Clark v. Growe, C9-90-2346

Decision Date01 November 1990
Docket NumberNo. C9-90-2346,C9-90-2346
Citation461 N.W.2d 385
PartiesSharon K. CLARK, Petitioner, v. Joan Anderson GROWE, Secretary of State of the State of Minnesota, Respondent.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

Mark Briol, Minneapolis, on behalf of petitioner Clark.

John Tunheim, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., on behalf of respondent Secretary of State.

Bruce Willis, Minneapolis, on behalf of Arne Carlson for Governor Volunteer Committee.

ORDER

The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the court sitting en banc on Thursday, November 1, 1990 on the petition of Sharon K. Clark for relief pursuant to Minn.Stat. Sec. 204B.44(d) (1988), alleging that the respondent Joan Anderson Growe, Secretary of State erred in failing to place petitioner's name on the ballot as the Independent-Republican candidate for the office of lieutenant governor in the general election scheduled for November 6, 1990. Appearances at the hearing were as follows: Mark Briol on behalf of the petitioner Clark; John Tunheim, Chief Deputy Attorney General on behalf of the respondent Secretary of State; and Bruce Willis on behalf of Arne Carlson for Governor Volunteer Committee.

WHEREAS, the Secretary of State has advised the parties and the court that she intends to place on the ballot as the Independent-Republican candidates for governor and lieutenant governor the team of Arne Carlson and Joanell Dyrstad pursuant to Minn. Const. art. V, Sec. 1 and Minn.Stat. Sec. 204B.13 (1988); and

Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Sharon K. Clark to compel the Secretary of State to place her name on the ballot as the Independent-Republican candidate for lieutenant governor in the general election be, and the same is, denied. The Secretary of State did not err in deciding to place on the ballot as the Independent-Republican entry for governor and lieutenant governor the names of Arne Carlson and Joanell Dyrstad.

POPOVICH, C.J., and YETKA, J. dissent.

POPOVICH, Chief Justice, dissenting.

I would require the Independent-Republican party to fulfill the basic duty owed to its members: providing nominees for office. Avoiding its duty and requiring the court to settle the political differences within that party is disrespectful of the role of the judiciary and a misuse of the judicial process. I disagree that the I-R party does not have an appropriate committee to decide this matter. By statute the administration of party affairs is vested in the state executive committee:

The state executive committee of the party shall have charge of the administration of the party's affairs, subject to the direction and control of the state convention and the state central committee.

Minn.Stat. Sec. 202A.12 (1988). This statutory language is replicated exactly in the By-Laws of the Independent Republican Party. The naming of a candidate to fill an unexpected vacancy in the nomination surely constitutes a "party affair" and should not be delegated to this court. In short, nothing in the I-R constitution or by-laws limits the executive committee's power to act under unforeseen circumstances such as these. In an analogous situation, the Attorney General opined that the party should fill the vacancy and nominate a person. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 47, at 96-99 (Sept. 22, 1948).

Under our constitution, governor and lieutenant governor are chosen by a single vote applying to both offices. Minn. Const. art. 5 Sec. 1; Minn.Stat. Sec. 204D.13, subd. 1 (1988). Under our statutes, candidates for governor and lieutenant governor must file their affidavits of candidacy jointly. Minn.Stat. Sec. 204B.06, subd. 7 (1988). Voters are even instructed that they are to vote for "one team" in a gubernatorial election. Minn.Stat. Sec. 206.61,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Disciplinary Action against Thedens, In re, C9-96-1260
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • January 16, 1997
  • Page v. Carlson
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • August 20, 1992
    ...by section 204B.44 as "procedural and mechanical"; however, that language was not fully necessary to the decision. C.f. Clark v. Growe, 461 N.W.2d 385 (Minn.1990) (although the secretary of state's duty may be "procedural and mechanical", the underlying dispute may not be; this court exerci......
  • Martin v. Dicklich
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • December 5, 2012
    ...with ballot vacancies and substitutions, see generally Erlandson v. Kiffmeyer, 659 N.W.2d 724, 726, 731 (Minn.2003); Clark v. Growe, 461 N.W.2d 385, 386 (Minn.1990), it is logical to assume that county election officials who are required to prepare ballots subject to the Secretary's rules w......
  • In re Disciplinary Action against Andrade
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • July 19, 2007

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT