UPDATE: The North Dakota Supreme Court is currently deliberating a critical case concerning the Cross Ranch legislation, as arguments unfolded today, October 19, 1979. The case stems from a controversial decision by Secretary of State Ben Meier to reject signatures on a petition intended to refer the Cross Ranch issue to state voters. This hearing could significantly impact the future of the $2.6 million allocated to add the 10,000-acre Cross Ranch to the state park system.
During the session, attorney Patrick Conmy passionately questioned the validity of Meier’s rejection, which was based on the claim that petition signatures lacked “full post office addresses.” Conmy represents Robert P. McCarney, a retired businessman who spearheaded the petition drive. The requirement to provide complete postal addresses, particularly for residents in larger cities like Bismarck and Fargo, is at the heart of the dispute.
Conmy argued that many petitioners only listed their cities, which he believes should suffice as legal addresses. “What in the hell is a post office address?” he asked the justices. He highlighted that an approved sample petition had previously allowed such listings, raising questions about the consistency and fairness of Meier’s actions.
In a dramatic turn, Conmy revealed that Meier had sent out 360 postcards to petitioners who failed to provide specific addresses, but a staggering 290 were returned due to insufficient addressing. This raises serious concerns about the process used to validate signatures and whether the standard for what constitutes a valid address is overly stringent.
Assistant Attorney General Murray G. Sagsveen defended Meier’s actions, stating that residents in larger cities must provide more than just their city names to receive mail. He emphasized that the majority of petition signers did not include their post office addresses, leading to the decision to reject the signatures. This interpretation of the law could set a precedent impacting future petition drives across the state.
As the justices take this case under advisement, the implications of their ruling could resonate far beyond the immediate issue at hand. A decision in favor of McCarney could mean that the Cross Ranch legislation goes to a public vote, fundamentally changing North Dakota’s park system.
This case encapsulates a pivotal moment in North Dakota’s legal landscape, highlighting the tensions between legislative actions and public voice. As the situation develops, all eyes are on the Supreme Court, with many anxious to see how this ruling will shape the future of citizen-led initiatives in the state.
Stay tuned for updates as this urgent legal battle unfolds.
