The scenario describes a situation involving the recall of a state senator in North Dakota. The North Dakota Constitution, specifically Article III, Section 1, outlines the process for initiating a recall petition. A recall petition requires signatures from at least 25% of the total votes cast for the office in the preceding general election for that office. For a state senator, this percentage is applied to the votes cast for that specific senatorial district’s representative. The question requires understanding this constitutional threshold. If a state senator received 15,000 votes in the last election, the minimum number of signatures required for a recall petition would be 25% of that total. Calculation: \(0.25 \times 15,000 = 3,750\). Therefore, 3,750 valid signatures are necessary to initiate the recall process. This constitutional provision ensures that a significant portion of the electorate supports the recall effort before it can proceed, balancing the democratic right of citizens to recall elected officials with the need for stability in governance. The process also involves verification of signatures by the appropriate election officials to ensure they are from registered voters within the district.

The scenario involves a North Dakota county auditor reviewing a petition for a local ballot initiative concerning zoning regulations. The petition contains 1,200 valid signatures. North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) § 16.1-11-01 specifies that for a local initiative to qualify for the ballot, it must be signed by at least 5% of the total number of votes cast for Governor in the last preceding general election in that county. In this particular county, 20,000 votes were cast for Governor in the last election. To determine if the petition meets the signature requirement, we calculate 5% of the total votes cast for Governor: \(0.05 \times 20,000 \text{ votes} = 1,000 \text{ votes}\) The petition requires at least 1,000 valid signatures. The auditor found 1,200 valid signatures. Since 1,200 is greater than 1,000, the petition meets the minimum signature requirement. This question tests understanding of North Dakota’s initiative and referendum laws at the local level, specifically the signature threshold for ballot access. It requires applying a percentage calculation to a specific legal requirement outlined in the North Dakota Century Code. The concept of “last preceding general election” is crucial for determining the baseline number of signatures needed. The auditor’s role is to verify if the submitted signatures meet this statutory threshold. Understanding the interplay between the number of signatures submitted and the legal requirement, as defined by state statute for local measures, is key to correctly assessing the petition’s validity.

North Dakota’s election laws, specifically regarding the process for initiating a ballot measure, are governed by statutes that outline specific requirements for petition circulation and submission. For a proposed law or constitutional amendment to be placed on the ballot via initiative, proponents must gather signatures from a percentage of eligible electors. The North Dakota Constitution, Article III, Section 1, and North Dakota Century Code Chapter 16.1-14 delineate these requirements. Specifically, for a measure to qualify for the ballot, signatures from at least five percent of the eligible electors who voted in the preceding general election are required. This percentage is calculated based on the total number of votes cast for the office of Governor in that election. If the measure proposes a constitutional amendment, the signature requirement increases to ten percent. The petitions must also be filed with the Secretary of State within a specified timeframe after the measure is officially filed with the Secretary of State. The circulation period for gathering signatures is typically a defined number of days. The Secretary of State then reviews the petitions for sufficiency. In this scenario, the total votes for Governor in the preceding general election were 350,000. For a proposed law, the required signatures are 5% of this total. Calculation: \(0.05 \times 350,000 = 17,500\). Therefore, 17,500 valid signatures are needed.

The scenario describes a situation where a North Dakota resident, Ms. Anya Sharma, wishes to contest the outcome of a local election for county auditor. North Dakota law, specifically Chapter 16.1-16 of the North Dakota Century Code, governs election contests. This chapter outlines the grounds upon which an election can be contested and the procedures to be followed. The grounds for contesting an election generally include irregularities in the election process, improper conduct by election officials, or a belief that the declared winner did not receive the lawful number of votes. To initiate a contest, a petition must be filed within a specified timeframe, typically within thirty days after the election results are canvassed or declared. The petition must be filed with the district court and must specify the grounds for the contest and the relief sought. The court then proceeds to hear the evidence presented by both parties. In this case, Ms. Sharma believes there were significant procedural errors that affected the outcome. The question probes the legal avenue available to her under North Dakota election law for challenging the results. The correct legal mechanism for such a challenge is an election contest filed in the appropriate district court. Other options, such as a recount initiated by the candidate without demonstrating specific grounds for a broader contest, or a petition for a new election without meeting the statutory requirements for fraud or widespread irregularity, are not the primary or most direct legal recourse for challenging the validity of the vote count and process in this manner. A judicial review of administrative decisions typically applies to agency actions, not directly to election outcome disputes which have their own specific statutory procedures.

