1. Sales tax election legal opinion

. Other prior county home rule charters: Two other ND counties had already implemented home rule charters by the time Cass County implemented its own. Those charters would have been available to the HRC Commission when creating Cass County's version and may have provided a point of context in its development. · Richland County HRC: Richland County's HRC was implemented in 1990. Its language is not identical to Cass County's on this revenue authority/limitations issue. However, Richland's Art. 9 states the Board may submit any question to the electorate for an advisory vote. That vote is a county-wide election, "regular or special". Later in that same article it states any ordinance implementing a new tax must be referred to the electorate, without further elaborating a different election protocol than mentioned earlier in the article. The implication is that it could also be at a regular or special election. · Walsh County HRC: Walsh County's HRC was implemented in 1986. The language in its Art. 6 is essentially the same as in Art. 9 of Richland County's HRC. . Other subsequent county home rule charters: Charters implemented after Cass County's could not have influenced the Cass County effort, but still provide an additional point of reference. · Stutsman County HRC: Stutsman County's HRC was implemented in 2000. It contains an Art. 8, which is similar to Cass County's Art. 9. In particular, Art. 8, 92, requires new taxes to be put to the electorate at "any regular or special county election". · Ward County HRC: Ward County's HRC was implemented in 2001. Its Art. 8, 92 reads the same of Stutsman County's. . Attorney General opinions: The Attorney General has not provided an opinion on the meaning of "regular" within Cass County's HRC, and it is my understanding that absent requiring an interpretation of, or impact upon, state law, the AG would not weigh in on the question posed in this opinion. However, again as a point of perspective and not binding upon Cass County's HRC, the AG has offered an opinion on the use of the word "regular" in connection with other elections. · Opinion 2006-L-11, March 27, 2006: This opinion addressed whether a candidate for sheriff in Pierce County must be a resident of that county at the time of the June primary, or the November general election. In concluding the candidate must be a resident by the November general election, the AG cited to an old case entitled Leu v. Montgomery, 148 N.W. 662, 663 (N.D. 1914). In Leu, the ND Supreme Court referred to primaries as not so much elections but as the replacement for nominating conventions, because the successful candidate is not elected to anything (a distinction I do not find relevant for the purposes of Cass County's HRC). While the crux of the AG's opinion is not relevant to our HRC