Opinion
A23-1354
02-07-2024
Joan Growe, et al., Petitioners, v. Steve Simon, Minnesota Secretary of State, Respondent.
Charles N. Nauen, David J. Zoll, Kristen G. Marttila, Rachel A. Kitze Collins, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Ronald Fein, Amira Mattar, Courtney Hostetler, John Bonifaz, Ben Clements, Free Speech for People, Newton, Massachusetts, for petitioners. Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Nathan J. Hartshorn, Allen Cook Barr, Assistant Attorneys General, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for respondent Steve Simon, Minnesota Secretary of State. R. Reid LeBeau II, Jacobson, Magnuson, Anderson & Halloran, P.C., Saint Paul, Minnesota, for intervenor-respondent Republican Party of Minnesota. Nicholas J. Nelson, Samuel W. Diehl, CrossCastle PLLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota; David A. Warrington, Dhillon Law Group, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia; and Mark P. Meuser, Christopher M. Halbohn, Dhillon Law Group, Inc., San Francisco, California, for Donald J. Trump and amicus curiae Donald J. Trump for President 2024, Inc. Douglas G. Wardlow, Chaska, Minnesota, for amicus curiae The American Center for Law and Justice. Sara K. Van Norman, Van Norman Law, PLLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Katherine M. Swenson, Emily M. McAdam, Greene Espel PLLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Constitutional Accountability Center. Daniel E. Gustafson, Karla M. Gluek, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Gerard N. Magliocca. Charles R. Shreffler, Dakota Law PLLC, Lakeville, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Professor Derek T. Muller. Patrick N. Strawbridge, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC, Boston, Massachusetts; Gilbert C. Dickey, Jeffrey S. Hetzel, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC, Arlington, Virginia; and Gregory M. Erickson, Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amici curiae Republican National Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee, and National Republican Congressional Committee.
Original Jurisdiction Office of Appellate Courts
Charles N. Nauen, David J. Zoll, Kristen G. Marttila, Rachel A. Kitze Collins, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, Minnesota; and
Ronald Fein, Amira Mattar, Courtney Hostetler, John Bonifaz, Ben Clements, Free Speech for People, Newton, Massachusetts, for petitioners.
Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Nathan J. Hartshorn, Allen Cook Barr, Assistant Attorneys General, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for respondent Steve Simon, Minnesota Secretary of State.
R. Reid LeBeau II, Jacobson, Magnuson, Anderson & Halloran, P.C., Saint Paul, Minnesota, for intervenor-respondent Republican Party of Minnesota.
Nicholas J. Nelson, Samuel W. Diehl, CrossCastle PLLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota; David A. Warrington, Dhillon Law Group, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia; and
Mark P. Meuser, Christopher M. Halbohn, Dhillon Law Group, Inc., San Francisco, California, for Donald J. Trump and amicus curiae Donald J. Trump for President 2024, Inc.
Douglas G. Wardlow, Chaska, Minnesota, for amicus curiae The American Center for Law and Justice.
Sara K. Van Norman, Van Norman Law, PLLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
Katherine M. Swenson, Emily M. McAdam, Greene Espel PLLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Constitutional Accountability Center.
Daniel E. Gustafson, Karla M. Gluek, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Gerard N. Magliocca.
Charles R. Shreffler, Dakota Law PLLC, Lakeville, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Professor Derek T. Muller.
Patrick N. Strawbridge, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC, Boston, Massachusetts;
Gilbert C. Dickey, Jeffrey S. Hetzel, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC, Arlington, Virginia; and
Gregory M. Erickson, Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amici curiae Republican National Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee, and National Republican Congressional Committee.
SYLLABUS
1. Petitioners have standing to file a petition asserting that it would be error for the Secretary of State to place former President Donald J. Trump's name on the 2024 presidential ballots. But only their claim regarding the 2024 Republican Party presidential nomination primary ballot-not their claim regarding the 2024 general election ballot-is ripe and about to occur or has already occurred under Minn. Stat. § 204B.44(a) (2022) and is thus justiciable at this time.
2. It is not an error under Minn. Stat. § 204B.44 (2022), for the Secretary of State to place former President Donald J. Trump's name on the 2024 Republican Party presidential nomination primary ballot because the Legislature established the presidential nomination primary as an internal party election to serve an internal party purpose of selecting delegates to the party's national convention.
Petition dismissed with prejudice as it relates to the placement of former President Donald J. Trump's name on the presidential nomination primary ballot. Petition dismissed without prejudice as it relates to the placement of former President Donald J. Trump's name on the general election ballot.
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
On September 12, 2023, multiple Minnesota voters filed a "Petition Pursuant to Minn. Stat § 204B.44 to Challenge Placement of Donald J. Trump on the 2024 Primary and General Election Ballots" (the Petition). Each petitioner intends to vote in both the presidential nomination primary and general election in 2024, including at least one petitioner who intends to vote in the Republican Party presidential nomination primary.The Petition invokes Minn. Stat. § 204B.44 (2022) as the vehicle for seeking an order prohibiting Secretary of State Steve Simon from including former President Donald J. Trump as a candidate on the 2024 Republican Party presidential nomination primary ballot and the general election ballot due to the events of January 6, 2021, at the United States Capitol. Petitioners' legal theory is rooted exclusively in the claim that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution renders former President Trump ineligible to hold office.
The petitioners are Joan Growe, Paul Anderson, Thomas Beer, David Fisher, Vernae Hasbargen, David Thul, Thomas Welna, and Ellen Young.
The presidential nomination primary is established and governed by Minn. Stat. ch. 207A (2022).
On November 8, 2023, we issued an order concluding that petitioners have standing and that their claim was ripe as to the issue of whether former President Trump's name should be excluded from the 2024 Republican Party presidential nomination primary ballot but holding that their claim as to the 2024 general election ballot was neither ripe nor "about to occur" as section 204B.44(a) requires. We further concluded, with respect to the only ripe issue before us, that under section 204B.44, there was no error to correct as to the presidential nomination primary election if former President Trump's name was included on the presidential nomination primary ballot, notwithstanding petitioners' claim that former President Trump is disqualified from holding office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Our opinion here explains the reasons for our decision.
FACTS
Petitioners claim that, under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, former President Trump cannot hold the office of President of the United States. They claim that former President Trump, in conduct related to the events of January 6, 2021, at the United States Capitol, "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the United States or gave "aid or comfort to the enemies thereof," within the meaning of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides in full:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3.
Petitioners further assert that an organization, Free Speech For People, sent a letter to the Secretary of State on August 23, 2023, requesting that the Secretary of State exclude former President Trump from the 2024 presidential nomination primary and general election ballots. According to petitioners, the Secretary of State responded by letter, stating that he did not have the authority to investigate a candidate's ineligibility but that Minn. Stat. § 204B.44 allows one or more people to challenge in court the eligibility of a candidate to appear on a ballot. See Minn. Stat. § 204B.44 (providing procedures to petition this court to correct certain ballot errors). On September 7, 2023, the Secretary of State issued a public statement repeating his claim that his office "does not have the legal authority to investigate a candidate's eligibility for office" and that "Minnesota law (Minn. Stat. § 204B.44) allows one or more people to challenge in court the eligibility of a candidate to appear on a ballot."
Later that month, petitioners filed the Petition against the Secretary of State. In an order filed on September 20, 2023, we granted the motion of the Republican Party of Minnesota to intervene as a respondent in this action. We further directed petitioners, the Secretary of State, and the Republican Party of Minnesota to file briefs on threshold legal issues of justiciability and the legal construction of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In addition, we invited former President Trump to file a response to the Petition and a responsive brief addressing the same legal issues. After briefs were filed, we held oral argument on November 2, 2023.
On November 8, 2023, we issued an order dismissing the Petition. Growe v. Simon, 997 N.W.2d 81 (Minn. 2023) (order). After concluding that petitioners had standing to file a petition under section 204B.44 and their claim regarding the presidential nomination primary ballot was justiciable, we held that it would not be an error for the Secretary of State to include former President Trump's name on the presidential nomination primary ballot. 997 N.W.2d at 82. We stated:
The Legislature enacted the presidential nomination primary process to allow major political parties to select delegates to the national conventions of those parties; at those conventions the selected delegates will cast votes along with delegates from all of the other states and territories and choose a presidential candidate who will subsequently appear on general election ballots. See Minn. Stat. § 207A.11(d) (2022) (explaining that the presidential nomination primary "only applies to a major political party that selects delegates at the presidential nomination primary to send to a national convention"). This is "a process that allows political parties to obtain voter input in advance of a nomination decision made at a national convention." De La Fuente v. Simon, 940 N.W.2d 477, 492 (Minn. 2020). Thus, although the Secretary of State and other election officials administer the mechanics of the election, this is an internal party election to serve internal party purposes, and winning the presidential nomination primary does not place the person on the general election ballot as a candidate for President of the United States. As we explained in De La Fuente, in upholding the constitutionality of this statutory scheme for the presidential nomination primary, "[t]he road for any candidate's access to the ballot for Minnesota's presidential nomination primary runs only through the participating political parties, who alone
determine which candidates will be on the party's ballot." 940 N.W.2d at 494-95. And there is no state statute that prohibits a major political party from placing on the presidential nomination primary ballot, or sending delegates to the national convention supporting, a candidate who is ineligible to hold office.Id. at 82-83 (alteration in original).
