District 10 Legal Opinion

BOUGHEY LAW FIRM
Lynn M. Boughey
Attorney and Counselor at Law
P. O. Box 836
Bismarck, ND 58502-0836
lynnboughey@midconetwork.com
(701) 751-1485
Tuesday, May 12, 2015

District 10 Republican Executive Committee
c/o Mr. Paul Henderson, Chair District 10
PO Box 12
Calvin, ND 58323
Re: District 10 Republican Committee v. Shepard, Civ. No. 50-2015-C-00___
and District 10 Republican Committee v. ND GOP, 50-2015-C-00___
Dear Members of the District 10 Executive Committee:
You have hired me for the purpose of determining whether the District needs to
file an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against Camburn
Shepard and Curtis Olafson in regards to their assertions that the District is not
following North Dakota law, as well as whether the District needs to file an action
for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against ND GOP to enjoin it from
interfering with the District reorganization and other internal matters. I also
carefully reviewed the issue of whether the specific statutes, as interpreted by
Camburn Shepard and Curtis Olafson and perhaps the state party, should be held to
be unconstitutional as they apply to District 10 and perhaps all of the districts in
North Dakota.
I am pleased to inform you that because state law allows the District to do exactly
what it did at the March 28, 2015 and does not require organization by precinct or
for that matter the election of precinct chairpersons (it only entitles the district to
do so, if it so choses), it isat least at this timeunnecessary to proceed to court
or sue the persons asserting that your meeting was somehow invalid. See NDCC
16.1-03-03(1)(A political organization is entitled to elect a precinct
committeeman at its precinct Caucus). The assumption by Mr. Shepard that state
law requires the election of precinct chairpersons is incorrect. You of course retain
the right to sue the matters out if anyone other than the District Chair tries to call
Boughey Letter to District 10 Republican Executive Committee
Page 1
another meeting, whether that be a person or political entity. As you are aware,
the state party initially attempted to call another organizational meeting for May
15th, but subsequently retracted that announcement. As such, it is not, in my
opinion, necessary to sue out the state party because it has ceased to attempt to
interfere with your district reorganization. However, if the state party attempts in
any way to interfere with the organization of your district by providing directives
or procedures for the method of the organization of district committees or the
state committee or state party take[s] any action or impose any requirement
regarding district party organization, then such an action could at that time be
brought enforcing state law prohibiting such acts.
Based on my extensive detail of the facts and the applicable law and my taking the
time to draft up both complaints in this matter, I am pleased to inform you that it is
my opinion that
1) it is not necessary to sue Camburn Shepard and Curtis Olafson unless
either one attempts to call or hold a separate meeting (only the District Chair
can call a meeting of the District);and
2) it is not necessary to sue ND GOP at this time because they have retracted
the attempt to call a second reorganization meeting.
District 10at its District meeting held on March 28, 2015had every right to
decide not to elect precinct chairperson and proceed, by proper motion, to suspend
the rules and hold an at-large election of the officers and Executive Committee.
This is because contrary to Mr. Shepards contention, state law does not require the
District to elect precinct chairpersons: the statute at issue instead merely provides
that the District is entitled to do sobut is not required to do so. As such, the
District had every right to suspend the rules and hold an at-large election. I note
that this option has been used by many districts over the years and has historically
been countenanced by the state Party committees and executive boards. Given a
proper interpretation of Section 16.1-03-03(1), this second option makes perfect
sense. I further note that your district has every right to amend the by-laws (as
District 15 did several years ago) to delete reference to the position of precinct
chairperson because state law allows you to elect persons to such a position, but
also allows you to choose not to do so.
Summary of Conclusions
I have reached the following specific conclusions:
Page 2
1. The Executive Committee is authorized under the by-laws to act in between

