Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION 98-14 <br />May 12, 1998 <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />N.D. Const. art. VII, ~ 9. This section provides that questions on <br />the elimination of an elective county office may be placed on the <br />ballot by petition of the electors. Your question may be rephrased <br />as asking whether this section of the North Dakota constitution <br />prohibits the Legislature from providing a different means of <br />combining, eliminating, or changing an elective county office. <br /> <br />The North Dakota Constitution is a limit of legislative authority, <br />unlike the United States Constitution which consists of grants of <br />authority. State v. Anderson, 427 N.W.2d 316, 318 (N.D. 1988), cert. <br />denied 488 U;S. 965 (1988). The North Dakota Legislature thus has <br />plenary powers except as limited by the state and federal <br />constitutions or acts and treaties of the United States. Id.; State <br />v. Ertelt, 548 N.W.2d 775, 776 (N.D. 1996). It is presumed when <br />construing a statute that the Legislature intended to comply with the <br />constitutions of the state and of the United States and any doubt <br />must be-resolved in- favor of a- statute' svalidity. Haney-v.--North-- <br />Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, 518 N.W.2d 195, 197 (N.D. 1994); <br />Snortland v. Crawford, 306 N.W.2d 614, 626 (N.D. 1981); State ex <br />reI. Johnson v. Baker, 21 N.W.2d 355, 359 (N.D. 1945); N.D.C.C. <br />~ 1-02-38 (1) : This presumption is conclusive unless the statute <br />clearly contravenes the state or federal constitutions. State v. <br />~, 410 N.W.2d 152, 154 (N.D. 1987) i State ex reI. Lesmeister v. <br />Olson, 354 N.W.2d 690, 694 (N.D. 1984). Also, a statute will only be <br />found unconstitutional upon concurrence of four of the five justices <br />of the Nbrth Dakota Supreme Court. N. D. Const. art. VI, ~ 4. "One <br />who attacks a statute on constitu.tional grounds, defended as that <br />statute is by a strong presumption of constitutionality, should bring <br />up his heavy artillery or forego the attack entirely. II S. Valley <br />Grain Dealers Ass'n v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Richland County, 257 <br />N.W.2d 425, 434 (N.D. 1977) <br /> <br />Before addressing whether N.D.C.C. ~ 11-10.2-02(1) conflicts with <br />Article. VII, Section 9, it _ is necessary to determine what Article <br />VII, Section 9 requires. Article VII, Section 9 states that certain <br />questions "mayll be placed on the county ballot for a vote of the <br />people. General principals of statutory construction are applied <br />when construing constitutional provisions. State v. City of <br />Sherwood, 489 N.W.2d 584, 587 (N.D. 1992) i McCarney v. Meier, 286 <br />N.W.2d 780, 783 (N.D. 1979). Generally, the word "may II is regarded <br />as being merely directory, and is not viewed as creating a mandatory <br />requirement where the failure to perform a duty would invalidate <br />subsequent proceedings. Syverson, Rath and Mehrer v. Peterson, 495 <br />N.W.2d 79, 80-81 (N.D. 1993). See also Bernhardt v. Bernhardt, 561 <br />N.W.2d 656, 658 (N.D. 1997). "The word 'may' will be construed as <br />'must' only where the context or subject matter compels that <br />