STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA COUNTY OF BURLEIGH

Paul J. Sorum Petitioner vs.

IN DISTRICT COURT SOUTH CENTRAL JUDICIAL DISTRICT

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

Jack Dalrymple, Governor of North Dakota Drew Wrigley, Lt. Governor of North Dakota Ryan Taylor, 2012 Dem. Candidate for Governor of ND Ellen Chaffee, 2012 Dem. Candidate for Lt. Governor of ND Al Jaeger, North Dakota Secretary of State Respondents

RESPONSE TO BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

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, 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. (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 implying they 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 he knew 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-L07)

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
2

of an action which violates existing law, and ignorance of the law will not excuse. ShevlinCarpenter 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 with N.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 November General 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 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

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
3

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 for the offices. The returns of the election for governor and lieutenant governor must be made in the manner prescribed by law. North Dakota Constitution Article V, 3

N.D.C.C. 16.1-11-06 (2), provisions state as follows: 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. (emphasis added) This language is clear and unambiguous, and the intent thereof is obvious and understandable. The use of 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
4

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 not performed 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. Mini 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 Dakotas 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
5

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-L07) 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-L07. 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 of candidates 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 for governor.
6

Mr. Bahr, without any basis, asserts that this Petitioner did not file his Petition until January 22, 2014, more than a year after the General Election and This Petitioner did file a shorter version of his Petition to the North Dakota Supreme Court on January 4, 2013. This Petitioner was denied access to the court. See the attached Exhibit #1 and #2. In his Opposition Brief, Mr. Bahr states that, the statutorily required information was submitted to the Secretary of States office and available to the public, meaning the purpose of the law was served. This is a complete contradiction with his bosses opinion. In North Dakota Attorney General Opinion 2012-L-07, the Attorney General does not qualify his opinion stating that partial or substantial compliance with our states election laws are to be considered adequate. Nor is there a provision in his opinion for preserving votes that have already been cast. The Attorney General concludes that: 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. (emphasis added) N.D. Attorney General Opinion 2012-L-07

In response to Mr. Bahrs assertion that this Petition would not promote the purposes of the election laws, while defeating the freely an intelligently expressed will of the people, this petitioner repeats the precedent of Burdick v. Takushi in the U.S. Supreme Court where U.S. Supreme Court Justice White states (emphasis added): the mere fact that a States system creates barriers . . . tending to limit the field of candidates from which voters might choose . . . does not of itself compel close scrutiny. Bullock v. Carter, 405 434*434 U. S. 134, 143 (1972); Anderson, supra, at 788;McDonald v. Board of Election Commrs of Chicago, 394 U. S. 802 (1969). It seems to us that limiting the choice of candidates to those who have complied with state election law requirements is the prototypical example of a regulation that, while it affects the right to vote, is eminently reasonable. Anderson, supra, at 788. The dissent's suggestion that voters are entitled to cast their ballots for unqualified candidates appears to be driven by the assumption that an election system that imposes any restraint on voter choice is unconstitutional. This is simply wrong. See Supra, at 433-434. BURDICK v. TAKUSHI 504 U.S. 428 (1992), DIRECTOR OF ELECTIONS OF HAWAII, et al. No. 91-535.

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. North Dakota Attorney General Opinion 2012-L-07

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 Grand Forks, 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

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's argument in this instance. It is worth repeating here (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 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 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. North Dakota Attorney General Opinion 2012-L-07

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), 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. Riemers v. Jaeger, 2013 ND 30, 827 N.W.2d 330. Mr. Bahrs statement, The Petition does not allege the current Governor or 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.

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 those offices. 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 not eligible as a candidate for the ensuing November general election. North Dakota Attorney General Opinion 2012-L-07

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 a lieutenant 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
10

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 were not 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 of mandamus and dismissing the petition, it being indicated therein that an opinion would be subsequently filed.

11

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 furthers 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 result 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's order 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]).
12

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): 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

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 a complete contradiction to the Attorney Generals opinion which was prepared at the Secretary of State's request and utilized in Riemers v. Jaeger: 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 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

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.
13

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 and Mr. 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 se Petitioner

3501 Calypso Dr Bismarck, ND 58504 Phone: 701-219-5601 paul.sorum61@gmail.com

14

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)

15

EXHIBIT #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 TO GRANT 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 for relief in the form of a Writ of Mandamus and/or Injunctive Relief with the court immediately issuing 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 mandate to faithfully execute North Dakota election law codified in N.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 Ryan Taylor, 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 of endorsement form as is required by N.D.C.C. 16.1-11-06 (2), which provisions state as follows: 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 #2
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA ORDER OF DENIAL

Supreme Court No. 20130001

Paul J. Sorum,
v.

Petitioner

Jack Dalrymple, Governor of North Dakota, and Al Jaeger, North Dakota Secretary of State,

Respondents

On January 4, 2013, a "Petition to the Supreme Court for Jurisdiction to Grant Relief Pursuant to: Writ of Mandamus and/or Injunction for Relief was filed regarding the 2012 June
Primary Election and the 2012 General Election for Governor and Lieutenant Governor. The Court considered the matter, and

ORDERED, that the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Injunction for Relief is
DENIED.

The Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota convened the 9th day of January, 2013,
with the Honorable Gerald W. VandeWalle, Chief Justice, and the Honorable Dale V. Sandstrom,

the Honorable Mary Muchlen Maring, the Honorable Carol Ronning Kapsner and the Honorable Daniel J. Crothers, Justices, directing the Clerk of the Supreme Court to enter the above order.

Penny Miller
Clerk

North Dakota Supreme Court

EXHIBIT 3

EXHIBIT 4

EXHIBIT 5

EXHIBIT 6