De La Fuente v. Simon, A19-1994

• Decision Date: 18 March 2020
• Docket Number: A19-1994
• Parties: Roque "Rocky" DE LA FUENTE, et al., Petitioners, v. Steve SIMON, Minnesota Secretary of State, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

940 N.W.2d 477

Roque "Rocky" DE LA FUENTE, et al., Petitioners,

v.Steve SIMON, Minnesota Secretary of State, Respondent.

A19-1994

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed: March 18, 2020

Erick G. Kaardal, Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for petitioners.

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Nathan J. Hartshorn, Assistant Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for respondent.

Charles N. Nauen, David J. Zoll, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The Chair of The Republican Party of Minnesota notified the Minnesota Secretary of State on October 24, 2019, that its candidate for the ballot in the presidential nomination primary held in Minnesota on March 3, 2020, is Donald J. Trump. On December 13, 2019, petitioners Roque "Rocky" De La Fuente and James Martin, Jr. filed a petition under Minn. Stat. § 204B.44(a) (2018), asking that we direct respondent Steve Simon, the Minnesota Secretary of State, to include De La Fuente’s name as a candidate for The Republican Party of Minnesota’s nomination for United States President on that ballot.¹

Petitioners assert that the procedure established by Minn. Stat. § 207A.13 (2018), which allows a major political party to determine which candidates’ names will be on the ballot for a statewide presidential nomination primary, violates: (1) the Minnesota Constitution’s prohibition on laws that grant special or exclusive privileges to a private corporation, association, or individual, Minn. Const. art. XII, § 1 ; (2) the Presidential Eligibility Clause of the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5 ; and (3) candidates’ and voters’ rights of free association under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

We directed the parties to file briefs addressing petitioners’ claims. The Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party appeared as amicus curiae in support of respondent. We held oral argument on January 9, 2020. In an order filed on January 9, 2020, we denied the petition. This opinion explains the reasons for our decision.

FACTS

Before turning to the facts, some background on Minnesota’s electoral processes for presidential nominees and candidates will be helpful to understand the legal issues presented by this case.

At issue here is the ballot for the presidential nomination primary, which was held in Minnesota on March 3, 2020. Generally, in Minnesota, a primary election determines which candidates will advance to the general-election ballot, including as a nominee of a major political party. See Minn. Stat. § 204D.10, subd. 1 (2018) ("The candidate for nomination of a major political party for a partisan office on the state partisan primary ballot who receives the highest number of votes shall be the nominee of that political party for that office."). Most candidates for statewide public office, including congressional and state legislative offices, file an affidavit of candidacy to appear on a primary election ballot. See Minn. Stat. § 204B.03 (2018) ("Candidates of a major political party for any partisan office except presidential elector ... shall apply for a place on the primary ballot by filing an affidavit of candidacy[.]").

State primary elections for presidential nominees and candidates are different. Before 2020, Minnesota last held a presidential nominating primary in 1992. At that time, a candidate’s name was listed "on the appropriate major political party presidential ballot" if the person (1) filed an affidavit of candidacy and paid a filing fee, or (2) was nominated by a petition. Minn. Stat. § 207A.02, subd. 1 (1992). In other years, Minnesota voters indicated "their preference for the offices of president of the United States" at statewide caucuses. Minn. Stat. § 202A.18, subd. 2a (2000) ; see also Minn. Stat. § 202A.14, subd. 1 (2018) (requiring "a party caucus" to be held in "every state general election year"). When a caucus was held in presidential election years, candidates for president and vice-president did not "file an affidavit of candidacy for office." Minn. Stat. § 204B.06, subd. 4 (2018).

In 2016, the Minnesota Legislature enacted provisions to re-establish a presidential nomination primary. Act of May 22, 2016, ch. 162, §§ 9–13, 2016 Minn. Laws 605, 609–12 (codified as amended at Minn. Stat. ch. 207A (2018 & Supp. 2019)). This primary is limited to participation by "a major political party that selects delegates ... to send to a national convention." Minn. Stat. § 207A.11(d) (Supp. 2019) (excluding from the presidential nomination primary those major political parties that do "not participate in a national convention").

