Klaus v. Minnesota State Ethics Commission
Decision Date | 30 July 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 45475,45475 |
Citation | 244 N.W.2d 672,309 Minn. 430 |
Parties | Walter KLAUS, Appellant, v. MINNESOTA STATE ETHICS COMMISSION, et al., Respondents, William B. Randall, Ramsey County Attorney, Respondent. |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
As construed and applied by the State Ethics Commission, the disclosure provisions of L.1974, c. 470, the 'Ethics in Government' statute, do not violate the constitutional right to privacy of a candidate for public office; do not infringe the rights of such candidate under the first amendment to the Federal constitution; and do not violate the candidate's right to seek and hold public office guaranteed by Minn. Const. art. 1, § 17.
Hall & Swanson, Dale G. Swanson and Clinton Hall, Forest Lake, for appellant.
Peter W. Sipkins, Sol. Gen., Jonathan H. Morgan, Sp. Atty., Joan K. Swartz, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, for Minn. State Ethics Comm., et al.
Considered and decided by the court en banc.
This is an action brought by a candidate for the state legislature challenging the constitutionality of the disclosure provisions of L.1974, c. 470, the so-called 'Ethics in Government' statute. The trial court mandated compliance and we affirm.
In 1974, appellant, Walter Klaus, filed for reelection to retain his seat as a member of the house from representative district 25A. He refused to comply with the provisions of Minn.St. 10A.09 which required him to file a statement of economic interest although he was directed to do so by the Minnesota State Ethics Commission. Thereafter he instituted a declaratory judgment action in the District Court of Ramsey County. On a motion for summary judgment the court sustained the constitutionality of the statute and ordered appellant to comply. 1 He thereupon appealed to this court.
As it relates to these proceedings, Minn.St.1974, § 10A.09, subds. 1 and 5, require appellant as a candidate for elective office to file with the State Ethics Commission a statement of economic interest in the following form:
'(a) His name, address, occupation and principal place of business;
'(b) The name of each business with which he is associated and the nature of that association; and
2
The State Ethics Commission drafted a form, with instructions, for those governed by the statute. (EC form 3.)
As to compensation, the form states:
The corresponding instruction reads, in part:
As to securities, the form states:
The instruction reads, in part:
As to real property, the form states:
The instruction reads, in part:
1. At the November 5, 1974, general election, appellant was defeated for reelection. Consequently the issues litigated appear to be moot. Nevertheless, because of time limitations between filing and election dates, the problems presented are likely to reoccur without an opportunity for resolution. The matter has been vigorously presented to both the trial court and this court in an adversary manner. Appellant is exposed to the possibility of a misdemeanor charge under Minn.St. 10A.09, subd. 4, as well as to the sanctions of contempt for failure to obey the mandatory injunction of the trial court. Under these circumstances it is appropriate that we decide the constitutional issues raised by appellant. Davis v. Davis, 297 Minn. 187, 210 N.W.2d 221 (1973).
2. Appellant argues that the statute compelling a disclosure of economic interest is an unconstitutional invasion of his right to privacy; that there is no compelling state interest which justifies the statute; that the statute is not related to the ends sought to be obtained; that there are less drastic means for accomplishing the state's legitimate interests; that the statute is an unconstitutional infringement of appellant's first amendment rights; and that the disclosure requirements impose on him an unconstitutional property qualification in violation of Minn.Const. art. 1, § 17.
Similar claims have been considered and rejected by other courts. After disapproving a statute requiring disclosure of financial interests by public officials in City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. Young, 2 Cal.3d 259, 85 Cal.Rptr. 1, 466 P.2d 225, 37 A.L.R.3d 1313 (1970), a subsequent disclosure statute was approved by the California Supreme Court in County of Nevada v. MacMillen, 11 Cal.3d 662, 114 Cal.Rptr. 345, 522 P.2d 1345 (1974). The revised statute required public officials to disclose economic interests in which they had an investment in excess of $1,000, real property with a value in excess of $1,000, and the source of income or loans in excess of $250 in any given year. The court observed, 'The public's right to know of matters which might bring about a conflict of interest between the public employment and the private financial interests of those holding public office is a laudable and proper legislative concern and purpose. ' 11 Cal.3d 671, Note 7, 114 Cal.Rptr. 350, 522 P.2d 1350. After reviewing the authorities, the California court held:
'* * * These cases support our view that neither the right to privacy, nor the right to seek and hold public office, must inevitably prevail over the right of the public to an honest and impartial government.' 11 Cal.3d 672, 114 Cal.Rptr. 351, 522 P.2d 1351.
The Illinois Supreme Court has reached a similar result in Stein v. Howlett, 52 Ill.2d 570, 289 N.E.2d 409 (1972), appeal dismissed, 412 U.S. 925, 93 S.Ct. 2750, 37 L.Ed.2d 152 (1973), and Illinois State Employees Association v. Walker, 57 Ill.2d 512, 315 N.E.2d 9, certiorari denied, 419 U.S. 1058, 95 S.Ct. 642, 42 L.Ed.2d 656 (1974). That court discerned an intention to prevent conflicts of interests between the government and its officers and to instill in the public, trust and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Opinion of the Justices to the Senate
...of public officials" (§ 1 of the proposed new G.L. c. 268B). See Goldtrap v. Askew, 334 So.2d 20 (Fla.1976); Klaus v. Minnesota State Ethics Comm'n, Minn., 244 N.W.2d 672 (1976); Fritz v. Gorton, 83 Wash.2d 275, 517 P.2d 911, appeal dismissed, 417 U.S. 902, 94 S.Ct. 2596, 41 L.Ed.2d 208 (19......
-
Gideon v. Alabama State Ethics Commission
...419 U.S. 1058, 95 S.Ct. 642, 42 L.Ed.2d 656 (1974); In re Kading, 70 Wis.2d 508, 235 N.W.2d 409 (1976); Klaus v. Minnesota Ethics Comm'n, 309 Minn. 430, 244 N.W.2d 672 (1976); Kenny v. Byrne, 144 N.J.Super. 243, 365 A.2d 211 (App.Div.1976); City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. Young, 2 Cal.3d 259, ......
-
Plante v. Gonzalez
...invalid and that the state interest did not justify the disclosures required of the employees.MINNESOTA. Klaus v. Minnesota State Ethics Commission, 1976, 309 Minn. 430, 244 N.W.2d 672, upheld a disclosure law which did not require dollar amounts against privacy attack, with dicta concernin......
-
Snider v. Shapp
... ... John ... W. Blasko, State College, for Center County Bd. of ... John ... B ... the "Public Officials Ethics Law" (herein simply ... the Ethics Law or Act) [ 1 ] ... statements with a State Ethics Commission (hereafter the ... Commission) created to implement and ... Walsh, supra; ... Klaus v. Minnesota State Ethics Commission, 309 Minn. 430, ... ...