dalrymple, Wrigley, Taylor and Chaffee -- from

the 2012 ballots who did not legally qualify to be certified for the June Primary and NovemberGeneral election ballots for governor and lieutenant governor so that a valid election result for

governor and lieutenant governor can be tallied and officially recorded.

Article V of the North Dakota State Constitution entitled EXECUTIVE BRANCH Section 7 states

(emphasis added):




The North Dakota State Constitution Article V, 3 states (emphasis added):

Section 3. The governor and the lieutenant governor must be elected on a joint ballot. Each

vote cast for a candidate for governor is deemed cast also for the candidate for lieutenant

governor running jointly with the candidate for governor. The joint candidates having the


4/21

4

highest number of votes must be declared elected. If two or more joint candidates have an

equal and highest number of votes for governor and lieutenant governor, the legislative

assembly in joint session at its next regular session shall choose one pair of joint candidates fo

the offices. The returns of the election for governor and lieutenant governor must be made in

the manner prescribed by law.


N.D.C.C. 16.1-11-06 (2), provisions state as follows: If the petition or certificate of endorsement i

for the office of governor or lieutenant governor, the petition or certificate must contain the names

and other information required of candidates for both those offices. (emphasis added) This

language is clear and unambiguous, and the intent thereof is obvious and understandable. The use o

the words must in this statute indicates that the provisions are meant to be mandatory. See, James

Valley Grain, LLC v. David, 802 N.W.2d 158, 162 (N.D. 2011).

Governor Jack Dalrymple failed to fulfill his Constitutional mandate to faithfully execute and enforce

North Dakotas election laws, specifically North Dakota State Constitution Article V, 7, North

Dakota State Constitution Article V, 3, and North Dakota Century Code 16.1-11-06 (2). Mr.

Dalrymple has failed to perform these acts which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from

holding office.

Secretary of State Al Jaeger, failed in his duty to follow North Dakota Century Code 16.1-11-06 (2)

by certifying Respondents Dalrymple, Wrigley, Taylor and Chaffee for the 2012 June Primary and

2012 November General election ballots for governor and lieutenant governor without a valid

nominating certificate as required by North Dakota Century Code 16.1-11-06 (2). Mr. Jaeger has

failed to perform these acts which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from holding office

North Dakota Century Code 32-24-01 entitled Writ of Mandamus, By and to Whom Writ of

Mandamus Issued states (emphasis added):

The writ of mandamus may be issued by the supreme and district courts to any inferior

tribunal, corporation, board, or person to compel the performance of an act which the law

specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to compel the admission

of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the party is entitled and from

which the party is precluded unlawfully by such inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or

person. (emphasis added)

North Dakota Century Code 32-24-01

In Kadlec v. Greendale Township, the North Dakota Supreme Court stated in their decision, An

applicant for a writ of mandamus must first demonstrate a clear legal right to the performance of an

act that the law specifically enjoins as a duty. See N.D.C.C. 32-34-01. Kadlec asserts N.D.C.C.

24-03-06 imposes on the township a duty to install a culvert to prevent obstruction of the natural


5/21

5

drainage of surface water. We agree. Kadlec v. Greendale Township Bd. of Township Supervisors,

583 NW 2d 817 - ND: Supreme Court 1998.

The North Dakota State Constitution Article V 3, The North Dakota State Constitution Article V

7, and N.D.C.C. 16.1-11-06 (2) compel the governor and the secretary of state to ensure that

candidates for governor and lieutenant governor file a Nominating Certificate which must contain the

names and other information required of candidates for both those offices. This duty was notperformed with respect to the 2012 June Primary and 2012 November General election ballots for

governor and lieutenant governor. Accordingly, this Petitioner has a clear and legal right to the

performance of these acts.

In Krabseth v. Moore, the North Dakota Supreme Court stated (emphasis added):

A party seeking a writ of mandamus bears the burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to

the performance of the particular acts sought to be compelled by the writ. North Dakota

Council of School Adm'rs v. Sinner, 458 N.W.2d 280, 283 (N.D.1990). A writ of mandamus

will not lie unless the petitioner's legal right to the performance of the particular acts sought to

be compelled is clear and complete.Adams County Record v. GNDA, 529 N.W.2d 830, 836

(N.D.1995). Issuance of the writ is left to the sound discretion of the trial court.Sinner, 458

N.W.2d at 284. This court will not reverse a trial court's issuance of a writ of mandamus

unless, as a matter of law, the writ should not issue or the trial court abused its discretion.Min

Mart, Inc. v. City of Minot, 347 N.W.2d 131, 135 (N.D.1984). The trial court abuses its

discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner.Opdahl v.