We also concluded that petitioners' claim that it would be an error under section 204B.44 for the Secretary of State to include former President Trump's name on the 2024 general election ballot was not ripe and so not justiciable. Growe, 997 N.W.2d at 82. Therefore, we dismissed the Petition as it related to the 2024 general election ballot without prejudice as to petitioners bringing a new petition raising their claim as to the general election. Id. at 83. This opinion sets forth in more detail our reasoning as summarized in our order dated November 8, 2023.
ANALYSIS
As described above, petitioners claim that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment bars former President Trump from holding the office of President of the United States. Petitioners further assert that because former President Trump is ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States, his name cannot appear on the 2024 Republican Party presidential nomination primary ballot or on the 2024 general election ballot as a candidate for president.
Minnesota Statutes section 204B.44 provides the statutory framework for individuals to seek a court order directing an election official like the Secretary of State to correct an error or omission that has occurred or is about to occur in the conduct of an election. One of the errors that we may order the Secretary of State to correct is the improper placement of a candidate's name on an official ballot. Minn. Stat. § 204B.44(a)(1).
To properly assess petitioners' claims that it would be an error for the Secretary of State to place former President Trump's name on the Republican Party presidential nomination primary ballot and on the general election ballot, it is important to understand the statutory processes that the Legislature adopted for placing the names of the party candidates for president and vice president on the ballots and for choosing presidential electors and alternate electors. We focus particularly on the process that applies to major political parties, like the Republican Party, which select delegates "to send to a national convention." Minn. Stat. § 207A.11(d) (2022); see Minn. Stat. § 204B.07, subd. 2 (2022) (providing that the general nominating petition process "does not apply to candidates for presidential elector or alternate nominated by major political parties" because "[m]ajor party candidates for presidential elector or alternate are certified under section 208.03").
Presidential Nomination Primary Ballot
In 2016, the Minnesota Legislature established, in a separate statutory chapter, a presidential nomination primary process. Act of May 22, 2016, ch. 162, §§ 9-15, 2016 Minn. Laws 605, 609-12 (codified as amended at Minn. Stat. ch. 207A (2022)). The purpose of the chapter is to establish the process for selecting delegates to a major political party's national convention at which the party's nominee for president will be chosen; "[t]he results of the presidential nomination primary must bind the election of delegates in each party." Minn. Stat. § 207A.12(d); see De La Fuente v. Simon, 940 N.W.2d 477, 488- 89 (Minn. 2020) (stating that "[p]olitical parties that use a national convention to nominate a candidate for president may also use state presidential primaries to gather voter input for the decision to be made at the national convention: the national party's candidate for a general-election ballot").
Consistent with that purpose, the Legislature created a presidential nomination primary structure to facilitate the internal process of major parties for selecting their candidates, a structure in which the Secretary of State's role is limited and closely prescribed. The Legislature directed that "[e]ach party participating in the presidential nomination primary must determine which candidates are to be placed on the presidential nomination primary ballot for that party." Minn. Stat. § 207A.13, subd. 2(a). The Legislature stated that "[o]nce submitted, changes must not be made to the candidates that will appear on the ballot." Id. The chair of each political party also must designate "the names of write-in candidates, if any, to be counted for that party" in determining who the Minnesota delegation will support at the national convention. Minn. Stat. § 207A.13, subd. 2(b).
