House Votes To Make Grand Jury Petitions Tougher

brabandt

Last year a group of activists got together and gather signature for petitions to empanel a grand jury charged with investigating bribery allegations against Governor Jack Dalrymple. North Dakota state law allows for petitioners to initiate a grand jury with signatures numbering just 10% of the number of people who voted in the gubernatorial race in the last election.

In Dunn, that means just 167 signatures. Clearly, the bar has been set a little too low for this sort of thing. Especially for the sort of specious allegations leveled at Governor Dalrymple, which hold that he’s guilty of bribes for accepting campaign contributions from people he governs. Where I’m from, that’s called democracy, but I digress.

Despite that low threshold, petition collectors haven’t had a lot of luck. The original petition was thrown out by a district court judge (whose decision was upheld by the state Supreme Court) for having unqualified signatures. They’ve since filed a second petition, but the legislature is taking up a law to make those sort of petitions harder to accomplish.

HB1451, which got some fairly heated (and at times hilarious) debate on the floor of the House today, would raise the signature requirement from 10% to 40% of the gubernatorial vote, with a maximum of 5,000 signatures required.

Just to give this some perspective, under current law a petition to empanel a grand jury would require just 44 signatures in Slope County (which, with 443, cast the fewest ballots in the gubernatorial race). Under this new law, that total would go up to 177.

So the least number of signatures needed would be 177. The most anywhere in the state would be 5,000.

Given that this is a seldom-used bit of law, I really don’t see how these changes are all that objectionable. I do believe this peculiar bit of North Dakota law should remain (just six other states have a provision like this), but I also think the threshold for beginning a grand jury investigation should be higher than it is now to protect against the process being abused.

On a related note, Rep. Kim Koppelman talked about some legislators receiving threats over this piece of legislation. I asked some of my legislative friends and they say that’s the first time they’ve heard of anyone being threatened.

The bill passed on a 61-33 vote.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • Thresherman

    This is what happens when a system is in place to make it easy for the common man to seek redress of grievances and is abused by some partisan hacks, it is the common man who suffers.

  • Rick Olson

    As Rob states in his blog piece, I don’t see the changes which the bill seeks to accomplish are all that objectionable. As we all know, the grand jury is a rarely-used tool in North Dakota. In many states (as well as in all federal cases); prosecutors cannot charge out a criminal case without a grand jury indictment. Here in North Dakota, the direct information process is used. A prosecutor goes to a judge for an arrest warrant, and if a judge believes there is probable cause that the person in question should be charged, he or she will issue the warrant. However, this bill seeks changes in the way that an investigative grand jury would go about its work. A grand jury can also be used to investigate someone; and once the grand jury completes its work, it then issues its report of findings along with any indictments which would be appropriate.

  • camsaure

    Ironic isn’t it? The Dems attacking one of their own just because he is disingenous enough to happen to have an “R” behind his name.

  • Lynn Bergman

    A reasonable compromise would have been 25%, the same as for a recall of a public official. 10% is too low, 45% too high. The price of a significant Republican majority is a tougher law concerning citizen action concerning wrongdoing. An even worse bill will place a bill on the ballot to allow the state to give state money to selected residents. THAT is real corruption!

  • Drain52

    There’s something rotten about a regulator sitting on a committee and getting tidy sums of money from the regulatee appearing before his bench. One might call it democracy, but a better term would be hopeful bribery. In the oil industry’s case, it shouldn’t be allowed to give a red cent to any entity that is charged with regulating that same industry.

    What party to a court case would be pleased to know that the opponent gives heavily to the judge’s re-election efforts?

Top