Zeeland Pub. School Dist. No. 4, 512 N.W.2d 444, 446 (N.D.1994).

Krabseth v. Moore, 571 NW 2d 146 - ND: Supreme Court 1997

In relation to the first requirement of Krabseth v. Moore regarding Writ of Mandamus, this Petitioner

has clearly demonstrated that the law has clearly been violated in the 2012 June Primary and 2012

November General election for governor and lieutenant governor.

In the second requirement of the Krabseth v. Moore, there is no other clear plain, speedy and

adequate remedy other than the Petitioners remedy which is to remove those candidates from the

ballot that did not comply with N.D.C.C. 16.1-11-06 (2) and then tally results for only the valid

candidates. There is no other remedy available to correct these admitted violations of North Dakota

election laws in this instance.

The law, N.D.C.C. 16.1-11-06 (2), is a requirement that must be followed at all times. The

Attorney Generals opinion (See North Dakota Attorney General Opinion 2012-L-07) included a

specific discussion on his strict interpretation as to the requirements of the states election laws

(emphasis added):

Second, even if this rule of construction would be deemed to apply to a primary election, it

provides an exception that keeps post-primary election provisions mandatory if they affect an


6/21

6

essential element of the election. Kiner v. Well, 71 N.W.2d at 744. The mandatory provisions

in N.D.C.C. 16.1-11-06 requiring the naming of a gubernatorial running mate and N.D.

Const. art. V, 3 requiring joint ballots and joint candidacies for Governor and Lieutenant

Governor are essential elements of the primary and general elections since these offices are

meant to be campaigned for jointly and elected jointly. Consequently, it is necessary that these

statutory and constitutional requirements be considered as mandatory at all times.

North Dakota Attorney General Opinion 2012-L-07

This Petitioner is not asking that the results of the 2012 June Primary and the 2012 November

General Election be invalidated. This petitioner is asking that the court issue the Writ of Mandamus

to compel office holders Jack Dalrymple and Al Jaeger to perform the duties of their offices as the

law requires. Petitioner has thus proven his legal right to the proposed remedy.

Douglas Bahr, in his Opposition Brief, states that, After an election, election laws are generally

deemed directory only. Mr. Bahr further states that, The language on the Certificate of

Endorsement form is not an essential element of the election. Both of these statements are a direct

contradiction to Mr. Bahrs arguments and the Attorney Generals opinion used in Riemers v. Jaeger.

(See Riemers v. Jaeger, 2013 ND 30, 827 N.W.2d 330 and N.D. Attorney General Opinion 2012-L-

07)

In Riemers v. Jaeger, representing Secretary of State Jaeger, Mr. Bahr admitted in his oral argument

that he knew the nominating forms the secretary of state was issuing were out of compliance with the

North Dakota law and stated he embraced the Attorney Generals opinion North Dakota Attorney

General Opinion 2012-L-07 which decidedly proclaims N.D.C.C. 16.1-11-06 to be a required and

essential part of the election (See above). Mr. Bahr stated, Secretary of State Jaeger, of course,

accepts the Attorney Generals opinion and

Mr. Bahrs assertion that North Dakota Constitution article V, 3 and N.D.C.C. 16.1-11-06 (2) is

not an essential part of an election and is only a technical requirement is a direct contradiction with

the North Dakota Supreme Courts opinion in Riemers v. Jaeger where Justice Crothers writing for

the majority stated, In July 2012, the Attorney General issued a written opinion, ruling Riemers was

not nominated for governor according to state law because the requirement of N.D. Const. art. V, 3

for a joint ballot for governor and lieutenant governor was not satisfied. N.D. Att'y Gen. Op. 2012-L-

07. The Attorney General's opinion also cited N.D.C.C. 16.1-11-06(2), providing "[i]f the

[nominating] petition or certificate of endorsement is for the office of governor or lieutenant

governor, the petition or certificate must contain the names and other information required ofcandidates for both those offices." Justice Crothers goes on to further state that, The Attorney

General's interpretation of the mandatory constitutional requirement of N.D. Const. art. V, 3 is

persuasive, and the Secretary of State correctly applied that opinion. We conclude Riemers failed to

demonstrate a clear legal right to be certified for the general election ballot as the Libertarian

candidate for governor and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his petition for a

writ to require the Secretary of State to certify his name for that ballot as the Libertarian candidate fo

governor.


