Trooien v. Simon
| Decision Date | 08 October 2018 |
| Docket Number | A18-1585 |
| Parties | Jerry TROOIEN, Petitioner, v. Steve SIMON, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Minnesota, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
On May 29, 2018, petitioner Jerry Trooien filed a nominating petition as a candidate in the special election for United States Senator, to be held on November 6, 2018. See Minn. Stat. § 204B.03 (2016) (). Trooien’s nominating petition listed his statement of political party or political principle as "unaffiliated." See Minn. Stat. § 204B.07, subd. 1(c) (2016) ().
On September 26, 2018, Trooien filed a petition pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 204B.44(a)(4) (2016), asking this court to order the Secretary of State to correct the ballot for the special election on November 6, 2018, by replacing the existing statement of his political party or political principle, "unaffiliated," with the word "independent." See Minn. Stat. § 204D.13, subd. 3 (2016) (). Trooien asserts that he used "unaffiliated" on his nominating petition under the belief that he could not use the word "independent." We ordered Trooien to serve the petition on the other candidates in the special election and established deadlines for responses to the petition.
The Secretary of State filed a response on October 1, 2018, stating that his office did not advise Trooien that "independent" could not be used on the nominating petition. The Secretary of State asks that we dismiss the petition as untimely based on the unreasonable delay between the filing of Trooien’s nominating petition and the filing of his petition with this court. The Secretary of State also asserts that substantial prejudice would result from changing the ballot at this late date because 2.34 million ballots that show Trooien’s political party or political principle as "unaffiliated" have already been printed and early voting is underway in Minnesota using these ballots. Specifically, over 191,000 absentee and mail ballots have been transmitted to voters and more than 21,000 of those ballots have been cast and accepted.
Trooien, in reply, states that he did not learn that he could use the word "independent" as his statement of political party or principle until August 30, 2018, less than 1 month before he filed his petition, and that he proceeded thereafter within a reasonable time to bring his request to this court. Trooien also asserts that voters’ interests in being "fully informed" about a candidate’s political party or political principle outweigh the limited expense that might result from correcting the ballot.
We have applied laches to election ballot challenges, dismissing petitions when the petitioner does not proceed " ‘with diligence and expedition in asserting his claim.’ " Clark v. Pawlenty , 755 N.W.2d 293, 299 (Minn. 2008) (quoting Marsh v. Holm , 238 Minn. 25, 55 N.W.2d 302, 304 (1952) ). The question in such a case is " ‘whether there has been such an unreasonable delay in asserting a known right, resulting in prejudice to others, as would make it inequitable to grant the relief prayed for.’ " Id. (quoting Winters v. Kiffmeyer , 650 N.W.2d 167, 170 (Minn. 2002) ). We have said that candidates "must judge carefully whether they can afford to wait even a few days before acting upon a known right" because "the ballot preparation and availability deadlines, the expense associated with ballot preparation and election administration, and the need for voter certainty" demand diligence. Martin v. Dicklich , 823 N.W.2d 336, 342 (Minn. 2012).
Trooien acknowledges that he knew as of August 30, 2018, that he had the right to use the word "independent" as his statement of political party or political principle.1 See Minn....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
De La Fuente v. Simon, A19-1994
...237, 56 N.W.2d 570, 574 (1953) ). We have declined to hear a challenge to an election ballot on grounds of laches. See Trooien v. Simon , 918 N.W.2d 560, 561 (Minn. 2018) (order) (dismissing a ballot challenge, noting that "millions of ballots were prepared" and early voting had begun befor......
-
Kieffer v. Governing Body of the Mun. Rosemount
...to file their petition. We have found comparable, and even shorter, delays to be unreasonable. See , e.g. , Trooien v. Simon , 918 N.W.2d 560, 561 (Minn. 2018) (finding waiting "almost 4 weeks" to file the petition was unreasonable).Petitioners instead point to the relevant date as being Ju......
-
Olson v. Simon
...away, substantial prejudice would result from ordering respondents to remove Olson's name from the primary ballot. See Trooien v. Simon , 918 N.W.2d 560, 561 (Minn. 2018) (dismissing a section 204B.44 petition on laches that was filed 5 days after early voting began and concluding that "sub......