District Meetings now, and to take any actions implemented any decisions
by the District Committee
2. Although the state statute says a District is entitled to select district
committeemen -- it doesnt have to do so. The statute says entitled to do
so, it does NOT say it has to. If the North Dakota Legislature had wanted to
make this a requirement, it would have used the word shall.
3. The state statute specifically notes that the district has the right to organize
itself without interference from the state party (and in theory from the state
itself).
4. The caucus meeting and district-wide meeting can be held at the same time
as one organizational meeting, which occurred at District 10s meeting of
March 28, 2015
5. The District has the right at its organizational meeting to merge the two
meetings into one by suspending the rules or some other motion for the
purpose of determining organization by an at-large vote
6. The state Party, at various meetings and as demonstrated by minutes and
communications from State headquarters, has condoned and accepted
decisions by various districts to organize at-large instead of by precincts.
7. A decision not to select precinct committeemen is consistent with state law
since it is not required and the district is merely entitled to do so if it
wishes.
8. Districts throughout North Dakota have a history of not employing precinct
organization; many districts do not organize by precinct and instead select
officers and make decisions by at-large voting and selection of officers by
at-large voting.
9. The state party, through various meetings and shown by official minutes, has
condoned District organization and historically allowed at-large voting in
lieu of precinct voting
10.Following the assertion made by Mr. Shepard that an election for precinct
Chairpersons had to be done first, District 10, by a 85-1 voice vote (there
was only one nay and it was Mr. Shepard) rejected use of the precinct
committeeman system.
11.This vote constitutes a decision by the District Committee (sitting as a
whole) to NOT use precinct organization for District 10.
12.This decision was made through the parliamentary device of point of order
and fully discussed; the person making the point of order asserted in
discussion on the motion that State law explicitly required that the District
Page 3
select precinctmen and organize the district accordingly; the district, at its
District Meeting and meeting as a whole, rejected this motion by voice vote,
85 in favor and only one against (Mr. Shepard).
13.The District by-laws have historically been created and adopted by the
Executive Committee.
14.The executive committee has the power between district meetings to act on
its behalf and implement any decisions made by the District Committee,
including the decision at the last District Meeting to reject the selection of
precinct committeemen.
15.On March 28, 2015, the District 10 Committee, following a specific
procedural process allowed under Roberts Rules, decided not to select
precinct committeemen by a vote of 85-1, specifically voting to reject the
precinct committeeman system. This vote is, in reality, a decision not to
follow the present by-laws.
16.The Executive Committee has the authority and indeed the obligation to
implement the District 10 Committee decision by adopting new by-laws in
conformity with that decision, which is to delete any reference to precinct
organization in its by-laws
17.Such action is in conformity to state law because state law does NOT require
organization
Evidentiary and Legal Support for Conclusions Reached
I now provide the basisin detailof my conclusions noted above. I first provide
a summary of the relevant facts relating to the issues at hand.
1. Republican District 10 Committee is a Republican political committee
established within the legislative boundaries of the Legislatures designation of
Legislative District 10.
2. Certain members of District 10 Republican Party have been elected at the
District Committee meeting (which is a separate meeting from the precinct
meeting) and presently serve on the Executive Committee of District 10. Paul
Henderson serves as District Chairman, Isaac Stegman serves as Vice Chairman,
Beth Brown serves as District Secretary, and Lowell Thorson serves as Treasurer.
Paul Henderson, Beth Brown, and Lowell Thorson are District 10 voters. Paul
Henderson served as the most immediate Chair of the district. Where there is a
District Chair, only the District Chair can call the districts organizational meeting.

Page 4
3. On March 28, 2015, District 10 held its reorganizational meeting at Cavalier,

North Dakota. The meeting was properly advertised and open to the public.
Eighty-six people attended the meeting. The meeting was run by the present
Chairman of the district, Paul Henderson. As we were about to start our elections,
a man by the name of Camburn Shepard, interrupted us with a point of order and
said we should be organizing by precinct. Several in attendance told him that our
District does not have functioning precincts anymore. A discussion was held, Mr.
Shepard made no motion of any kind, he had no seconds, no one else in the room
verbalized any agreement with him. A member from the floor moved to suspend
the rules, the motion was seconded, and passed 85-1, with Mr. Shepard being the
only person who objected to suspending the rules and having an open election (as
we have always done). There were two nominations for Chairman, Paul
Henderson, and Mr. Shepard. Mr. Shepard participated in the election, and both
candidates were given time to speak, the vote was Henderson 63, Shepard 22, one
blank ballot. The election continued for Vice Chair, secretary and treasurer. In all
of those three election, only the incumbent was nominated, although nominations
were called for multiple times, and motions to cast unanimous ballots each time,
with not one NAY vote. After announcements, the meeting was adjourned. The
official minutes of that meeting are attached as EXHIBIT 1 Official Minutes of
District 10 Organizational Meeting Held March 28, 2015.
4. The meeting held on March 28, 2015, was a valid properly called by the District
officials.
5. Defendants Camburn Shepard and Curtis Olafson are also members of District
10 Republican Party and have asserted that the organizational meeting violated
North Dakota law by the organization voting 82-1 to suspend the rules and elect
officers at large instead of by precinct.
6. Defendants Camburn Shepard and Curtis Olafson have filed complaints with
the State Republican Party (hereinafter NDGOP) asserting that the process
employed by District 10 (not voting by precinct and not electing precinct chairs)
was illegal and requesting a second meeting so they can attempt to be elected to
certain position or receive certain appointments. Camburn Shepards complaint
via email dated March 28, 2015 to the State Republican Party is attached as
EXHIBIT 2 Camburn Shepards Complaint. Curtis Olafsons complaint via
letter dated March 30, 2015 to the State Republican Party is attached as EXHIBIT
3 Curtis Olafsons Complaint. Several District 10 members responded to
these complaints by submitting to the Statee NDGOP Party statements responding
to Camburn Shepards complaints and describing what really happened at the
Page 5
meeting. EXHIBIT 4Email of Beth Brown 3-31-15; EXHIBIT 5Email of

