Court Opinion

ID: 9674985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:38:26.927349+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:30.456685
License: Public Domain

PEDERSON, Justice,
dissenting.
Although I agree with most of what Justice Sand has written for the majority of this court, I believe that the doctrine of excusable neglect should not be applied and accordingly I disagree with the results reached. Not only do I believe that excusable neglect has no place in cases involving constitutional law, in this case the conduct more clearly fits the definition of defiance rather than innocence.
The first Haugland opinion clearly left a “bright line” standard for review of the form of petitions — approve no extraneous matters. It ought to be obvious that communications between the committee and the secretary of state are extraneous to the subject matter of a referral petition. The Attorney General advised the secretary of state appropriately. There is no excusable neglect involved. Justification for “Sunburst” type treatment is absent. Injustice is not avoided by the prospective application. See Kitto v. Minot Park District, 224 N.W.2d 795, 804 (N.D.1974).
If there is to be a court test of the form of the petition, let it be between the committee and the secretary of state. That can ordinarily occur only if the secretary rejects all extraneous material.