The scenario involves a county auditor in North Dakota who is responsible for overseeing election processes. A recent legislative change in North Dakota, specifically referencing the intent of laws like North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) Chapter 16.1-05 concerning election officials and their duties, aims to ensure the integrity and efficiency of elections. When a new statute is enacted that modifies the responsibilities of election officials, such as requiring enhanced verification procedures for absentee ballots, the auditor must adapt their operational protocols. This adaptation involves understanding the scope and application of the new law. The auditor’s role is to implement these directives to maintain public trust and ensure compliance with state election law. The core principle here is the statutory authority granted to and the responsibilities placed upon election officials by the North Dakota Legislative Assembly to conduct elections according to established legal frameworks. The auditor’s actions are guided by the legislative intent to uphold democratic principles through accurate and fair election administration. The auditor’s duty is to interpret and apply the newly enacted legislation to the existing election procedures. This necessitates a thorough review of the statutory language and any accompanying administrative rules or guidance issued by the North Dakota Secretary of State, who is the chief election official for the state. The auditor’s primary obligation is to ensure that the county’s election administration aligns with the legislative mandate, thereby safeguarding the electoral process. The question tests the understanding of how legislative changes directly impact the operational duties of local election administrators in North Dakota. The auditor’s proactive engagement with new legislation is crucial for successful election implementation.

North Dakota law, specifically under North Dakota Century Code Chapter 16.1-03 concerning election offenses, outlines penalties for various infringements upon the democratic process. This chapter details offenses related to voter registration, absentee voting, and the conduct of elections. For instance, knowingly making a false statement in a voter registration application or providing false information to obtain an absentee ballot constitutes a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to \$1,000 or imprisonment for up to 30 days, or both, as stipulated by NDCC § 16.1-03-01 and § 16.1-03-02. Similarly, interfering with the casting of a ballot, as described in NDCC § 16.1-03-03, can also result in similar misdemeanor penalties. The intent behind these statutes is to ensure the integrity and fairness of elections by deterring fraudulent activities and protecting the sanctity of the vote. The application of these laws requires proof of intent, meaning the individual must have knowingly or willfully committed the prohibited act. Therefore, a person who unintentionally provides incorrect information on a voter registration form, without any intent to deceive or gain an unfair advantage, would not typically be subject to prosecution under these specific misdemeanor provisions, though corrections would still be required.

The scenario presented involves a potential violation of North Dakota’s campaign finance disclosure laws, specifically concerning the reporting of independent expenditures made to influence elections. North Dakota law, under Chapter 16.1-08, mandates that individuals or groups making certain expenditures to influence the outcome of an election must disclose these activities. The critical element here is the timing and nature of the expenditure. When an expenditure is made to expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, and it is made within a specific timeframe before an election (often defined by statute, though not explicitly calculated here, the intent is clear), disclosure requirements are triggered. The threshold for disclosure is also a key factor, but the question focuses on the act of making such expenditures without the required reporting. The penalty for failing to comply with these disclosure provisions can include fines, as stipulated in North Dakota Century Code sections related to election offenses. Therefore, the correct action for the county auditor would be to initiate a process that could lead to penalties for the violation of these disclosure mandates.

North Dakota Century Code Chapter 16.1-13 governs the process of recounts and contests in elections. Specifically, Section 16.1-13-02 outlines the grounds for contesting an election. A contest can be initiated if the candidate believes there was fraud or malconduct in the election, or if the election was not conducted according to law. The question pertains to the threshold for initiating a recount in North Dakota, which is detailed in Section 16.1-13-01. This section specifies that a recount can be requested if the margin of victory between the leading candidate and the next highest candidate is less than one-half of one percent of the total votes cast for those two candidates. For instance, if Candidate A received 10,000 votes and Candidate B received 9,950 votes, the total votes cast for these two candidates would be \(10,000 + 9,950 = 19,950\). The margin of victory is \(10,000 – 9,950 = 50\) votes. One-half of one percent of the total votes cast for these two candidates is \(0.005 \times 19,950 = 99.75\) votes. Since the margin of victory (50 votes) is less than 99.75 votes, a recount would be permissible under North Dakota law. If, however, Candidate B had received 9,900 votes, the margin would be 100 votes, which is not less than 99.75, and a recount would not be automatically triggered by this threshold. The explanation focuses on the legal standard for a recount, emphasizing the percentage-based margin of victory as defined in North Dakota law.

