Measure #2, to be found this November on the North Dakota ballot, is a citizen sponsored initiative that would effectively ban hunting behind fences. North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase is the organization behind the initiative. This is also their second attempt at such a voter measure. The previous attempt failed due to a lack of signatures on a petition in 2008.
Measure #2 on this November’s ballot will read as follows:
Initiated Statutory Measure No. 2
SECTION 1. A new section to chapter 36-01 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows:
Fee killing of certain captive game animals prohibited – Penalty – Exception. A person is guilty of a class A
misdemeanor if the person obtains fees or other remuneration from another person for the killing or attempted killing of privately-owned big game species or exotic mammals confined in or released from any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape. This section does not apply to the actions of a government employee or agent to control an animal population, to prevent or control diseases, or when
government action is otherwise required or authorized by law.
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Act becomes effective on November 1, 2012.
YES – Means you approve the measure as stated above.
NO – Means you reject the measure as stated above.
Unfortunately for the voters, it seems that some voters discovered after they had signed the petition it wasn’t exactly what they believed, according to what was written on the petition, they were signing. It is ultimately the responsibility of anyone to know what they are signing, but unless you are completely aware of all the existing statutes, etc., voters ultimately must rely on what is written on a petition as at least being accurate. After all, it is approved by the Secretary of State. And herein is the rub.
For clarity’s sake, let’s go back to the first petition submitted to the North Dakota Secretary of State’s office for approval in Aug. 2007. That entire petition can be viewed at this link.
The latest petition was submitted to and approved by the Secretary of State on August 21, 2009. The entire text of that petition can be found at this link.
Mind you that essentially the two petitions are identical with the exception of language that explains to the person signing the petition about what the proposed new law is. In 2007 the instructions to the signatory read:
IF MATERIAL IS UNDERSCORED, IT IS NEW MATERIAL WHICH IS BEING ADDED. IF THE MATERIAL IS OVERSTRUCK BY DASHES, THE MATERIAL IS BEING DELETED. IF NO MATERIAL IS UNDERSCORED OR OVERSTRUCK, THE MEASURE CONTAINS ALL NEW MATERIAL WHICH IS BEING ADDED.
For the record, this explanation is correct. The approved petition for 2009 has a similar explanation and format of the proposed bill but the wording is incorrect. Here’s how it reads:
IF MATERIAL IS UNDERSCORED, IT IS NEW MATERIAL WHICH IS BEING ADDED. IF THE MATERIAL IS OVERSTRUCK BY DASHES, THE MATERIAL IS BEING DELETED. IF MATERIAL IS NOT UNDERSCORED OR OVERSTRUCK, THE MATERIAL IS EXISTING LAW THAT IS NOT BEING CHANGED.
I emboldened the last sentence as it shows distinctly language that is in error. This isn’t simply a typo. This is language that leads any person wanting to sign this petition as believing what is written is already existing law.
Article III, Section 2 of the North Dakota Constitution reads:
Section 2. A petition to initiate or to refer a measure shall be presented to the secretary of state for approval as to form. A request for approval shall be presented over the names and signatures of twenty-five or more electors as sponsors, one of whom shall be designated as chairman of the sponsoring committee. The secretary of state shall approve the petition for circulation if it is in proper form and contains the names and addresses of the sponsors and the full text of the measure.
What is clear is that the Secretary of State’s office must approve the petition “as to form”. Just what precisely does that mean? We know that, among other things, the petitioners must provide at least 25 legal “electors” to circulate and attest to the signatures contained on a petition. Does the SOS also verify the text contained on the petition? It would appear to me that SOS must approve a petition to be accurately written as well as “to form”. If not, this leaves the door open to fraud and deceit.
Now voters are left wondering whether the Secretary of State’s office knowingly and/or irresponsibly allowed a petition to be circulated that was incorrect, if not illegal, or both. Or, that the petitioners knew they could get away with changing the wording if they thought it would help their cause. This adds all sorts of confusion to exactly what Measure #2 is.
All that I am able to verify is that the wording on the petition approved by the Secretary of State, is incorrect and overly misleading to anyone who would read it. Have we now gotten to the point where we can’t even trust that a simple petition is accurate and legal?
The campaigning that will be behind this initiative will be emotional and heated. Compound that with the fact that a petition that passed with a minimum number of signatures, and voters are left with a bitter taste in their mouths about this whole thing.
The voters will ultimately decide. Unfortunately, the voter loses.
Tom Remington
