North Dakota Supreme Court Denies Effort to Overturn Potential Wins of 4 Legislative Candidates
The North Dakota Supreme Court on Wednesday denied an effort by GOP officials to overturn potential election victories of four legislative candidates whose paperwork they challenged, saying the court case came too late. The three challengers filed a petition with the court asking the seats be declared vacant and filled by appointment should any of the four challenged candidates win.
Two of the challengers lost their primaries to three of the candidates they allege are ineligible due to primary paperwork errors they said Secretary of State Michael Howe’s office wrongly allowed to be corrected without the original petition signers’ consent. The challengers were District 25 GOP Chair Matt Evans, Rep. Jeff Hoverson, R-Minot, and District 7 GOP executive committee member Douglas Pearson. They challenged the eligibility of candidates Blaine DesLauriers and Tim Mihalick of Minot-area District 3, Steve Sauter in Bismarck-area District 7 and Terry Goerger in Richland County’s District 25. Appointments would have favored Evans and Hoverson, who lost their primaries to Goerger, DesLauriers and Mihalick.
In the court’s unanimous opinion, Justice Mark Friese said the challengers filed their court case a month after the Aug. 31 deadline for candidates to correct their nominating petitions. The timing of the challengers’ case “disrupts an ongoing election, potentially confusing voters,” he said. Friese said the challengers by their own account knew of the paperwork problems they alleged in late July.
Citizens Alliance of North Dakota Executive Director Brandon Prichard asked Secretary of State Michael Howe to investigate and reject the candidates’ petition signatures. In late August, Howe told him state law allows corrections to candidate filings, according to emails in court papers.
North Dakota Supreme Court justices asked why they should upend voters’ will in candidacy dispute Had the challengers pursued their case “with the diligence the statutory timeline required, any insufficiency could have been met with notice and an opportunity to correct,” Friese wrote. “Instead, (the challengers) ask this Court to declare the petitions insufficient when no correction is possible, an inequitable and harsher result than the statute they invoke contemplates, and after the voters in the affected districts have selected their preferred candidates.”
The court heard arguments last week, during which justices asked about the timing of the challengers’ case and how they could possibly overturn the will of voters. The challengers filed their petition with the court days after absentee voting began for North Dakota’s Nov. 3 general election.
The case showed the divide in the state’s dominant Republican Party over how candidates opt to get on the June primary ballot, by GOP endorsement or with petition signatures. Prichard said he respects the court and the justices, but called the decision “odd” and “convenient.” He said he believes the court erred in its reasoning because it applied state law in challenging petitions with a different statute that deals with correcting petitions.
“I think that this is just one that got away from them, respectfully,” said Prichard, a law student and former lawmaker. “I think the decision of the court is going to create a really bad precedent of limiting when challenges can be brought.”
In a text message statement, Howe said he appreciates the court “seeing this effort to thwart the votes of thousands of North Dakotans for what it is. Elections are decided at the ballot box, not in a courtroom. Our office and excellent staff for decades has been consistent in applying the law and processing candidate paperwork.” Sauter called the opinion “the
Liberty and accountability
Election eligibility disputes should be decided under rules established in advance, with reasonable notice and the ability to contest adverse decisions. A court ruling may settle a legal challenge without proving that all campaign procedures were ideal. Libertarians favor fair ballot access and oppose procedural tactics that disqualify otherwise eligible candidates for partisan gain. Election integrity requires accurate administration and equal treatment rather than changing standards when unexpected candidates appear likely to win.