Minn. Voters Alliance v. Cnty. of Ramsey

971 N.W.2d 269

MINNESOTA VOTERS ALLIANCE, et al., Appellants,

v.COUNTY OF RAMSEY, et al., Respondents (A20-1294),

County of Olmsted, Minnesota Board of Commissioners, et al., Respondents (A20-1295),

City of Duluth et al., Respondents (A20-1296).

A20-1294, A20-1295, A20-1296

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed: March 16, 2022

Gregory J. Joseph, Joseph Law Office PLLC, Waconia, Minnesota; and Erick G. Kaardal, Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellants.

John J. Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Robert B. Roche, Assistant County Attorney, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for respondents County of Ramsey, et al.

Mark A. Ostrem, Olmsted County Attorney, Jennifer D. Plante, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Rochester, Minnesota, for respondents County of Olmsted, et al.

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Nathan J. Hartshorn, Assistant Attorney General, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon.

Douglas P. Seaton, James V.F. Dickey, Upper Midwest Law Center, Golden Valley, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Center of the American Experiment.

OPINION

ANDERSON, Justice.

To promote accurate and secure elections, Minnesota law sets uniform requirements for processing and counting absentee ballots. The statute that governs this process, Minn. Stat. § 203B.121 (2020), requires the establishment of absentee ballot boards in each jurisdiction conducting an election. The statute describes two types of members for absentee ballot boards. First, the absentee ballot board "must consist of a sufficient number of election judges trained in the handling of absentee ballots and appointed as provided in sections 204B.19 to 204B.22." Id. , subd. 1(a). Second, the absentee ballot board "may include deputy county auditors or deputy city clerks who have received training in the processing and counting of absentee ballots." Id.

In July 2020, appellants Minnesota Voters Alliance, et al.¹ (collectively the Alliance), filed petitions for writs of mandamus. The Alliance alleged that respondents Ramsey County and Olmsted County, among other entities,² violated their statutory obligations for appointing members to absentee ballot boards during the 2020 general election. At its heart, the Alliance argued that the statutory requirements for election judges—that they be "appointed as provided in sections 204B.19 to 204B.22"—also apply to deputy county auditors. But we are bound by the plain language of the statute. The text of section 203B.121 distinguishes between deputy county auditors and election judges. Further, the statute specifically applies statutory restrictions to election judges, and in the very next sentence does not apply those same statutory restrictions to deputy county auditors. The Alliance also argues that the statute restricts absentee ballot board membership to some limited group of "bona fide" deputy county auditors. Similarly, however, nothing in the language of the statute clearly limits membership to some limited group of "bona fide" deputy county auditors. We therefore hold that the Alliance has not shown the violation of a duty clearly established by law and that the district court properly dismissed the Alliance's mandamus petitions. Consequently, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals.

FACTS

The Alliance alleges that the failure to follow Minnesota election laws specifically injures its interests as an organization, and its members’ interests as potential election judges, voters, and candidates for office. Absentee voting in Minnesota is governed by its own chapter of Minnesota Statutes, chapter 203B. Minn. Stat. §§ 203B.001 –.28 (2020). The absentee voting chapter also incorporates by reference some requirements from the general election administration provisions, chapter 204B. Minn. Stat. §§ 204B.001 –.49 (2020). The absentee ballot board statute requires the appointment of "a sufficient number of election judges ... appointed as provided in sections 204B.19 to 204B.22" and permits the appointment of "deputy county auditors." Minn. Stat. § 203B.121, subd. 1(a). Election judges must be appointed from a list of candidates supplied by major political parties and must disclose their personal political affiliation. Minn. Stat. § 204B.21, subd. 2. The Alliance asserts that these statutory requirements for election judges also apply to deputy county auditors serving on absentee ballot boards.

