Martin v. Dicklich

• Citation: 823 N.W.2d 336
• Decision Date: 05 December 2012
• Docket Number: No. A12–1588.,A12–1588.
• Parties: Ken MARTIN and Erik Simonson, Petitioners, v. Donald DICKLICH, Saint Louis County Auditor, and Mark Ritchie, Minnesota Secretary of State, Respondents.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

823 N.W.2d 336

Ken MARTIN and Erik Simonson, Petitioners,

v.Donald DICKLICH, Saint Louis County Auditor, and Mark Ritchie, Minnesota Secretary of State, Respondents.

No. A12–1588.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 5, 2012.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The Secretary of State is a permissible party to this petition.

2. The petition is not barred by laches.

3. Pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 204B.13, subds. 1 and 2 (2010 and Supp.2011), a major political party has the authority to fill a vacancy in nomination for any partisan office occurring after the primary when the originally nominated candidate has withdrawn by filing an affidavit of withdrawal in accordance with the procedures outlined in Minn.Stat. § 204B.12, subd. 2a (2010). As a result, Representative Kerry Gauthier's name must be removed from the 2012 general election ballot and petitioner Erik Simonson's name must be placed on that ballot as the candidate of the Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party for the office of State Representative for House District 7B.

Charles N. Nauen, David J. Zoll, Julie A. Strother, Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, for petitioners.

Mark S. Rubin, Saint Louis County Attorney, James T. Nephew, Assistant County Attorney, Duluth, Minnesota, for respondent Donald Dicklich.

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Alan I. Gilbert, Solicitor General, Michael Everson, Assistant Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for respondent Mark Ritchie.

Sara K. Van Norman, R. Reid LeBeau, II, Jacobson, Buffalo, Magnuson, Anderson, and Hagen, P.C., Saint Paul, Minnesota, for Travis Silvers.

Considered and decided by the court without oral argument.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Ken Martin and Erik Simonson filed a petition pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 204B.44 (2010). Petitioners seek an order requiring that respondents Donald Dicklich, the St. Louis County Auditor (“the County Auditor”), and Mark Ritchie, the Minnesota Secretary of State, place Simonson's name on the ballot for the 2012 general election as the candidate of the Democratic–Farmer–Labor (“DFL”) Party for the office of State Representative for House District 7B. Petitioners contend that the County Auditor erred by refusing to accept the Affidavit of Withdrawal submitted by DFL-nominated candidate Kerry Gauthier and the Affidavit of Candidacy submitted by newly nominated DFL candidate Simonson for the general election in District 7B. Because we concluded that Minnesota law required Simonson's name to be placed on the ballot, we issued an order on September 25, 2012 granting the petition, with this opinion to follow.

The facts are undisputed. Incumbent Gauthier was the only DFL candidate to file for candidacy for state representative in District 7B, and therefore, he was nominated for the general election without a primary. SeeMinn.Stat. § 204D.03, subd. 3 (2010). On August 21, 2012, Gauthier received, after all primary election results were certified, a Notice of Nomination from the State Canvassing Board. SeeMinn.Stat. § 204C.32, subd. 2 (2010).

On August 22, 2012, Gauthier announced that he intended to withdraw from the election. On September 6, 2012, Gauthier submitted to the County Auditor an Affidavit of Withdrawal. The County Auditor refused to accept the Affidavit and returned it to Gauthier.

On September 8, 2012, the DFL local committee (“Senate District 7 Committee”) convened an endorsing convention, revoked Gauthier's nomination, and then endorsed Simonson as the DFL-nominated candidate for District 7B. On September 10, 2012, the DFL submitted a Nomination Certificate to the County Auditor stating that Simonson had been nominated to fill the vacancy left by Gauthier's withdrawal. The County Auditor refused to accept the Nomination Certificate, stating that he did not have the statutory authority to do so.

On September 10, 2012, Martin and Simonson filed a petition with our court pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 204B.44, alleging that the County Auditor erred in the ballot preparation process. The alleged error was the County Auditor's refusal to remove Gauthier's name from the 2012 general election ballot and replace it with Simonson's name as the DFL-nominated candidate for District 7B. We issued a scheduling order the next day requiring the parties to submit briefs. In addition, petitioners were directed to address the issue of laches. All parties and District 7B Republican Party candidate Travis Silvers submitted briefs.

