Summary
The Minnesota Supreme Court considered whether absentee ballot return envelopes rejected by local election officials could be reviewed and counted through the administrative recount process or corrected by county canvassing boards. The court interpreted Minnesota statutes governing election returns, canvassing, recounts, and election contests, and concluded that improper rejection of absentee ballots was not an obvious error in counting or recording votes subject to correction under the canvassing statutes. The court distinguished administrative recount procedures from election contests and addressed the circumstances in which agreed-upon erroneous rejections could be corrected without awaiting a contest.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether an erroneous rejection of an absentee-ballot return envelope constitutes an obvious error in the counting or recording of votes correctable by a county canvassing board under Minn. Stat. § 204C.39.
- Whether county canvassing boards may amend their returns to include previously rejected absentee ballots after the State Canvassing Board has canvassed the original returns and an administrative recount is underway.
- Whether improperly rejected absentee ballots must be addressed exclusively through an election contest under Minn. Stat. chapter 209, or whether the Minnesota Supreme Court may order correction under Minn. Stat. § 204B.44 when the candidates and local election officials agree that a rejection was erroneous.
Holdings
- An erroneous rejection of an absentee-ballot return envelope is not an obvious error in the counting or recording of votes within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 204C.39 because it is not evident from the precinct returns and the rejected ballot has neither been counted nor recorded.
- During the administrative recount circumstances presented, the Secretary of State and State Canvassing Board lacked authority under Minn. Stat. § 204C.39 to accept amended county returns reflecting the acceptance of previously rejected absentee ballots.
- Under Minn. Stat. § 204B.44, the court may authorize correction without awaiting an election contest when the two candidates and the relevant local election officials agree that an absentee-ballot return envelope was erroneously rejected.
Key quotations
“The term `obvious error' as used in our statute is one that defies exact definition. About the only definition that can be given to it is that some error appears evident from an examination of the returns made by the various precincts.” (227)
“This does not mean the errors must remain uncorrected, but under the scheme created by the legislature, these errors are to be addressed in an election contest.” (230)
“Accordingly, we conclude that in the specific and limited circumstances where all parties—the two candidates and the relevant local election officials—agree that an absentee ballot return envelope was erroneously rejected, section 204B.44 authorizes us to allow correction of that error to reflect "the true vote of the people," and the correction need not await an election contest under chapter 209.” (233)
Factual background
The 2008 Minnesota United States Senate election was sufficiently close to require an automatic manual recount. Local election officials had rejected thousands of absentee-ballot return envelopes, and a subsequent voluntary review identified hundreds that officials believed had been rejected in error. The competing campaigns disputed whether rejected absentee ballots could be reviewed and counted during the administrative recount or instead had to be addressed through an election contest.
Procedural history
After the State Canvassing Board ordered an automatic manual recount, the Franken campaign requested review and counting of absentee ballots previously rejected by local election officials. The State Canvassing Board rejected that request as outside its statutory authority, while local officials undertook a voluntary review of rejected absentee-ballot envelopes. Petitioners filed a petition and amended petition in the Minnesota Supreme Court, which issued an order on December 18, 2008, granting relief in part and denying it in part, followed by this opinion explaining the order.
Remand instructions
The court granted in part and denied in part the petition as stated in its December 18, 2008 order, as modified by its December 24, 2008 order. Local election officials were authorized to open and count absentee ballots only where the candidates and the relevant local officials agreed that the envelopes had been erroneously rejected, subject to either candidate's challenge regarding voter intent.