Each person wishing to vote in the presidential nomination primary must request a ballot for a specific party after confirming to the election judge that the person is "in general agreement with the principles of the party for whose candidate I intend to vote." Minn. Stat. § 204C.10(b) (2022) (requiring that the "general agreement" language appear on the polling place roster); Minn. R. 8215.0300, subp. 2 (2023) (requiring primary voters to read the roster language). "A voter who refuses to indicate a major political party must not be allowed to sign the polling place roster or cast a ballot." Minn. R. 8215.0300, subp. 3 (2023). Further, Minnesota Rule 8215.0300 states:
The polling place roster must include a place for the voter to indicate the voter's party choice. The election judge or voter must record in the polling place roster or electronic roster the name of the major political party whose ballot the voter requested. After the voter's major political party choice has been recorded, the election judge shall instruct the voter to sign the polling place roster. The county auditor must include the major political party choice recorded on the roster when posting voting history for every person who voted in the presidential nomination primary in the statewide registration system.Minn. R. 8215.0300, subp. 2.
Moreover, the Legislature mandated that the Secretary of State "consult with the party chairs" when making rules for the presidential nomination primary, "including seeking advice about possible rules before issuing a notice of intent to adopt rules, consultation before the notice of comment is published, consultation on the statement of need and reasonableness, consultation in drafting and revising the rules, and consultation regarding any modifications to the rule being considered." Minn. Stat. § 207A.11(c). In short, the presidential nomination primary is an internal party election designed to serve internal party purposes; the Secretary of State merely implements the party election. As we explained in De La Fuente, where we upheld the constitutionality of this statutory scheme for the presidential nomination primary, "[t]he road for any candidate's access to the ballot for Minnesota's presidential nomination primary runs only through the participating political parties, who alone determine which candidates will be on the party's ballot." 940 N.W.2d at 494-95.
We explained the history of Minnesota's presidential nomination primary process in De La Fuente:
"Before 2020, Minnesota last held a presidential nominating primary in 1992. At that time, a candidate's name was listed 'on the appropriate major political party presidential ballot' if the person (1) filed an affidavit of candidacy and paid a filing fee, or (2) was nominated by a petition. Minn. Stat. § 207A.02, subd. 1 (1992). In other years, Minnesota voters indicated 'their preference for the offices of president of the United States' at statewide caucuses. Minn. Stat. § 202A.18, subd. 2a (2000); see also Minn. Stat. § 202A.14, subd. 1 (2018) (requiring 'a party caucus' to be held in 'every state general election year'). When a caucus was held in presidential election years, candidates for president and vice-president did not 'file an affidavit of candidacy for office.' Minn. Stat. § 204B.06, subd. 4 (2018)."940 N.W.2d at 482.
General Election Ballot
The process for placing a major political party candidate for president (as a stand-in for the Minnesota electors and alternate electors who will actually vote for president) on the general election ballot also differs from the process for placing other candidates on the general election ballot. That process is set forth in a separate chapter of the Minnesota Statutes, Minn. Stat. ch. 208 (2022). Following national conventions at which the major political parties select their nominees for president, the major political party chairs certify to the Secretary of State the names of the persons nominated as the presidential electors and alternate presidential electors, as well as the names of the party candidates for president and vice president. Minn. Stat. § 208.03. The person the major party places on the general election ballot for president is not necessarily the same person that prevailed in the Minnesota presidential nomination primary. In the general election, "a vote cast for the party candidates for president and vice president shall be deemed a vote for that party's electors and alternates as filed with the secretary of state." Minn. Stat. § 208.04. The electors for the prevailing party candidates meet after the election to cast electoral votes for the offices of president and vice president. Minn. Stat. §§ 208.05, 208.46.
Under the United States Constitution, the people do not directly elect the president or vice president. Rather, each state chooses electors to cast votes in what has come to be known as the electoral college. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1; id. amend. XII.