The scenario describes a situation where a candidate for state representative in North Dakota wishes to run as an independent. North Dakota law, specifically concerning election procedures and ballot access for independent candidates, dictates the requirements for qualifying for the general election ballot. North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) § 16.1-11-06 outlines the process for independent candidates, requiring a petition signed by a certain number of qualified electors. The number of signatures required is a percentage of the votes cast in the preceding general election for the office sought. For a statewide office, this percentage is typically 1% of the total votes cast for the office of Governor in the last preceding general election. Assuming the last gubernatorial election in North Dakota saw 300,000 votes cast for Governor, the required number of signatures would be 1% of 300,000, which is 3,000 signatures. The law also specifies the timeframe for submitting these petitions, usually by a date preceding the primary election. The explanation focuses on the statutory requirement for independent candidates to gather a specified number of signatures from qualified electors within a defined period to appear on the general election ballot. This process is a fundamental aspect of ballot access in North Dakota, ensuring that candidates demonstrate a modicum of public support before being officially listed. The calculation of the required signatures is based on a percentage of votes from a prior election for a specific office, as stipulated by state law. The explanation highlights the importance of adhering to these statutory requirements for a candidate to be legally placed on the ballot.

In North Dakota, the process of initiating a new law through the citizen initiative is governed by specific constitutional and statutory provisions. Article III, Section 1 of the North Dakota Constitution outlines the people’s right to initiate legislation. To successfully place an initiative measure on the ballot, proponents must gather a requisite number of signatures from registered electors. North Dakota law specifies that for a legislative initiative, signatures equal to at least five percent of the total votes cast for governor at the preceding general election are required. For a constitutional amendment initiative, the threshold is ten percent. The signature-gathering period is also limited. Signatures must be collected within a 12-month period, and the petition must be filed with the Secretary of State at least 120 days before the next general election at which the measure could be voted upon. The Secretary of State then reviews the petition for compliance with legal requirements, including the number and validity of signatures. If the petition meets these criteria, the measure is placed on the ballot for voter consideration. The calculation for the required number of signatures is based on the total votes cast for governor in the most recent gubernatorial election preceding the filing of the initiative petition. For instance, if the total votes cast for governor in the 2022 election were 300,000, then for a legislative initiative, 5% of 300,000 would be 15,000 valid signatures. For a constitutional amendment, 10% would be 30,000 valid signatures. These figures are crucial for understanding the practicalities of direct democracy in North Dakota. The law aims to balance the right of citizens to propose laws with the need for a broad base of support to ensure measures are not the product of narrow special interests. The clarity of the petition language and the process for verifying signatures are also important aspects of this democratic mechanism.

The scenario describes a situation where a proposed amendment to the North Dakota Constitution is being debated. The question probes the understanding of the specific threshold required for a constitutional amendment initiated by petition to be placed on the ballot for voter consideration in North Dakota. According to North Dakota law, specifically North Dakota Century Code § 16.1-14-01, an initiated measure must be signed by a number of qualified electors equal to at least five percent of the total number of votes cast for Governor at the preceding general election. To determine the number of signatures required, we need to know the total votes cast for Governor in the most recent preceding general election. Assuming, for the purpose of this question, that the total votes cast for Governor in the preceding general election was 300,000, the calculation would be: \(0.05 \times 300,000 = 15,000\). Therefore, 15,000 signatures are required. This process ensures that initiated measures have broad support from the electorate before they are presented for a statewide vote, reflecting a core principle of direct democracy within the state’s legal framework. Understanding this signature requirement is crucial for comprehending the practical application of citizen-initiated legislation in North Dakota.