7/21


8/21

8

Mr. Bahr, in his Opposition Brief, states that Any technical noncompliance with the statute was not

the fault of candidates. Mr. Bahrs use of the term technical noncompliance is capricious and

arbitrary. His statement is also a contradiction to the Attorney Generals opinion which states:

The mandatory provisions in N.D.C.C. 16.1-11-06 requiring the naming of a gubernatorial

running mate and N.D. Const. art. V, 3 requiring joint ballots and joint candidacies for

Governor and Lieutenant Governor are essential elements of the primary and general elections


Mr. Bahr, in his statement above, argues that the candidates are not at fault for a 'technical'

noncompliance. His assertion of Respondents' innocence after admitting the Respondents violated

the state's election laws defies logic, has no legal basis, and lacks precedence.

If the nominated candidates for governor were not aware of the North Dakotas mandatory provisions

in N.D.C.C. 16.1-11-06 requiring the naming of a gubernatorial running mate on the same

nominating certificate, how can they be expected to fulfill the larger constitutional mandate to

faithfully execute the law as governor? Again, ignorance is not an excuse to violate the law,

especially in elections for governor and lieutenant governor.

On multiple occasions in Mr. Bahrs Opposition Brief, he contradicts his prior arguments and his use

of the Attorney General's opinion in Riemers v. Jaeger. The North Dakota Constitution, Article I

Declaration of Rights, Section 22 states the following:

Section 22. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation.

North Dakota Century Code Article I Declaration of Rights, Section 22

The fact that Mr. Bahr has repeatedly contradicted his prior arguments in Riemers v. Jaeger, in both

written and oral arguments, significantly undermines his credibility, eviscerates his arguments, and

conflicts with North Dakotas constitutional mandate that the state's laws have a uniform operation.

In Riemers v. Jaeger, the North Dakota State Supreme Court warns state employees about the folly of

not following the Attorney Generals opinion:

An Attorney General's opinion is entitled to respect if persuasive.Riemers v. City of GrandForks, 2006 ND 224, 11, 723 N.W.2d 518. If state officials follow the opinion, it protects the

officials until a court decides the issue.Johnson, 74 N.D. at 259, 21 N.W.2d at 364. If state

officials fail to follow the opinion, however, the officials act at their peril.

Riemers v. Jaeger, 2013 ND 30, 827 N.W.2d 330


9/21

9

The Opposition Brief refers to Kiner v. Well. This case is irrelevant to this Petition with respect to

the certification of candidates for the ballot. Specifically, Kiner v. Well does not provide any

discussion of candidates signatures on nominating certificates, nominating petitions, or joint ballot

issues.

The Attorney Generals opinion issued for Riemers v. Jaeger (See North Dakota Attorney General

Opinion 2012-L-07) included a specific reference to Kiner v. Wells which contradicts Mr. Bahr'sargument in this instance. It is worth repeating here (emphasis added):




in N.D.C.C. 16.1-11-06 requiring the naming of a gubernatorial running mate and North

Dakota Constitution Article V, 3 requiring joint ballots and joint candidacies for Governor

and Lieutenant Governor are essential elements of the primary and general elections since

these offices are meant to be campaigned for jointly and elected jointly. Consequently, it is

necessary that these statutory and constitutional requirements be considered as mandatory at

all times.


Once again, Mr. Bahr contradicts his own arguments and the Attorney Generals opinion in Riemers

v. Jaeger in his use of this case precedent Kiner v. Wells as he applies it in this instance of Sorum v.

Dalrymple, et al. a questionable action which severely undermines Mr. Bahr's credibility and

conflicts with the state's constitutional mandate to ensure the uniform operation of North Dakota's

laws.

