State ex rel. Holm v. Dist. Court in & for Ramsey Cnty.

• Decision Date: 06 July 1923
• Docket Number: No. 23645.,23645.
• Parties: STATE ex rel. HOLM et al. v. DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR RAMSEY COUNTY et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

156 Minn. 270

194 N.W. 630

STATE ex rel. HOLM et al.

v.DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR RAMSEY COUNTY et al.

No. 23645.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 6, 1923.

Prohibition by the State, on the relation of Mike Holm, Secretary of State, and George Ries, Auditor of Ramsey County, against the District Court of the State of Minnesota, in and for the County of Ramsey, in the Second Judicial District, and others. On motion to quash the alternative writ. Motion denied.

Syllabus by the Court

The courts have no authority to enjoin the officials of the executive department from holding an election called by the Governor to fill a vacancy in the representation of this state in the Senate of the United States.

In calling such an election under the power conferred upon him by the federal Constitution, the Governor is exercising a governmental and political power, over which the courts have no control. C. L. Hilton, Atty. Gen., and E. C. Carman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for relators.

Frank E. McAllister, of St. Paul, for respondents.

TAYLOR, C.

The Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides:

‘The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state Legislatures.

‘When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies; provided, that the Legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the Legislature may direct.’

At the general election held in November, 1918, Knute Nelson of Alexandria, Minn., was elected a Senator to represent the state of Minnesota in the Senate of the United States for the term of six years, beginning on the 4th day of March, 1919. Pursuant to this election, he was duly admitted to a seat in the Senate of the United States as a Senator from the state of Minnesota, and served as such until his death on the 28th day of April, 1923. In obedience to the mandate of the federal Constitution, the Governor, on May 17, 1923, issued a writ of election to fill the vacancy created by his death.

The writ directed that a primary election be held on June 18, 1923, for the nomination of candidates for the position, and that a final election be held on July 16, 1923, for the election of a Senator for the unexpired term. The writ fixed the time and places at which these elections were to be held, and prescribed in some detail the manner in which they were to be conducted. It followed and adopted, in substance, the provisions of the election laws of the state governing primary and general elections, and designated as the officers to conduct these elections the same officers designated by the election laws to conduct state primary and general elections.

On June 4, 1923, the district court of Ramsey county, on the petition of three taxpayers, freeholders, and qualified voters of the state, issued an order requiring the Secretary of State and the county auditor of Ramsey county to show cause why they should not be enjoined from carrying out the provisions of the writ of election. Thereupon the Secretary of State and the county auditor of Ramsey county procured from this court an alternative writ of prohibition requiring the district court of Ramsey county and the judges thereof to show cause before this court why they should not be absolutely restrained and prohibited from taking any further action in such injunction proceeding. The matter was submitted to this court on a motion to quash the alternative writ of prohibition.

The case of Cooke v. Iverson, 108 Minn. 388, 122 N. W. 251,52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 415, and the several cases in which the court has required the Secretary of State to make corrections in the official ballots prepared by him for the use of the voters at state elections, are relied upon in support of the claim that the courts may enjoin the Secretary of State and the county auditor from carrying out the provisions of the Governor's writ of election. In the Cooke Case the court said:

‘It is settled beyond all controversy that courts cannot, by injunction, mandamus, or other process, control or direct the head of the executive department of the state in the discharge of any executive duty involving the exercise of his discretion. This necessarily follows from the constitutional division of the state government into three co-ordinate, distinct, and independent branches-legislative, executive, and judicial. Neither is responsible to the other for the manner in which it exercises its discretion in the performance of duties which are governmental or political in their character. Thus far there is no conflict of judicial authority. The conflict arises upon the question whether the rule stated is subject to the qualification that where duties purely ministerial in character are conferred upon the chief executive, and he refuses to act, or when he assumes to act in violation of the Constitution and laws of the state, he may be compelled to act, or restrained from acting, as the case may be, by the courts at the suit of one injured thereby in his personal or property rights, for which he has no other adequate remedy.’

After considering prior cases and other authorities, the court said:

‘We hold that: Courts cannot, by injunction, or mandamus, or other process, control or direct the head of the executive department of the state in the discharge of any executive duty involving the exercise of his discretion; but where duties purely ministerial in character are conferred upon the chief executive * * * he may be compelled to act, or restrained from acting, as the case may be, by the courts as the suit of one who is injured thereby in his person or property for which he has no other adequate remedy.’

In State ex rel. v. District Court, 141 Minn. 1, 168 N. W. 634, 3 A. L. R. 1476, the court, after reviewing the prior cases, said:

‘Each of these cases recognizes to the full that courts cannot by any process control or direct a head of the executive department of the state in the discharge of any constitutional executive duty involving the exercise of judgment and discretion. No judicial opinion to the contrary has been noticed.’

All courts agree that the judicial department cannot control or restrain the acts of the Governor, performed in the exercise of the governmental, political, or discretionary powers vested in him as the chief executive officer of the state; and that an attempt to do so would be an unjustifiable interference by one department of the government with the power lodged in another department, and a violation of the constitutional provision which, as embodied in our Constitution, reads as follows:

‘The powers of government shall be divided into three distinct...