The scenario involves a local initiative petition in North Dakota that aims to amend a specific county ordinance. The North Dakota Century Code, specifically Chapter 16.1-16, governs the process for initiative and referendum petitions. For a county initiative petition to be placed on the ballot, it requires signatures from a percentage of registered voters within that county. The threshold is generally 15% of the total votes cast for the office of Governor in the last preceding general election in that county. Assuming the last gubernatorial election in the county saw 10,000 votes cast for Governor, the required number of valid signatures would be 15% of 10,000. Calculation: \(10,000 \text{ votes} \times 0.15 = 1,500 \text{ signatures}\) Therefore, 1,500 valid signatures are needed. The explanation focuses on the legal basis for this requirement in North Dakota, referencing the relevant chapter of the North Dakota Century Code and the specific percentage needed. It highlights that the petition must demonstrate sufficient public support to warrant consideration by the electorate. The process involves not only gathering signatures but also ensuring their validity, which includes verifying that the signers are registered voters in the affected county. The underlying principle is to ensure that only proposals with substantial backing from the citizenry are brought to a public vote, thereby preventing frivolous or overly narrow interests from consuming public resources and potentially disrupting governance. This mechanism is a cornerstone of direct democracy, allowing citizens to propose and vote on laws or ordinances directly, bypassing legislative bodies if necessary. The specific percentage is designed to strike a balance between facilitating citizen participation and ensuring that initiatives have broad-based support.

The scenario describes a situation where a proposed initiative petition in North Dakota seeks to alter the composition and appointment process of the State Water Commission. North Dakota’s constitution and statutes govern the process for initiating and amending laws through popular vote. Specifically, Article III of the North Dakota Constitution and North Dakota Century Code Chapter 16.1-16 outline the requirements for initiative and referendum petitions. For an initiative petition to be placed on the ballot, it must secure a sufficient number of valid signatures from registered electors. The law specifies a percentage of the total votes cast for governor in the preceding general election as the threshold. If the petition meets these signature requirements and is otherwise legally sufficient, it is then presented to the electorate for a vote. The question focuses on the legal mechanism for enacting such a change, which is through the initiative process as established by North Dakota law, allowing citizens to propose and vote on new laws or constitutional amendments directly. The State Water Commission’s structure is a matter of state law, and changes to it can be proposed via initiative, provided all procedural requirements are met. Therefore, the correct pathway for implementing the proposed changes to the State Water Commission is through the successful passage of the initiative petition by the voters of North Dakota.

North Dakota Century Code § 16.1-05-03 outlines the requirements for absentee voting by mail. This statute specifies that an elector who expects to be absent from their precinct on election day, or who is unable to vote in person due to illness or disability, may apply for an absentee ballot. The application must be in writing and can be submitted by mail, fax, or electronically if the county auditor’s office provides for such submission. Upon receiving a valid application, the county auditor is responsible for mailing the absentee ballot and accompanying materials to the applicant. The law further details the process for returning the ballot, which must be received by the county auditor no later than the close of polls on election day. It also specifies the requirements for the absentee ballot envelope, including the voter’s signature and affirmation, which are crucial for validating the ballot. The question tests the understanding of the statutory basis and procedural requirements for absentee voting by mail in North Dakota, specifically focusing on the application and return timelines as governed by state law.

The question concerns the process of initiating a statutory initiative in North Dakota, specifically focusing on the signature requirements and the timing of petition circulation. North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) § 16.1-14-01 outlines the requirements for statutory initiatives. For an initiative to be placed on the ballot, it requires signatures from at least five percent of the registered voters in the state, based on the total number of votes cast for the office of governor at the most recent gubernatorial election. Furthermore, NDCC § 16.1-14-03 mandates that the petition must be signed by registered electors from at least twenty percent of the counties in North Dakota. The circulation period for a statutory initiative petition begins on the date the first signature is obtained and ends 120 days thereafter. Therefore, if a petition begins circulation on April 1st, the last day for valid signatures to be collected is July 30th of the same year, which is 120 days after April 1st. This means that signatures collected after July 30th would not be valid for inclusion on the ballot for the upcoming general election if the deadline for submission is typically in early August. The question tests the understanding of the statutory time limit for circulating a petition.