Sheila Vandal 3-31-15; EXHIBIT 6Email of Robert & Virginia Dunnigan 331-15.
7. Defendant Camburn Shepard has specifically stated to the District 10 state
legislators that he personally has the right to call a meeting of District 10 even
though the by-laws clearly provide that where there is a District Chair only the
District Chair can call a meeting:
My standing, under current law as a voter in District 10, allows me to call
for a Reorganization Meeting of the Precincts of District 10. If the state
Republican Party wont enforce its own rules, let alone the Century Code,
my only remedy as a citizen will be to call for a Reorganization Meeting that
is conducted lawfully, fully within the law.
As your are District 10 duly elected Reps and Senator, I only feel it is fair to
fully inform you of my intent. . . .
EXHIBIT 7 Camburn Shepards Email of 3-29-15. It is significant that Mr.
Shepard has indicated that he believes he was a right to call his meeting on his
own, something that is absolutely contrary to state law; if he does try to call a
meeting, you should authorize me to file immediately the Complaint that has been
drafted for that purpose.
8. Due to the complaints lodged with the NDGOP Party from Defendants
Camburn Shepard and Curtis Olafson, the NDGOP Party, through Robert Harms
and Shane Goettle, initially called a second organizational meeting of District 10 to
be held on May 15, 2015, and went so far as to purchase ads announcing such a
meeting, one of which was published in the Walsh County. EXHIBIT 8
WALSH COUNTY RECORD ANNOUNCE-MENT 4-30-15. However, upon
objection from the District 10 Executive Committee the State Party decided not to
call a second reorganizational meeting and published a notice in the NEWSPAPER
rescinding and cancelling the proposed meeting called by the NDGOP Party.
EXHIBIT 9 NEWSPAPER Announcement dated 5-7-15.
9. The state NDGOP Republican Party Chairman, Robert Harms, has suggested
that District 10 have precinct chairs and has asked the District to appoint the
people who have complained as precinct chairs and allow them to be on the
District Executive Committee.

Page 6
10. District 10, and many other Republican districts, has historically elected their
leaders not by precinct by at large through a motion to suspend the rules and vote
as one entire district.
11. Voting as one entire district has been conducted by District 10 Republican
members for many, many years, and for at least the last 20 years.
12. Voting as one entire district has been acknowledged and sanctioned by the
NDGOP Party for many years. For example, on February 15, 2012, the State
Republican Executive Committee by a vote of 8-2 specifically recommended that
the following as to District 46:
The NDGOP Executive Committee further communicates its desire to see
District 46 hold an open, at-large vote for the endorsement of district
legislative candidates, which would allow any eligible North Dakota voter
that affiliates with the Republican Party to participate.
EXHIBIT 10 State Republican Executive Committee Minutes 2-15-12.
13. At the North Dakota State Republican Meeting held in Fargo North Dakota on
June 9, 2012, the Chairman of the North Dakota Republican Party, Stan Stein,
acknowledgedas noted in the official minutes--that in regards to organizing by
precinct The Rules and Century Code are confusing. Ninety percent of the
districts do not have precincts. EXHIBIT 11 State Republican Meeting
Minutes 6-9-12.
14. On January 14, 2013, NDGOP Executive Director Anthony Reedy sent an
email to all Republican district chairs acknowledging the fact that many districts
employ at-large voting at their organizational meetings and the there is talk of
changing the North Dakota Century Code to comport with this reality:
We recognize that many districts choose not to organize at the precinct level,
instead opting to hold a mass meeting to elect district officers. If your
district chooses to follow this process, you would need to hold your meeting
on or before May 15, 2013.
We also want you to be aware that the legislature is considering legislation
that could alter the Century Code section that governs political party
organization, potentially allowing more autonomy for political parties to
decide their own structure, processes and timelines. We don't how or when
Page 7
any potential legislation would come to effect, so we are proceeding under