This Petitioner has listed State ex rel. Sathre v. Moody as a case precedent where a candidate for

governor of North Dakota should not have been certified for the Primary or General Election ballot

because he did not meet the states constitutional requirement to hold office. This case precedent is

an example of a sitting North Dakota governor that was removed from office for violating North

Dakotas constitutional mandates. State ex rel. Sathre v. Moody, 65 N.D. 340, 258 N.W. 558, 566

This Petitioner does maintain that Jack Dalrymple has not met the requirements of both the North

Dakota State Constitution Article V, 3 and North Dakota Century Code 16.1-11-06 (2) for

holding the office of governor. In deciding against an appeal from the Libertarian candidate for

governor in 2012 (Riemers v. Jaeger), the North Dakota Supreme court wrote (emphasis added), ThAttorney General's interpretation of the mandatory constitutional requirement of N.D. Const. art. V,

3 is persuasive, and the Secretary of State correctly applied that opinion. Riemers v. Jaeger, 2013

ND 30, 827 N.W.2d 330. Mr. Bahrs statement, The Petition does not allege the current Governor o

Lieutenant Governor lack the constitutional qualifications to serve in their offices is false and his

argument in this instance completely contradicts the Attorney Generals opinion (Attorney General

Opinion 2012-L-07) and the State Supreme Courts decision in Riemers v. Jaeger.


10/21

10

Mr. Bahrs statement that the Attorney Generals opinion 2012-L-07 is materially different from the

present case is also false. The following is the pertinent part in Attorney Generals Opinion

(Attorney General Opinion 2012-L-07) which directly contradicts Mr. Bahrs argument in his

Opposition Brief in this instance (emphasis added):

However, a plain reading of N.D.C.C. 16.1-11-06(2) clearly reveals that the petition or

certificate must contain the names and other information required of candidates for both thoseoffices.

This language requires two things. First, the gubernatorial candidates certificate of

endorsement or nominating petition should have mentioned the name of a candidate for

Lieutenant Governor together with the ancillary information such as the appropriate address,

telephone number, title of office, and party (which it did not). Second, a candidate for

Lieutenant Governor would have had to file a certificate of endorsement or nominating

petition together with all the required information including certain information regarding the

candidate for Governor. This provision of the law was likewise not followed. Because, in this

instance, there was no candidate for Lieutenant Governor on the primary election ballot and

because the gubernatorial candidate for the Libertarian Party (who did appear on the primary

election ballot) did not name a running mate and other pertinent information required of

candidates for both those offices in the nominating petition or certificate of endorsement, the

Libertarian Party candidate for Governor was not nominated in accordance with North Dakota

law.

North Dakota law generally differentiates between a primary election and a general election.5

Persons properly nominated at a primary election in accordance with the provisions of

N.D.C.C. ch. 16.1-11 are eligible as candidates to be voted for at the ensuing general

election.6 However, because the gubernatorial candidate for this party was not nominated in

accordance with N.D.C.C. 16.1-11-06(2), he was not properly nominated and thus noteligible as a candidate for the ensuing November general election.


Using the Attorney Generals standard, Jack Dalrymple and Ryan Taylor were not properly

nominated as gubernatorial candidates and thus not eligible to be candidates for the November

general election since their respective certificates of endorsement or nominating petitions did not

include the name of a candidate for Lieutenant Governor. This is exactly the reason that Mr. Riemers

was removed from the 2012 Primary and General Election ballot because he did not have alieutenant governor candidate listed on his nominating certificate.

The issue of having a lieutenant governors name listed on the same Nominating Certificate is not a

'technical' noncompliance issue. The Attorney General, Mr. Bahrs boss, specifically cites a violation

N.D.C.C. 16.1-11-06(2) in Riemers v. Jaeger, because the gubernatorial candidate for this party

was not nominated in accordance with N.D.C.C. 16.1-11-06(2), he was not properly nominated and

thus not eligible as a candidate for the ensuing November general election. The Attorney General


11/21

11

sites the requirements of N.D.C.C. 16.1-11-06(2) as an essential requirement of the election process

as does this Petitioner (North Dakota Attorney General Opinion 2012-L-07)

