Minn. Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party By Ken Martin v. Simon
| Decision Date | 03 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | A21-0330, A21-0403 |
| Citation | 970 N.W.2d 689 |
| Parties | MINNESOTA DEMOCRATIC-FARMER-LABOR PARTY BY Ken MARTIN, its Chair, Appellant, v. Steve SIMON, in his official capacity as the Secretary of State of the State of Minnesota, Respondent and Noah J. McCourt, Appellant, v. Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, in his official capacity, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Charles N. Nauen, David J. Zoll, Kristen G. Marttila, Rachel A. Kitze Collins, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party); and Amarita K. Singh, Simon J. Trautmann, Trautmann Martin Law PLLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for appellant Noah J. McCourt)
Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Allen Cook Barr, Stephen D. Melchionne, Assistant Attorneys General, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Johnson, Presiding Judge; Jesson, Judge; and Kirk, Judge.*
In First Amendment challenges to the Minnesota law that limits who can vote at precinct caucuses to "eligible voters," appellants separately sued the Minnesota Secretary of State. Appellants alleged that the caucus-eligibility statute violates their First Amendment freedom-of-association rights. It does so, they asserted, when it excludes potential caucus attendees, such as "dreamers," minors, and individuals whose civil rights have not been fully restored after a felony, who wish to participate at a caucus but are ineligible to vote in a primary or general election. The district courts dismissed both actions, concluding that the challenges were not justiciable as they were not ripe for review. The appellants filed separate appeals, which we consolidated. Because there is no credible threat of prosecution against the parties for violation of the caucus-eligibility statute—making this action nonjusticiable—we affirm.
During every general-election year, members of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (the DFL) come together in neighborhood-level gatherings to discuss issues and organize at the local level. At these precinct caucuses, participants may introduce resolutions on issues that they wish to see included in the DFL party platform and the DFL constitution, as well as vote to elect local party leadership. Caucus attendees also vote to elect delegates and alternates to the district conventions, who in turn endorse candidates and select DFL leadership.
But Minnesota law limits which caucus attendees may vote in a precinct caucus, stating "[o]nly those individuals who are or will be eligible to vote at the time of the next state general election , may vote or be elected a delegate or officer at the precinct caucus." Minn. Stat. § 202A.16, subd. 1 (2020) (emphasis added) (caucus-eligibility statute). Crucial to appellants the DFL and Noah McCourt, Minnesota Statutes section 201.014 (the election-eligibility statute)—the statute that determines voter eligibility at election time—prevents from voting "dreamers" (noncitizens who immigrated to the United States as young children), minors, and individuals who have not been fully restored to their civil rights after a felony conviction. Both these statutes are reproduced on the Minnesota Secretary of State website.
The DFL is a major political party in Minnesota. McCourt is an active member of the DFL. He is the outreach and inclusion officer for the DFL Disability Caucus and inclusion officer for the Saint Paul Young DFL. But because he was convicted of a felony and is currently serving a five-year sentence on probation, he is ineligible to vote in a primary or general election. Thus, under the caucus-eligibility statute, he is currently ineligible to vote in a precinct caucus.
Secretary of State Steve Simon (Simon or secretary) is responsible for the oversight of elections, which includes promulgating rules governing the eligibility and registration of voters in Minnesota and maintaining the registered voter lists. See Minn. Stat. §§ 201.091, subd. 2, (requiring secretary to prepare list of registered voters), .221 (requiring secretary to provide rules for maintaining voter registration records) (2020).
The DFL and McCourt sued Simon in separate actions, alleging that the caucus-eligibility statute is unconstitutional because it violates their freedom-of-association rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.1 Additionally, McCourt raised a claim that the statute violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights.
In both cases Simon moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Minn. R. Civ. Pro. 12.02(a), (e). The DFL and McCourt separately also moved for summary judgment. The district courts dismissed for failure to state a claim, concluding that there is no threat of the caucus-eligibility statute being enforced by Simon, and that Simon does not have the power to enforce it. Because the district court addressing the DFL's lawsuit found the case should be dismissed, it did not reach the DFL's motion for summary judgment.
The DFL and McCourt appeal.
Are appellants’ challenges to Minnesota Statutes section 202A.16 (2020) (the caucus-eligibility statute) justiciable?
Under the Minnesota Constitution, courts do not issue advisory opinions. State v. Arens , 586 N.W.2d 131, 132 (Minn. 1998) (). Nor do we "decide cases merely to establish precedent." Schowalter v. State , 822 N.W.2d 292, 298 (Minn. 2012) (quotation omitted). Instead, we require "the presence of a justiciable controversy" to our exercise of jurisdiction. Id. One aspect of justiciability is ripeness, which is a doctrine designed to prevent the courts "from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies" through avoidance of premature adjudication. Nat'l Park Hospitality Ass'n v. Dep't of Interior , 538 U.S. 803, 807, 123 S.Ct. 2026, 155 L.Ed.2d 1017 (2003) (quotation omitted). Justiciability requires that a case be ripe which, in the context of a statutory challenge like this one, means the law "is, or is about to be, applied to [the plaintiff's] disadvantage." Baertsch v. Minn. Dep't of Revenue , 518 N.W.2d 21, 25 (Minn. 1994) (quoting St. Paul Area Chamber of Com. v. Marzitelli , 258 N.W.2d 585, 587 (Minn. 1977) ).
The DFL and McCourt argue that the district courts erred in concluding that they failed to state claims on which relief could be granted because their challenges to the caucus-eligibility statute were not ripe for review. We review de novo a case, like this one, dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Hebert v. City of Fifty Lakes , 744 N.W.2d 226, 229 (Minn. 2008). In doing so, we consider only the facts alleged in the complaint, accepting those facts as true and construing all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Id.
In their complaints, the DFL and McCourt challenged the caucus-eligibility statute as violating their First Amendment freedom-of-association rights due to a threat of enforcement from the secretary should ineligible voters vote or be elected at the caucus. Part of their fear of reprisal is premised on the punishments in the election-eligibility statute and Minnesota Statutes section 204C.14 (unlawful-voting statute). Because the DFL and McCourt argue that the felony penalties contained in the election-eligibility and unlawful-voting statutes apply to the caucus-eligibility statute—and because the ripeness analysis here requires us to determine whether a credible threat of prosecution exists—we begin with interpreting these statutes. Then, with those interpretations in mind, we consider whether the challenge to the caucus-eligibility statute is ripe for review.
Our interpretation of whether the felony punishments in two statutes apply to the third turns on the interplay (or lack thereof) among three statutes: the caucus-eligibility, election-eligibility, and unlawful-voting statutes. We begin with the caucus-eligibility statute, which states in part that "[o]nly those individuals who are or will be eligible to vote at the time of the next state general election, may vote or be elected a delegate or officer at the precinct caucus."2 Minn. Stat. § 202A.16, subd. 1. But the only enforcement mechanism in this caucus statute lies with the other caucus participants, stating that Id. , subd. 3 (emphasis added).3
Because voter eligibility for caucuses turns on the election-eligibility statute, we look next at Minnesota Statutes section 201.014, which explains the requirements for who is eligible to vote:
Minn. Stat. § 201.014.
Finally, the unlawful-voting statute criminalizes certain activities, stating:
To continue reading
Request your trial