the current rules.
EXHIBIT 12 NDGOP Executive Director Anthony Reedy Email 1-14-13.
15. On February 16, 2013, the State Republican Review Committeeas indicated
by the official minutesspecifically acknowledged by formal vote that
Some districts organize by precinct while others are organized as a whole.
Thats okay. Leave that to the district.
EXHIBIT 13 State Republican Review Committee Minutes 2-16-13.
16. Precinct organization is used only by the County Auditor for voting purposes.
Walsh County Precinct 2 has no voting place and the voting is done generally by
mail (although the voter can go to Grafton which is in District 19 to vote in
person). The population of the various precincts are exceedingly disproportional.
Having Precinct Chairs and organizing by precinct do not make sense for District
10 due to the merging of numerous precincts into one and the lack of proper
apportionment.
17. According to the research done by District 10 Executive Committee member
Donna Henderson, the following precincts exist in District 10 with the following
respective population:
District 10 Precinct Population and History
Cavalier County, population --3950 (as of 2012 census)
2012 to current-- 1 precinct
2004 to 2010 -- 10 precincts
prior to 201015 precincts
Walsh county population by Precincts-Precinct 1District 19 8064
Precinct 2District 10 3008
Pembina Co population 7533
Precinct 1996
Precinct 21628
Precinct 3 1396
Precinct 41831
Precinct 5699
Precinct 6 983
Page 8
DISTRICT 10 BY COUNTY POPULATION NUMBERS