The construct that North Dakota Constitution Article V, 3 and N.D.C.C. 16.1-11-06(2) are two

dissimilar elections laws in North Dakota is not reasonable. Article V 3 of the North Dakota

constitution is not explicitly self-executing. Mr. Dalrymple and Mr. Wrigley were not nominated in

accordance with Article V, 3 because they did not file a joint nominating certificate. They werenot properly nominated and thus not eligible as candidates for the ensuing November general

election. Clearly, the legislative intent of N.D.C.C. 16.1-11-06(2) was to implement Article V, 3

of the North Dakota constitution. It is logical to assume the legislature intended the constitutional

mandate for a joint ballot to be implemented by N.D.C.C. 16.1-11-06(2) since this is the only

election-related statute that deals with the joint ballot mandated by the state constitution for

gubernatorial elections. This is clear and reasonable logic.

This petitioner cites a number of historical cases that illustrate the consistent precedent that

candidates for elected office must follow state election laws before being placed on the ballot and

only strict enforcement of state election laws has been permitted in every case where candidates did

not fully comply, even if it restricted voters choice of candidates available on the ballot:

There is no statutory basis upon which this court may permit respondent to cure his failure to

timely file a valid acceptance It is ordered that respondent's designation is null and void

pursuant to Election Law 6-146 and the Dutches County Board of Elections is hereby

enjoined from placing respondent's name on the primary election ballot as the Conservative

Party candidate

Carpenter v. Eaglton, 2009 NY Slip Op 51708 NY:Supreme Court, Dutchess 2009

After concluding that the statutory requirements were clear and that the statute vested no

discretion in election officials, we held that the statute should be strictly enforced. Id. We

expressly stated that our holding was "grounded on the legal principle that statutory candidate

election deadlines are normally strictly enforced." Id. In view of this well-established

principle, we conclude that the Elections Division policy of permitting candidates to fill out

forms after the statutory filing deadline does not properly implement the statute. In reaching

this conclusion we note that the language in AS 15.25.040(a)(1) specifying the filing deadline

is clear, and that the statute does not vest discretion in election officials.

Falke v. State, 717 P. 2d 369 - Alaska: Supreme Court 1986.

plaintiff's petitions were insufficient to allow his certification as a candidate for nomination

for the office in question. Accordingly an order was entered denying the application for writ o

mandamus and dismissing the petition, it being indicated therein that an opinion would be

subsequently filed.


12/21

12

Keyes v. Secretary of State, 104 NW 2d 781 Mich.: Supreme Court 1960

Based on this failure to strictly comply with the mandatory statutory provisions, it was a

violation of duty for Ken Bentsen to submit Fitch's name on the List of Candidates and to

certify her name to be placed on the ballot...

Neill v. Bentsen, 824 SW 2d 744 Tex: Court of Appeals 1992

Although the incidental effect of restrictive anti-succession provisions may be a limitation on

the franchise, in a balancing test which weighs the enlargement of the franchise by

guaranteeing competitive primary *613 and general elections against the incidental

disenfranchisement of those favorably disposed to one individual, the Court must conclude

that restrictive provisions on the succession of incumbents does not frustrate but rather further

the policy of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 89 Sect. 5, 21

L.Ed.2d 24 (1968); Comment, "The Emerging Right to Candidacy in State and Local

Elections: Constitutional Protection of the Voter; The Candidate and the Political Group." 17

Wayne L. Rev. 1543 (1971).

State ex rel. Maloney v. McCartney, 223 SE 2d 607 W Va: Supreme Court of Appeals 1976

a certificate of acceptance under Election Law 6-146 (1) which contained the candidate's

signature was invalidated due to the absence of the required acknowledgement. Here, the resul

must be the same since the statute at issue requires compliance with "matters of prescribed

content" (Matter of Rhodes v Salerno, 90 AD2d 587, affd 57 NY2d 885, supra) and the

consent form lacks the signature of the substituted candidate. Accordingly, Supreme Court'sorder dismissing this proceeding upon finding the certificate invalid due to the failure of

petitioner to execute the consent form is affirmed.

Flach v. Debenedictus et al., Constitution the Greene County Board of Elections, et al., Appellate

Div. of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, 3rd Dept. Oct. 15, 1999.

