Clark v. Pawlenty

Summary

The Minnesota Supreme Court considered a ballot challenge seeking to remove Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea's name or incumbent designation from the 2008 election ballot. The court dismissed Governor Tim Pawlenty as an improper party, denied relief concerning the primary ballot on grounds of laches, and addressed the merits of the constitutional challenge concerning judicial appointments and elections for the general election ballot. The opinion interprets Article VI, section 8, of the Minnesota Constitution and related election statutes.

Holdings

1. Governor Pawlenty was neither a proper nor necessary party because he had no responsibility for preparing the challenged ballot and could not implement the requested relief; the Secretary of State was a proper party because of his statewide election-administration responsibilities.
2. The petitioners' challenge to the primary-election ballot was barred by laches because they unreasonably delayed asserting claims they could have brought earlier, and granting relief would have substantially prejudiced election officials, candidates, and voters.
3. Article VI, § 8, of the Minnesota Constitution does not bar a judge appointed to fill a judicial vacancy from seeking election to the same office at the next general election occurring more than one year after the appointment.
4. A judge initially appointed to fill a judicial vacancy qualifies as an incumbent and must receive the incumbent designation when seeking election to that judicial office under Minn. Stat. § 204B.36, subd. 5.
5. The incumbent designation required by Minn. Stat. § 204B.36, subd. 5, does not violate the Minnesota Constitution.
6. The incumbent designation, alone or in combination with the gubernatorial appointment, imposed at most a de minimis burden on candidates' and voters' First Amendment rights and therefore did not violate the First Amendment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Governor Pawlenty was a proper or necessary party to a ballot challenge seeking correction of election materials.
2. Whether the petitioners' challenge to the primary-election ballot was barred by laches.
3. Whether Article VI, § 8, of the Minnesota Constitution barred a judge appointed to fill a judicial vacancy from seeking election to the same judicial office at the next general election.
4. Whether Minn. Stat. § 204B.36, subd. 5, authorized the incumbent designation for a judge initially appointed to the office rather than previously elected to it.
5. Whether the incumbent designation violated Minn. Stat. § 204B.35, subd. 2.
6. Whether the incumbent designation violated the Minnesota Constitution.
7. Whether the incumbent designation, alone or combined with the gubernatorial appointment, violated the petitioners' First Amendment rights.

Disposition

writ_denied