Cavalier County, 1 precinct population 3950 (previously 10 precincts)
Walsh County, Precinct 2 population 3008
Pembina County population 7533
Pembina County Precinct 1996
Pembina County Precinct 3 1396
SUMMARY BY DISTRICT 10 BY PRECINCT SIZE (population largest to
smallest)
Cavalier County, 1 precinct 3950
Walsh County, Precinct 2 3008
EXHIBIT 14Affidavit of Donna Henderson (proposed, unsigned).
18. As can be seen from the numbers listed immediately above, organizing District
10 by precincts would be exceedingly disproportional and violate the constitutional
concept of equal apportionment.
19. North Dakota state law allows the District to do exactly what it did at the
March 28, 2015 and does not require organization by precinct or for that matter the
election of precinct chairpersons (it only entitles the district to do so, if it so
choses), it isat least at this timeunnecessary to proceed to court or sue the
persons asserting that your meeting was somehow invalid. See NDCC 16.1-0303(1)(A political organization is entitled to elect a precinct committeeman at its
precinct Caucus). EXHIBIT 15NDCC 16.1-03-03.
20. The assumption by Mr. Shepard that state law requires the election of precinct
chairpersons is incorrect. You of course retain the right to sue the matters out if
anyone other than the District Chair tries to call another meeting, whether that be a
Page 9
person or political entity. As you are aware, the state party initially attempted to
call another organizational meeting for May 15th, but subsequently retracted that
announcement. As such, it is not, in my opinion, necessary to sue out the state
party because it has ceased to attempt to interfere with your district reorganization.
However, if the state party attempts in any way to interfere with the organization of
your district by providing directives or procedures for the method of the
organization of district committees or the state committee or state party take[s]
any action or impose any requirement regarding district party organization, then
such an action could at that time be brought enforcing state law prohibiting such
acts.
21. District 10at its District meeting held on March 28, 2015had every right
to decide not to elect precinct chairperson and proceed, by proper motion, to
suspend the rules and hold an at-large election of the officers and Executive
Committee. This is because contrary to Mr. Shepards contention, state law does
not require the District to elect precinct chairpersons: the statute at issue instead
merely provides that the District is entitled to do sobut is not required to do so.
As such, the District had every right to suspend the rules and hold an at-large
election. I note that this option has been used by many districts over the years and
has historically been countenanced by the state Party committees and executive
boards. Given a proper interpretation of Section 16.1-03-03(1), this second option
makes perfect sense.
22. I further note that your district has every right to amend the by-laws (as
District 15 did several years ago) to delete reference to the position of precinct
chairperson because state law allows you to elect persons to such a position, but
also allows you to choose not to do so.
23. Given the long-standing history of District 10 electing its leaders at-large, its
merged and disproportional precincts, and its constitutional right of freedom of
association, District 10 Republican Party should be able to organize itself how it
wants and be able to suspend the rules in accordance to Roberts Rules of Order and
elect its leaders at-large, and be permitted to do so without interference from the
State NDGOP or through State statutes.
24. North Dakota state law specifically prohibits the state party from calling a
precinct caucus if there is a district chairman:
3. The legislative district chairman of each party shall set the date and time
for the precinct caucus. If there is not a district chairman in a legislative
Page 10
district, the state party executive committee may issue the call for the
precinct caucus.
N.D.C.C. Section 16.1-03-01(3). EXHIBIT 16NDCC 16.1-03-01(3).
25. Only the district chair can call a valid meeting of District 10 and if any third
person attempts to call a District meeting the District should immediately bring suit
against that person and enjoin that person from unilaterally and illegally calling a
District 10 Republican Party meeting of any type.
26. North Dakota state law specifically prohibits any state committee or state party
from interfering with the method of organization of the district:
4. The bylaws of the state committee or state party may not include any
requirement providing directives or procedures for the method of the
organization of district committees nor may the state committee or state
party take any action or impose any requirement regarding district party
organization which is not consistent with this chapter.
N.D.C.C. Section 16.1-03-07(4). EXHIBIT 17NDCC 16.1-03-07(4).
27. I specifically note NDGOP withdrew its call for a District 10 Meeting and as
such it is not necessary to request any further relief relating to the State party as
long as it continues not to interfere with District 10 Republican Party meetings,
organization, or selection of its leaders. If the suggestion to have another
meeting becomes either a directive or specific request, then you decide at that time
if the District wants to proceed in an appropriate way to enjoin the state party from
such inappropriate actions.
Conclusion
As you are aware much of my time was used to draft two legal actions to enforce
North Dakota law. The withdrawal of the announcement for a second meeting
resulted in our not having to sue the two matters out at this time. Both complaints
are finalized and are ready to be used if that becomes necessary. Much of the
information described above has been taken from those two documents. Once all
of this information is known to all persons interested in these issues, it is quite
likely you will have no more need of my services. The factual information and the
records quoted above speak for themselves and should convince any reasonable
person that District 10 was correct in its actions.
Page 11
In conclusion, District 10at its District meeting held on March 28, 2015had
every right to merge the two types of meetings described in the statute as well as
every right to decide not to elect precinct chairperson and proceed, by proper
motion or through a point of order raised by Mr. Shepard, to suspend the rules and
hold an at-large election of the officers. State law does not require organization by
precinct or for that matter the election of precinct chairpersons (it only entitles
the district to do so, if it so choses), it isat least at this timeunnecessary to
proceed to court or sue the persons asserting that your meeting was somehow
invalid. The assumption by Mr. Shepard that state law requires the election of
precinct chairpersons is incorrect. The District meeting held on March 28, 2015,
complied with North Dakota state law and it is my opinion that if the matter has to
be presented to any court the same conclusion would be reachedbased on a
proper reading of the stature at issue, the history of the District 10 and many other
districts doing the exact same thing, the fact that the State party has through
committee meetings (as shown by the minutes) condoned (if not approved) this
very practice for many years if not decades, the reality that many precincts have
been merged and that there is no remaining viable basis for organizing by precinct
as to district organization, and serious constitutional issues relating to using
precincts as the basis of organizing a district when precincts are not apportioned
based on the actual population.
If the District Executive Committee has any additional questions, I will be glad to
answer them. You may of course feel free to circulate this letter to anyone you
choose.
Sincerely,
Lynn M. Boughey
PS I will send you a pdf of this letter immediately and the attachments separately
with the original of this letter.

Page 12

District 10 Legal Opinion

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

District 10 Legal Opinion

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

BOUGHEY LAW FIRM

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

1. The Executive Committee is authorized under the by-laws to act in between

Boughey Letter to District 10 Republican Executive Committee

3. On March 28, 2015, District 10 held its reorganizational meeting at Cavalier,

meeting. EXHIBIT 4Email of Beth Brown 3-31-15; EXHIBIT 5Email of

Boughey Letter to District 10 Republican Executive Committee

any potential legislation would come to effect, so we are proceeding under

DISTRICT 10 BY COUNTY POPULATION NUMBERS

Boughey Letter to District 10 Republican Executive Committee

También podría gustarte