In North Dakota, the process for challenging election results is governed by specific statutes. When a candidate or their representative believes there were irregularities or fraud that could have affected the outcome, they can initiate a contest. The relevant statute is North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) Chapter 16.1-16, “Contesting Elections.” Specifically, NDCC 16.1-16-01 outlines the grounds for contesting an election, which include alleged fraud, malconduct, or errors in the canvassing or counting of ballots that materially affected the result. The statute also specifies the timeline for filing such a contest. A petition for contest must be filed within 30 days after the election results are officially declared. This petition must be filed with the district court in the county where the election was held or where the seat is to be filled. The petition must also name the appropriate respondents, typically the winning candidate and election officials. The court then proceeds to hear the evidence presented by both sides. The burden of proof lies with the petitioner to demonstrate that the alleged irregularities or fraud did indeed occur and that they were significant enough to alter the election’s outcome. If the court finds sufficient evidence, it can order a recount, a new election, or otherwise adjust the declared results. The complexity of proving material effect is a significant hurdle in election contests.

The question pertains to the initiative process in North Dakota, specifically concerning the filing deadlines for initiated constitutional amendments and initiated statutes. North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) Section 16.1-11-02 outlines the requirements for filing initiated measures. For an initiated constitutional amendment, a petition must be filed with the Secretary of State at least 120 days before the election at which it is to be voted upon. For an initiated statute, the petition must be filed at least 90 days before the election. The scenario states the election is scheduled for November 5, 2024. To determine the filing deadline for an initiated constitutional amendment: 120 days before November 5, 2024. November has 30 days. October has 31 days. September has 30 days. August has 31 days. Counting back from November 5: November 5 – 5 days = October 31 (5 days) October 31 – 31 days = September 30 (5 + 31 = 36 days) September 30 – 30 days = August 31 (36 + 30 = 66 days) August 31 – 31 days = July 31 (66 + 31 = 97 days) July 31 – 23 days = July 8 (97 + 23 = 120 days) So, the deadline for an initiated constitutional amendment is July 8, 2024. To determine the filing deadline for an initiated statute: 90 days before November 5, 2024. Counting back from November 5: November 5 – 5 days = October 31 (5 days) October 31 – 31 days = September 30 (5 + 31 = 36 days) September 30 – 30 days = August 31 (36 + 30 = 66 days) August 31 – 24 days = August 7 (66 + 24 = 90 days) So, the deadline for an initiated statute is August 7, 2024. The question asks for the deadline for an initiated constitutional amendment. Therefore, the correct deadline is July 8, 2024. The explanation focuses on the statutory requirements and the calculation to arrive at the specific date, highlighting the distinction between initiated constitutional amendments and initiated statutes as per North Dakota law. It emphasizes the temporal aspect of petition filing as a critical procedural requirement for placing measures on the ballot.

The scenario presented involves a proposed amendment to the North Dakota Constitution that aims to modify the process for initiating and approving ballot measures. Specifically, it seeks to increase the number of signatures required for a citizen-initiated measure to qualify for the ballot and to introduce a supermajority requirement for its approval. North Dakota’s current law, as codified in the North Dakota Century Code, particularly in sections related to initiative and referendum, outlines the existing procedures. The question tests understanding of how proposed constitutional amendments are treated within the state’s legal framework, focusing on the specific requirements for their adoption. For a constitutional amendment to be adopted in North Dakota, it must be approved by a majority of the electors who vote on the question. This is a fundamental principle of constitutional law in many states, including North Dakota, ensuring that changes to the foundational governing document have broad public support. The proposed amendment, by seeking to alter the signature requirements and introduce a supermajority vote for citizen-initiated measures, is itself a constitutional amendment. Therefore, its adoption would follow the same constitutional amendment process. The critical point is that the *proposed amendment* itself, to become law, must be approved by a simple majority of those voting on it, regardless of what it proposes to change about future initiative processes. The question is not about the efficacy or legality of the *proposed changes* to the initiative process, but about the adoption mechanism of the *amendment itself*. Therefore, the correct answer reflects the standard constitutional amendment ratification requirement.

