Scofield v. Kiffmeyer, No. C9-00-1622.

• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
• Writing for the Court: BLATZ, Chief Justice.
• Citation: 620 N.W.2d 24
• Parties: Cedric SCOFIELD, upper Midwestern Region representative sitting on the National Executive Committee of the Reform Party of the United States of America, et al., Petitioners, v. Mary KIFFMEYER, Secretary of State for the State of Minnesota, et al., Respondents.
• Decision Date: 21 December 2000
• Docket Number: No. C9-00-1622.

620 N.W.2d 24

Cedric SCOFIELD, upper Midwestern Region representative sitting on the National Executive Committee of the Reform Party of the United States of America, et al., Petitioners,
v.
Mary KIFFMEYER, Secretary of State for the State of Minnesota, et al., Respondents

No. C9-00-1622.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

December 21, 2000.

Mark A. Olson, Burnsville, for petitioners.

Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Kenneth E. Raschke, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, for respondents.

Heard, considered, and decided by the court en banc.

620 N.W.2d 25

OPINION

BLATZ, Chief Justice.

Petitioners, representatives of the Reform Party of the United States of America, the Reform Party of Minnesota, and the Buchanan Reform Presidential Committee, asked this court to order the Minnesota Secretary of State to change the designated party or principle of a president/vice president ticket set to appear on Minnesota ballots in the November 7, 2000, general election. On September 27, 2000, we issued an order denying the petition and indicating that an opinion would follow. We hold that the potential for confusion among voters does not outweigh the strong presumption in favor of giving effect to the intent of the nominators as stated on the nominating petition.

On August 25, 2000, a petition was filed with the secretary of state containing the signatures of at least 2,000 nominators for John Hagelin for president and Nat Goldhaber for vice president. The petition nominated presidential electors "representing the Reform Party."

On September 12, 2000, a nominating petition was filed with the secretary of state containing the signatures of at least 2,000 nominators for Pat Buchanan for president and Ezola Foster for vice president. That petition nominated presidential electors "representing Reform Party Minnesota." Petitioners note that Buchanan/Foster and Hagelin/Goldhaber each fought for and laid claim to the nomination of the national Reform Party of the United States of America. Petitioners now argue that that dispute was decided in favor of the Buchanan/Foster ticket by the issuance of a preliminary injunction by the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County, South District, enjoining the use of the name of the Reform Party of the United States of America in promotion of Hagelin/Goldhaber as candidates.¹

The secretary of state accepted both petitions as filed and determined that each met the statutory requirements for nominating petitions. See Minn.Stat. § 204B.07 (2000). The time for filing petitions closed on September 12, 2000. Based on the secretary's certification of the ballot, Hagelin and Goldhaber were set to appear on the general election ballot with the designation Reform Party and Buchanan and Foster with the designation Reform Party Minnesota.

The petition before the court is brought pursuant to the "errors and omissions" provision of Minnesota election law. See Minn.Stat. § 204B.44 (2000). Under that statute, the court is authorized to act to prevent an error or omission in the placement or printing of the name or description of any candidate on any official ballot. See id. When the petition was received, this court issued an order for the secretary of state to appear and show cause for refusing to correct the alleged error and to take all steps necessary to prevent the ballots from being printed until the matter was resolved.

The secretary of state argues that there is no error within the meaning of the statute. The petitioners assert that the Hagelin/Goldhaber ticket has agreed to change its party/principle designation to either "independents" or "Natural Law Party." Representatives of the Hagelin/Goldhaber ticket appeared at oral argument and did not oppose the petition pursuant to an agreement with petitioners.

In preparing ballots, election officials are instructed: "The political party or political principle of the candidate as stated on the petition shall be placed after the name of a candidate nominated by petition." Minn.Stat. § 204D.13 (2000) (emphasis added); see also Minn.Stat. § 204B.07 (nominating petition for office is required to state the candidate's political

620 N.W.2d 26

party or political principle). Petitioners do not allege, and there is no question that the secretary of state followed this provision in certifying the candidates consistent with the nominating petitions. Instead petitioners claim that the potential for confusion among voters warrants a change in the party/principle designation by the secretary of state consistent with petitioners' agreement with the Hagelin/Goldhaber ticket

Minnesota's election laws have historically precluded a candidate from claiming affiliation with a party or principle where that party or principle shares the name or part of a name of an established political party. The current version of that statute provides:

A major political party which has adopted a party name is entitled to the exclusive use of that name for the designation of its candidates on all ballots, and no candidate of any other political party is entitled to have printed on a ballot as a party designation any part of that name.

Minn.Stat. § 202A.11 (2000); see also Minn.Stat. § 204B.07, subd. 1(c) (2000) ("No part of the name of a major political party may be used to designate the political party or principle of a candidate who files for a partisan office by nominating petition * * *."). The so-called party name protection act extends only to major political parties in Minnesota. See Minn. Stat. § 202A.11. A major political party is a party that maintains a party organization and either presented a candidate in the last preceding general election who received at least five percent of the vote or whose members, totaling at least five percent of the vote, presented a petition to the secretary of state for placement on the ballot. See Minn.Stat. § 200.02, subd. 7 (2000). Neither the Reform Party nor Reform Party Minnesota is a major political party; therefore, neither is entitled to the protections of the party name protection act.

Although the party name protection act applies only to major political parties, petitioners urge us to consider the potential voter confusion created by the use of similar party names. This court has stated:

[V]iewing [the party name protection act] as expressive of a legislative intention to prevent confusion which might be engendered by the use of similar political designations, we will examine situations outside the purview of the statute to ascertain whether or not confusion, or the likelihood of confusion, would exist as a result of

...