North Dakota Supreme Court Hears Urgent Cross Ranch Case Today

UPDATE: The North Dakota Supreme Court held a critical hearing today, October 19, 1979, regarding the fate of the Cross Ranch legislation, which could impact how state voters engage with significant legal petitions. This urgent case centers on the rejection of signatures due to insufficient address details, raising questions that could affect future petition drives across the state.

During the hearing at the Baker Moot Courtroom at the University of North Dakota Law School, attorney Patrick Conmy passionately challenged the decision of Secretary of State Ben Meier to reject signatures on the petition. Conmy represented Robert P. McCarney, a retired businessman and political activist, who initiated the petition drive to refer the Cross Ranch issue to voters. The legislation, which allocated $2.6 million in Vietnam veterans’ bonus funds to incorporate the 10,000-acre Cross Ranch into North Dakota’s state park system, requires a minimum of 12,356 signatures to proceed.

The core of the dispute lies in the definition of a “post office address.” Conmy argued that the rejection of signatures from larger cities like Bismarck, Fargo, and Grand Forks for simply listing the city name is unjust. He contended that the Secretary of State’s office had previously approved a sample petition that only listed a city name, raising concerns about inconsistent application of the law.

Conmy’s poignant question, “What in the hell is a post office address?” highlighted the confusion surrounding this legal requirement. He pointed out that many residents may use different forms of addresses, such as street addresses or P.O. boxes, and argued that it is unreasonable to expect the Secretary of State to determine the legality of an address based solely on its format.

Assistant Attorney General Murray G. Sagsveen, representing Meier, countered that residents of larger cities typically need more specific address details to receive their mail. He noted that of the 360 postcards sent to petitioners from larger cities with insufficient addresses, 290 were returned due to address issues, further complicating the matter.

The justices, after hearing the arguments, have taken the case under advisement, leaving participants and supporters of the petition drive anxiously awaiting their decision. The outcome of this case could set a significant precedent for how future petition drives are conducted in North Dakota.

As this story develops, the implications for voter engagement and legal standards surrounding petition requirements remain critical. Local residents and political activists are watching closely, as the decision could reshape the landscape of citizen-led initiatives in the state.

Stay tuned for updates on this urgent case that could affect thousands of voters in North Dakota.