The scenario presented involves a county auditor in North Dakota who discovers a significant discrepancy in the reported number of valid signatures submitted for a local ballot initiative. The initiative requires a specific percentage of registered voters’ signatures to be placed on the ballot. North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) § 16.1-11-07 governs the requirements for local initiative petitions, including the number of signatures needed and the process for verifying them. Specifically, NDCC § 16.1-11-07(2) states that a local initiative petition must be signed by at least fifteen percent of the registered voters in the political subdivision. Furthermore, NDCC § 16.1-11-08 outlines the duties of the filing officer, which in this case is the county auditor, regarding the examination of petitions. The auditor must determine if the petition contains the required number of valid signatures. The calculation to determine the minimum number of signatures required is: \( \text{Required Signatures} = \text{Registered Voters} \times \text{Signature Percentage} \). In this hypothetical, let’s assume the county has 10,000 registered voters and the initiative requires 15% of those signatures. Therefore, the minimum number of valid signatures needed is \( 10,000 \times 0.15 = 1,500 \). If the auditor finds only 1,450 valid signatures, the petition does not meet the threshold. The auditor’s role is to certify whether the petition meets the statutory requirements. If the petition fails to meet the signature threshold, it cannot be placed on the ballot. The law does not provide for an automatic recount or a cure period for insufficient signatures on local initiatives unless specifically provided for in the ordinance governing the initiative, which is not mentioned here. The auditor’s certification is based on the evidence of valid signatures at the time of examination. The core concept being tested is the auditor’s responsibility in verifying ballot initiative signatures against statutory requirements in North Dakota, and the consequence of failing to meet those requirements. The auditor’s role is administrative and determinative based on the law.

The question pertains to the process of challenging the outcome of a local election in North Dakota, specifically focusing on the legal framework governing such challenges. In North Dakota, election contests are primarily governed by North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) Chapter 16.1-15. This chapter outlines the grounds for contesting an election, the procedures for filing a contest, and the jurisdiction of the courts. A key aspect is the requirement to file a written statement of contest with the appropriate district court. This statement must specify the grounds for the contest and the relief sought. The law also sets strict time limits for filing such a contest, typically within 30 days after the election results are officially declared. The grounds for a contest can include allegations of fraud, malconduct of election officials, or errors in the casting or counting of ballots that materially affected the result. The statute emphasizes that the contest must demonstrate a material effect on the election outcome, meaning the alleged irregularities must be substantial enough to potentially change who would have won the election. The court then reviews the evidence presented and may order a recount or other proceedings as deemed necessary. The focus here is on the procedural prerequisites for initiating a valid election contest in North Dakota, which includes timely filing with the correct judicial body and stating specific, legally recognized grounds.

The scenario describes a situation where a proposed initiative aims to amend North Dakota’s election laws concerning voter registration deadlines. Specifically, the initiative seeks to move the deadline for registering to vote from the current system, which allows registration up to and including Election Day, to a system requiring registration ten days prior to the election. This change would impact the accessibility of voter registration for many North Dakotans. North Dakota’s unique status as the only state without a statewide voter registration system means that registration is handled at the county level, often through direct interaction with the county auditor or by mail. The initiative’s proposed shift to a pre-election deadline directly implicates the principles of voter access and participation, which are central to the law of democracy. The question probes the potential legal challenges such an initiative might face under North Dakota’s constitutional framework, particularly concerning the right to vote and the process for amending election laws. The North Dakota Constitution, in Article V, Section 1, grants the people the power to propose and enact laws through the initiative process, provided certain requirements are met. However, this power is not absolute and is subject to judicial review to ensure compliance with constitutional provisions and fundamental rights. An initiative that significantly restricts voter access by imposing an earlier registration deadline, especially when the state currently allows same-day registration, could be challenged on the grounds that it unduly burdens the right to vote, a fundamental right protected by both the U.S. Constitution and implied rights within state constitutions. Such a challenge would likely focus on whether the proposed restriction serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Given North Dakota’s historical practice of allowing registration up to Election Day, a significant departure from this could be viewed as a substantial impediment to participation, potentially leading to legal challenges based on equal protection principles or the fundamental right to vote. The core of the legal argument would revolve around whether the proposed deadline change constitutes an unconstitutional restriction on the right to vote.