Petitioners argue that based on two statutory provisions, Minn.Stat. §§ 204B.12 (2010) and 204B.13, subds. 1 and 2 (2010 and Supp.2011), the County Auditor was required to remove Gauthier's name as the DFL candidate for state representative for District 7B on the 2012 general election ballot and substitute in its place Simonson's name. Respondents contend that these same statutory provisions do not allow Gauthier to withdraw and therefore do not allow Simonson's name to be substituted for Gauthier's on the general election ballot. Respondents also argue that laches should bar the relief sought. Finally, respondent Mark Ritchie contends that we should dismiss him from this proceeding because the petition did not allege any wrongful acts by his office.

I.

We turn first to the request by Secretary of State Ritchie to be dismissed from this proceeding. In naming Secretary Ritchie as a respondent, petitioners alleged that the Secretary of State is “responsible for the administration of elections,” “issues rules” regarding election administration, and “provides guidance to [ ] local election officials” for election administration. Petitioners therefore named Secretary Ritchie as a “necessary party.” Secretary Ritchie, however, notes that the petition alleges no wrongful acts by him related to the candidate withdrawal and substitute nominee events at issue here. Thus, he contends, he is not a proper party to this proceeding. Further, he points out that any potential relief is available only from the County Auditor, who is responsible for ballot preparation and printing. Secretary Ritchie concludes that he is not a proper party because the County Auditor is a party to this proceeding.

Minnesota Statutes § 204B.44 allows a person to seek correction of any error or omission committed by a “county auditor, canvassing board, ... the secretary of state, or any other individual charged with any duty concerning an election.” Minn.Stat. § 204B.44 (d) (2010). The petition must “describe the error, omission, or wrongful act,” and be served “on the officer, board or individual charged with the error, omission, or wrongful act.” Id. The proceeding authorized by section 204B.44 thus allows potential candidates, among others, to seek relief from the errors and omissions “of those enumerated persons charged with properly completing the procedural and mechanical duties attendant to the election process.” Schroeder v. Johnson, 311 Minn. 144, 145, 252 N.W.2d 851, 852 (1976).

The Secretary of State took no direct actions with respect to Gauthier's request to withdraw from the ballot and Simonson's request to have his name substituted on the ballot for the vacancy created by Gauthier's withdrawal. Those requests were properly directed to the County Auditor because Gauthier filed his affidavit of candidacy with that election official. SeeMinn.Stat. § 204B.09, subd. 1(d) (2010) (stating that affidavits of candidacy can be filed with the secretary of state or “the county auditor of the county in which the candidate resides”); Minn.Stat. § 204B.13, subd. 2(a) (2010) (stating that a vacancy in nomination can be filled by filing a “nomination certificate with the same official who received the affidavits of candidacy for that office”). Nevertheless, the Secretary of State retains a role in the ballot preparation process. For example, a county auditor prepares a ballot only after the Secretary of State has certified “the names of the nominees” to the auditor. Minn.Stat. § 204C.32, subd. 2. And the county auditor prepares the ballot “subject to the rules of the secretary of state.” Minn.Stat. § 204D.11, subd. 1 (2010). Finally, as petitioners allege, the Secretary of State, as the chief election official for the state, is “responsible for the administration of elections,” “issues rules” regarding election administration, and “provides guidance to [ ] local officials” for election administration.

Given the Secretary's role in ballot preparation, we cannot say that he is not a proper party here.¹ Joinder of multiple defendants is permissible when there is a “right to relief with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 20.01. Joinder rules, we have noted, “reflect [ ] pragmatic concerns for the efficient use of judicial resources.” State Auto. & Cas. Underwriters v. Lee, 257 N.W.2d 573, 575 (Minn.1977); see also Bacich v. Northland Transp. Co., 173 Minn. 538, 540, 217 N.W. 930, 931 (1928) (in explaining statutory authority for joinder, noting that joinder of multiple defendants may be permissible even though all defendants may not be “equally interested in or affected by the action,” but were “all interested in” the issues raised by plaintiff's claim for relief) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, the Secretary's interests in ballot preparation and election administration are implicated by petitioners' request for relief. Indeed, as the state official that has previously administered elections 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 would turn to the Secretary of State for guidance in this situation. In addition, to the extent that relief is available from the...