Respondent Ramsey County claims that it satisfied its obligations under the absentee ballot board statute. In presidential election years, Ramsey County hires approximately 2,000 election judges, including 60 to 100 who typically serve on the ballot board. On July 7, 2020, the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners established an absentee ballot board for the 2020 elections. To fill these vacancies, the Ramsey County elections office contacted every individual on the major party election judge candidate lists to ask whether those individuals would serve as election judges in the 2020 general election. All who responded that they were available to serve as an election judge were sent a second communication asking them to serve on the ballot board. Ramsey County received only seven responses showing interest in serving on the ballot board. Scheduling conflicts meant that only three of those seven were able to serve on the ballot board; all three available election judges were appointed to the ballot board. Having exhausted the major party lists, Ramsey County turned to other sources for additional election judges, such as individuals who had served in past elections. Ramsey County's final ballot board consisted of 62 election judges—the three from the major party lists and 59 from other sources—and five deputy county auditors. No more than half of the 62 election judges on the ballot board were affiliated with the same major party; all election judges disclosed their major party affiliation or non-affiliation. Ramsey County did not collect statements of party affiliation from the deputy county auditors.

Likewise, respondent Olmsted County argues that it satisfied its obligations under the absentee ballot board statute. On July 21, 2020, the Olmsted County Board of Commissioners passed a resolution establishing an absentee ballot board. This resolution identified the board as consisting of "all members of the Olmsted County Property Records & Licensing Elections staff that have been appointed as deputy county auditors." The resolution then lists these staff by name, resulting in a total of 21 individuals. A subsequent section of this resolution appointed 18 of these 21 individuals as election judges. The County collected statements of party affiliation from these election judges, though it asserts that it was not required to do so. No more than half of the election judges were affiliated with any single major political party.

After Olmsted County appointed the elections staff to the ballot board, it determined that it needed additional election judges. Using the major party lists, the County contacted 87 individuals. Of these 87 individuals, only eight—four each from the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (DFL) and the Republican Party of Minnesota, the only two major parties that submitted candidates to Olmsted County—were able to serve on the ballot board. All eight did so.

In June and July 2020, the Alliance filed separate mandamus petitions in four different judicial districts, alleging violations of Minn. Stat. § 203B.121. The respective defendants were the governing bodies of the County of Ramsey and the Ramsey County Auditor, Christopher Samuel; the City of Duluth; the City of Minneapolis; and the County of Olmsted and the Olmsted County Director of Property Records and Licensing, Mark Krupski. These cases were consolidated into a single action in Ramsey County district court.

The Alliance did not make any allegations of misconduct, fraud, or negligence by any members of any absentee ballot boards. Nor did it present any evidence of the same. Rather, the Alliance's petitions concerned who had been appointed to the absentee ballot boards. The Alliance argued that the defendant government entities had impermissibly appointed ineligible individuals to serve on their absentee ballot boards. In September 2020, the district court dismissed all four petitions, finding that the Alliance had not proven any of the three elements required for a writ of mandamus: a violation of a duty clearly imposed by law, a public wrong specifically injurious to the Alliance, and a lack of other adequate remedies at law.

In October 2020, the Alliance appealed the dismissal of its petitions relating to Ramsey County, Olmsted County, and the City of Duluth. The court of appeals consolidated the appeals into a single case, which remained pending after the November 2020 general election occurred. The court affirmed.

Minn. Voters All. v. County of Ramsey , 962 N.W.2d 667, 670 (Minn. App. 2021). It held that the Alliance's claims were not moot because, although the 2020 election had passed, the issues raised were capable of repetition yet evading review. Id. at 671. But the court of appeals held that the Alliance had failed to show the violation of a duty clearly established by law. Id. at 672–75. Because this conclusion was sufficient to affirm the dismissal of the Alliance's petitions, the court did not consider the "specifically injured" or "adequate legal remedy" elements required for a writ of mandamus. Id. at 672, 675. The Alliance then petitioned for review of the cases relating to Ramsey County and Olmsted County, and we granted the Alliance's petition for review.

ANALYSIS

The Alliance challenges the court of appeals decision affirming the dismissal of its petitions for a writ of mandamus. The court of appeals based its decision on legal analysis of section 203B.121. Id. at 672–75. When a court grants or denies a writ of mandamus based solely on a legal determination, we review that decision de novo. Madison Equities, Inc....