In North Dakota, the process for challenging the outcome of a local election involves specific legal procedures and timelines. For a contest of election results in a county, the petition must be filed with the district court within a defined period after the official canvass of the votes. North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) § 16.1-16-01 outlines that a petition to contest an election must be filed within thirty days after the election results are officially declared by the canvassing board. The question specifies that the results were declared on November 15th. Therefore, to determine the deadline, we add thirty days to this date. November has 30 days. Counting 30 days from November 15th brings us to December 15th. This means the last day to file the petition is December 15th. The explanation of the law emphasizes that this timeframe is critical for the validity of the contest. Failure to adhere to this statutory deadline will result in the dismissal of the election contest. This strict adherence to procedural timelines is a hallmark of election law, ensuring finality and preventing indefinite challenges to democratic outcomes. The law aims to balance the right of citizens to question election integrity with the need for prompt resolution of electoral disputes, thereby maintaining public confidence in the electoral process.

North Dakota’s initiative and referendum process is governed by Article III of the North Dakota Constitution and relevant statutes, such as North Dakota Century Code Chapter 16.1-01. For a statutory initiative to be placed on the ballot, proponents must gather signatures from at least 4% of the registered voters in the state. This signature requirement is calculated based on the total number of registered voters at the time the petition is filed. If the initiative proposes a constitutional amendment, the signature threshold increases to 6% of registered voters. The signatures must be collected within a specific timeframe, typically 80 days from the date the petition is approved for circulation. Furthermore, at least 20% of the required signatures must come from at least five counties in North Dakota. The Secretary of State is responsible for verifying the sufficiency of the signatures. If the petition meets these requirements, the initiative is then placed on the ballot for the next general election, unless it qualifies for a special election under specific circumstances. The law aims to balance the direct democracy rights of citizens with the need for broad public support and a deliberative process.

The scenario describes a situation where a county auditor in North Dakota is tasked with verifying the signatures on a petition to place a new initiative on the ballot. North Dakota law, specifically North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) § 16.1-11-06, outlines the requirements for initiative petitions. This statute dictates that each petition must be signed by a number of qualified electors equal to at least five percent of the total number of votes cast for the office of Governor at the preceding general election. For the purpose of this question, let’s assume the preceding general election for Governor was held in 2022, and the total votes cast for Governor were 320,000. Calculation: Number of signatures required = 5% of total votes cast for Governor Number of signatures required = \(0.05 \times 320,000\) Number of signatures required = \(16,000\) The auditor receives a petition with 15,800 valid signatures. According to NDCC § 16.1-11-06, the petition must contain at least 16,000 signatures to be sufficient. Since the petition has fewer than the required number of signatures, it fails to meet the statutory threshold for placement on the ballot. The auditor’s duty is to determine if the petition is sufficient based on the number of valid signatures presented compared to the legal requirement. The law is clear that if the number of signatures falls short of the specified percentage of votes cast for the preceding gubernatorial election, the petition is not sufficient. Therefore, the auditor must reject the petition for failing to meet the minimum signature requirement as stipulated by North Dakota law. This process ensures that only initiatives with substantial public support, as defined by statute, advance to the ballot. The auditor’s role is administrative, applying the established legal standard to the presented evidence.

In North Dakota, the process for initiating a statutory initiative requires a specific number of signatures from registered voters. The North Dakota Constitution, Article III, Section 1, outlines these requirements. For a statutory initiative to be placed on the ballot, it must receive signatures from at least 4% of the registered voters in the state, as determined by the total number of votes cast in the preceding general election. This percentage is applied to the total number of registered voters at the time the petition is filed. If, for example, the total number of registered voters in North Dakota at the time of filing is 500,000, then the required number of signatures would be 4% of 500,000. This calculation is \(0.04 \times 500,000 = 20,000\) signatures. These signatures must be collected on petitions that conform to specific formatting and content requirements as stipulated by North Dakota law, including the requirement that each petition section be signed by voters residing in the same county. The Secretary of State is responsible for verifying the sufficiency of the signatures. This mechanism ensures that proposed laws have broad support across the electorate before being presented for a statewide vote, reflecting a core principle of direct democracy within the state’s legal framework.