Each political party participating in the presidential nomination primary has a ballot. Minn. Stat. § 207A.13, subd. 1(b). The party "must determine which candidates are to be placed on the presidential nomination primary ballot for that party[,]" submitting the candidate names to the secretary of state "no later than 63 days before the presidential nomination primary." Id. , subd. 2(a). "Once submitted, changes must not be made to the candidates that will appear on the ballot." Id. But the party chair can ask the secretary of state to include "a blank line printed below the other choices on the ballot so that a voter may write in the name of a person who is not listed on the ballot." Id. , subd. 1(c). Seven days before the primary, the party chair must submit "the names of write-in candidates, if any, to be counted for that party." Id. , subd. 2(b).

After the primary, the secretary of state notifies the party chair of the results, which bind the delegates each party sends to its respective national convention. Minn. Stat. § 207A.12(c) – (d) (Supp. 2019). Thereafter, in accordance with each party’s rules and by a date set by the Legislature, the party chair informs the secretary of state of the name of the party’s presidential candidate to appear on the general election ballot, see Minn. Stat. §§ 208.03 –.04 (2018).

With this overview in mind, we turn to the facts, which are undisputed. De La Fuente, a California resident, announced on May 16, 2019, that he would seek the national Republican Party’s nomination for United States President in 2020. On October 24, 2019, the Chair of The Republican Party of Minnesota notified the Secretary of State that the party had determined that Donald J. Trump’s name should appear on the ballot for Minnesota’s presidential nomination primary; no other announced candidates for the national Republican Party’s nomination for president were included in that notice.

On October 25, 2019, De La Fuente wrote to Secretary Simon and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, stating that Minn. Stat. § 207A.13 was "likely unconstitutional." He asked for a "written guarantee" that his name would "appear on Minnesota’s 2020 Republican presidential primary election ballot[.]" There was no response to this letter.

On December 13, 2019, De La Fuente and Martin filed a petition with our court under section 204B.44(a), asserting that the failure to include De La Fuente’s name on the ballot as a candidate for The Republican Party of Minnesota’s nomination violated the United States and Minnesota Constitutions.² We directed the parties to file briefs addressing petitioners’ claims and invited amicus participation by Minnesota’s major political parties³ as well as other candidates. The Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party filed a brief as amicus curiae in support of respondent.⁴

On December 23, 2019, The Republican Party of Minnesota, through its chair, asked the Secretary of State to place a write-in "option" on the party’s ballot for the presidential nomination primary. See Minn. Stat. § 207A.13, subd. 1(c) ("If requested by a party chair, the ballot for that party must contain a blank line ... [to] write in the name of a person who is not listed on the ballot.").

ANALYSIS

Petitioners assert three constitutional challenges to Minnesota’s statutory process for candidate placement on the presidential nomination primary ballot: (1) under Article XII, Section 1 of the Minnesota Constitution, (2) under Article II, section 1, clause 5 of the United States Constitution, and (3) under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Secretary of State, in response, asserts that petitioners’ claims are barred by laches and fail as a matter of law.

Statutes are presumed constitutional and "the party that asserts otherwise bears a heavy burden to overcome that presumption." Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Comm'r of Revenue , 880 N.W.2d 844, 848 (Minn. 2016). And petitioners bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that there is an error that requires correction. See Paquin v. Mack , 788 N.W.2d 899, 904 (Minn. 2010) (explaining that the petitioner asserting that a ballot error or omission exists bears the burden of showing that a correction is required).

I.

We begin with the Secretary of State’s argument that the petition is barred by laches. He asserts that petitioners knew for 6 weeks before commencing this action that De La Fuente’s name would not be on The Republican Party of Minnesota’s presidential nomination primary ballot. This was an unreasonable delay, the Secretary asserts, because the process for preparing, printing, and distributing ballots would be well underway while this challenge was pending before the court.

Laches " ‘prevent[s] one who has not been diligent in asserting a known right from recovering at the expense of one who has been prejudiced by the delay.’ " Winters v. Kiffmeyer , 650 N.W.2d 167, 169 (Minn. 2002) (quoting Aronovitch v. Levy , 238 Minn. 237, 56 N.W.2d 570, 574 (1953) ). We have declined to hear a challenge to an election ballot on grounds of laches. See Trooien v. Simon , 918 N.W.2d 560, 561 (Minn. 2018) (order) (dismissing a ballot challenge, noting that "millions of ballots were prepared" and early voting had begun before...