Contrary to the respondents' contention that these two separate filings should be considered

together, where, as here, the matter is "of prescribed content," there must be strict compliance

with the statutory requirements (see Matter of Rhodes v Salerno, 57 NY2d 885, 887 [1982];Matter of Hutson v Bass, 54 NY2d 772, 774 [1981]; Matter of Flach v De Benedictus, 265

AD2d 670, 671 [1999]). Accordingly, the certificate of substitution filed by the Working

Families Party nominating Thompson to fill the vacancy created by Kyriacou's disqualification

must be invalidated (see Matter of Flach v De Benedictus, 265 AD2d 670 [1999]; Matter of

Farley v Mahoney, 115 AD2d 350 [1985]; Matter of Scott v Curran, 277 App Div 344, 345

[1950], affd 301 NY 693 [1950]; see also Diaz v New York City Bd. of Elections, 335 F Supp

2d 364, 366-367 [2004]).


13/21

13

Matter of Justice v. Gamache, 45 AD 3d 508 NY: Appellate Div., 2nd Dept. 2007

Based on the Respondents admitted violation of North Dakota elections laws, the current results of

the 2012 June Primary Election and the 2012 November General Election are currently invalid.

The implied claim that Mr. Dalrymple and Wrigley did not create the Certificate of Endorsement

form SFN17196 and therefore are not responsible for its lack of compliance with election law is not

an excuse for violating North Dakotas election laws. Article V of the North Dakota State

Constitution entitled EXECUTIVE BRANCH, Section 7 states (emphasis added):




It is the duty of the governor, and by extension the lieutenant governor, to ensure the states elections

laws are faithfully executed even if it requires them to re-write the nominating forms personally.

Ignorance is not an excuse for violating the law.

The Opposition Brief repeatedly asserts that the constitutional and statutory mandate for a joint

nominating certificate is a 'technicality': the will of the people will not be defeated because of the

mistake of an officer or any other technical fault. This assertion throughout the Opposition Brief is

complete contradiction to the Attorney Generals opinion which was prepared at the Secretary of

State's request and utilized in Riemers v. Jaeger:




in N.D.C.C. 16.1-11-06 requiring the naming of a gubernatorial running mate and N.D.

Const. art. V, 3 requiring joint ballots and joint candidacies for Governor and Lieutenant

Governor are essential elements of the primary and general elections since these offices are

meant to be campaigned for jointly and elected jointly. Consequently, it is necessary that these

statutory and constitutional requirements be considered as mandatory at all times.


Every citizen of North Dakota has a clear legal right to petition the court to correct violations of state

law. This Petitioner was a candidate on the 2012 November General Election ballot for governor of

North Dakota. These admitted violations of election law on the part of the Respondents have clearly

damaged this petitioner and the Respondents are at fault for depriving the voters North Dakota of a

fair election in the gubernatorial race of 2012.


14/21

14

The governor and secretary of state are responsible for the authorization and issuance of the states

gubernatorial nominating forms SFN17196. Mr. Bahr repeatedly claims that because the governor

and lieutenant governor used the authorized and approved nominating form (that was authorized,

approved, and issued by the governor and secretary of state) that the governor and the other

respondents are not guilty of violating North Dakotass election laws. This logic is not reasonable

and Mr. Bahr provides no legal basis for this assertion.

Most importantly, Mr. Bahr asserts that all candidates for governor in the 2012 elections were treated

equally. This is blatantly false. One candidate for governor, Libertarian candidate Roland Riemers,

was removed from the ballot for failing to list a lieutenant governor candidate on his nominating

certificate while two other candidates for governor, Mr. Dalrymple and Mr. Taylor, also failed to list

a lieutenant governor candidate on their nominating certificate yet they were not removed from the

ballot. The law was applied to one candidate for governor, but not the others.

Finally, Mr. Bahr claims that Form SFN17196 has been corrected and therefore these violations of

North Dakotas election laws will not happen again. This is not a remedy for the violations of

election law that occurred in the gubernatorial election of 2012. Nor is it a remedy for correcting the

current invalid election results in the 2012 gubernatorial election.

CONCLUSION

As a result of admitted violations of North Dakotas election laws, Mr. Dalrymple, Mr. Wrigley, Mr.

Taylor, and Ms. Chaffee were wrongly placed on the 2012 Primary and November General Election

Ballots.

As a result of Respondents' admitted violations of North Dakotas election laws, Mr. Dalrymple andMr. Wrigley were erroneously elected.

Mr. Dalrymple and Mr. Wrigley are not the legitimate governor and lieutenant governor of North

Dakota.

Dated this 20th day of February, 2014,

______________________________________________

Paul J. Sorum, pro sePetitioner

3501 Calypso Dr

Bismarck, ND 58504

Phone: 701-219-5601

[email protected]


15/21

15

EXHIBIT #1

Page 1 of Sorum v. Dalrymple & Jaeger Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Injunction for Relief

Jan. 4, 2013

EXHIBIT #2

ND Supreme Court Denial of Sorum v. Dalrymple & Jaeger Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or

Injunction for Relief Jan. 4, 2013

EXHIBIT #3

Ryan Taylor 2012 Certificate of Endorsement form SFN 17196 (11-09)

EXHIBIT #4

Ellen Chaffee 2012 Certificate of Endorsement form SFN 17196 (11-09)

EXHIBIT #5

Jack Dalrymple 2012 Certificate of Endorsement form SFN 17196 (11-09)

EXHIBIT #6

Drew Wrigley 2012 Certificate of Endorsement form SFN 17196 (11-09)


16/21

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

Paul J. Sorum )

Petitioner ))

vs. ))

Jack Dalrymple, Governor of North Dakota )

and )Al Jaeger, North Dakota Secretary of State )

)

Respondents )

PETITION TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA FOR JURISDICTION TOGRANT RELIEF PURSUANT TO:

WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND/OR INJUNCTION FOR RELIEF

I, Paul J. Sorum, the above named Petitioner, am a citizen of the State of North Dakota and an

independent candidate for governor in the November 2012 general election, I hereby petition the

Supreme Court of North Dakota in the exercise of the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction forrelief in the form of a Writ of Mandamus and/or Injunctive Relief with the court immediatelyissuing either a preemptory injunction/order/writ against Respondent Jack Dalrymple, Governor of

North Dakota, and Respondent Al Jaeger, North Dakota Secretary of State for the following relief:

1. Issuance of an order compelling Governor Jack Dalrymple to fulfill his Constitutional mandateto faithfully execute North Dakota election law codified inN.D.C.C. Title 16.1 with respect to

the 2012 June Primary Election, and the 2012 November General Election.

2. Issuance of an order compelling Secretary of State Al Jaeger to fulfill his Constitutional

mandate to faithfully execute and enforce North Dakotas election laws, specifically by

removing the Republican and Democratic candidates for Governor, Jack Dalrymple and RyanTaylor, from the November 6, 2012 General Election ballot and/or by declaring their

nominations and/or election to be null upon the grounds that these gubernatorial candidates did

not list and include their respective Lieutenant Governor candidates on the same certificate ofendorsement form as is required byN.D.C.C. 16.1-11-06 (2), which provisions state asfollows: If the petition or certificate of endorsement is for the office of governor or lieutenant

governor, the petition or certificate must contain the names and other information required of

candidates for both those offices.

EXHIBIT #1


17/21

IN T H E S U PR E M E URTSTATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

OR ER OF E NI L

Supreme Court No. 20130001

Paul SorumJack Dalrymple Governor ofNorth Dakota and lJaegerNorth Dakota Secretary of State

Pe t i t i oner

Respondents

On January 4 2013 a Petition to the Supreme Court for Jurisdiction to Grant ReliefPursuant to: Writ of Mandamus and/or Injunction for Relief was filed regarding the 2012 JunePrimary Election and the 2 12 General Election for Governor and Lieutenant Governor. The Courtconsidered the matter and

ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Injunction for Relief isDENIED

The Supreme Court of the State ofNorth Dakota convened the t day of January 2 13with the Honorable Gerald W. VandeWalle ChiefJustice and the Honorable Dale V. Sandstromthe Honorable Mary Muchlen Maring the Honorable Carol Ronning Kapsner and the HonorableDaniel J. Crothers Justices directing the Clerk of the Supreme Court to enter the above order.

Penny MillerClerkNorth Dakota Supreme Court

EXHIBIT #2


18/21

EXHIBIT 3


19/21

EXHIBIT 4


20/21

EXHIBIT 5


21/21

EXHIBIT 6

sorum response to bahr

Documents