The scenario presented involves a county auditor in North Dakota needing to determine the appropriate method for certifying initiative petitions. North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) § 16.1-11-06 outlines the requirements for petition circulation and submission. Specifically, it mandates that petitions must be signed by registered electors of the state and that the county auditor must certify that the signatures appear to be genuine and that the signers are registered electors in their respective counties. The auditor’s certification is a crucial step in the process of placing an initiative on the ballot. The law does not prescribe a specific percentage of registered voters within the county that must sign for a petition to be considered validly certified; rather, the auditor’s role is to verify the genuineness of the signatures submitted and confirm the signers’ registration status. Therefore, the auditor’s certification is based on the verification of the submitted signatures against voter registration records, not on a pre-determined threshold of county-wide voter participation for the petition itself. The process focuses on the integrity of the signatures provided by the proponents of the initiative.

The North Dakota Century Code, specifically Chapter 16.1-08.1, governs the process of recall elections for state and local officials. This chapter outlines the requirements for initiating a recall petition, including the number of signatures needed. For a statewide recall election, the petition must be signed by a number of electors equal to at least thirty percent of the total votes cast for the office of Governor at the preceding general election. The question asks about the threshold for initiating a recall election for a North Dakota state senator. While the specific number of votes for Governor in a particular election year is not provided, the law establishes the percentage. Therefore, the correct understanding is that the threshold is tied to the gubernatorial vote. The calculation is not a numerical one in this context, but rather an application of the statutory requirement. The law mandates a percentage of votes for the highest executive office to initiate a recall for any state official. This ensures a significant level of public support is demonstrated before a recall election can be triggered, reflecting a balance between the right of the people to remove officials and the need for stability in governance. The principle behind this requirement is to prevent frivolous or politically motivated recall attempts and to ensure that only those with broad-based dissatisfaction can force an election.

The North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) governs election procedures, including the process for challenging election results. Specifically, NDCC Chapter 16.1-16 outlines the procedures for election contests. A candidate seeking to contest an election must file a petition with the appropriate district court. This petition must be filed within a specific timeframe after the election results are certified. For a statewide election, this timeframe is generally thirty days after the State Canvassing Board has canvassed the vote. The petition must specify the grounds for the contest, which typically involve allegations of fraud, malconduct, or errors in the casting or counting of ballots that could have affected the outcome. The court then reviews the petition and, if sufficient grounds are presented, orders a hearing. During this hearing, evidence is presented by both the contestant and the incumbent or other affected parties. The court’s decision is based on whether the alleged irregularities were significant enough to alter the election’s result. The law emphasizes that minor irregularities that do not impact the outcome are not grounds for overturning an election. The focus is on substantial errors that could have changed who won the election.

The scenario describes a situation where a county auditor in North Dakota is tasked with canvassing the results of a municipal election. The core legal principle at play here relates to the timeline and process for officially certifying election results in North Dakota, specifically concerning the canvass. North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) Section 16.1-11-02 outlines the duties of the county auditor regarding elections, including the canvass of election returns. This section mandates that the county auditor, along with two judges of the district court or their designees, shall meet within fifteen days after an election to canvass the returns. The canvass involves examining the precinct returns, tallying the votes for each candidate and measure, and preparing abstracts of the results. This process ensures the accuracy and integrity of the election outcome before it is officially declared. The question tests the understanding of this specific statutory requirement for the timing and participants in the official canvass of election results in North Dakota. The critical element is the statutory deadline for the canvass to commence, which is within fifteen days of the election.

The scenario involves the potential for a recall election for a North Dakota state senator. North Dakota law, specifically under North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) Chapter 44-02, outlines the procedures for recall of state officers. For a state senator, a recall petition must be signed by a number of electors equal to at least 35% of the total number of votes cast for the office of governor in the last preceding general election in the district from which the senator was elected. This is a critical threshold for initiating the recall process. The question tests the understanding of this specific percentage requirement for recall petitions in North Dakota for state legislative offices, distinguishing it from potential requirements for other offices or in other states. The calculation is to determine the minimum number of signatures required based on the given percentage and the total votes for governor. Assuming the total votes for Governor in the last preceding general election in the relevant district was 25,000, the calculation is: 35% of 25,000 = 0.35 * 25,000 = 8,750 signatures. This percentage is a statutory requirement designed to ensure a significant level of public support before a recall election can be initiated, reflecting a balance between the electorate’s right to remove officials and the need for stability in governance. The law aims to prevent frivolous recall attempts by establishing a substantial evidentiary threshold of citizen dissatisfaction.