This process contrasts with the more typical primary election process set forth in Minnesota Statutes chapter 204B (2022), for other offices in which major political party candidates for partisan office and candidates for nonpartisan office apply for a place on the primary ballot by filing an affidavit of candidacy. Minn. Stat. § 204B.03 ("Candidates of a major political party for any partisan office except presidential elector and all candidates for nonpartisan office shall apply for a place on the primary ballot by filing an affidavit of candidacy . . . ."). See generally Minn. Stat. § 204B.06 (addressing affidavits of candidacy). A candidate becomes a major political party's general election candidate for a partisan office by winning the highest number of votes at the primary among that party's candidates for that office. Minn. Stat. § 204D.10, subd. 1 (2022); see also Minn. Stat. § 204D.03, subd. 3(a) (2022) ("If no more than one candidate files for nomination by a major political party for a partisan office, the candidate who filed must be declared the nominee upon the close of filing."). For nonpartisan offices, "[t]he candidates . . . receiving the highest and the next highest number of votes shall be the nominees for that office" in the general election unless more than one individual is to be elected to the same nonpartisan office in which case "the number of nominees shall be equal to twice the number of individuals to be elected, and that number of candidates receiving the highest number of votes shall be the nominees for that office." Minn. Stat. § 204D.10, subd. 3 (2022). In other words, unlike the presidential nomination primary at issue here, in a typical primary, there is a direct connection between the candidates who appear on the primary ballot and the candidates who are placed on the general election ballot. Finally, "[c]andidates for any partisan office who do not seek the nomination of a major political party shall be nominated by nominating petition as provided in sections 204B.07 and 204B.08." Minn. Stat. § 204B.03. The names of these candidates "shall not be placed on any state primary ballot," Minn. Stat. § 204D.07, subd. 2 (2022), but instead go directly to the general election, Minn. Stat. § 204D.12(2) (2022).
I.
Petitioners request that we direct the Secretary of State to exclude former President Trump's name from the Republican Party presidential nomination primary ballot and from the general election ballot for the November 2024 election. We first address whether petitioners have standing to assert those claims and whether a justiciable controversy exists as to those claims.
To have standing, a party must have "a sufficient stake in a justiciable controversy to seek relief from a court." State by Humphrey v. Philip Morris Inc., 551 N.W.2d 490, 493 (Minn. 1996). A party can obtain standing in two ways: (1) if it has "suffered some injury in fact," or (2) if it is the beneficiary of "some legislative enactment granting standing." Id. Petitioners contend that section 204B.44 grants them standing. We agree.
Our court is not bound by the standing constraints of Article III of the United States Constitution. Snyder's Drug Stores, Inc. v. Minn. State Bd. of Pharmacy, 221 N.W.2d 162, 165 (Minn. 1974); see N.Y. State Club Ass'n v. City of New York, 487 U.S. 1, 8 n.2 (1988) ("[T]he special limitations that Article III of the Constitution imposes on the jurisdiction of the federal courts are not binding on the state courts."); ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 617 (1989) ("[S]tate courts are not bound to adhere to federal standing requirements . . . ."). Article VI of the Minnesota Constitution does not have the same limiting language as Article III of the United States Constitution.
Minnesota Statutes section 204B.44(a) provides that "[a]ny individual may file a petition in the manner provided in this section for the correction of any of the following errors, omissions, or wrongful acts" regarding the conduct of an election. Accordingly, section 204B.44 gives authority to "[a]ny individual" to file a petition, and we have broadly construed the legislative grant of standing in section 204B.44 controversies. See League of Women Voters Minn. v. Ritchie, 819 N.W.2d 636, 645 n.7 (Minn. 2012) (concluding that nonprofit organizations, along with individual petitioners, had standing under section 204B.44). Here, petitioners allege that they are registered voters in Minnesota who intend to vote. In Clifford v. Hoppe, 357 N.W.2d 98, 100 n.1 (Minn. 1984), we concluded that a registered voter had a "sufficient interest" in the election to bring a claim under section 204B.44. The Petition further represents that petitioners intend to vote in the general election and at least one of the petitioners specifically intends to vote in the Republican Party presidential nomination primary. Accordingly, we hold that petitioners have standing under section 204B.44.
We now turn to the question of ripeness. We cannot exercise jurisdiction over petitioners' claim unless a justiciable controversy exists. See Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc., 736 N.W.2d 611, 617 (Minn. 2007). A justiciable controversy does not exist unless the claim "is capable of specific resolution by judgment rather than presenting hypothetical facts that would form an advisory opinion." Id. at 618. We decide present problems, not hypothetical ones: "Issues which have no existence other than in the realm of future possibility are purely hypothetical and are not justiciable." Lee v. Delmont, 36 N.W.2d 530, 537 (Minn. 1949). Such issues are not ripe for adjudication and so are not justiciable. See Bailey v. Noot, 324 N.W.2d 164, 167-68 (Minn. 1982) (refusing to hear a constitutional claim because the person asserting the claim "cannot know at this time" whether a constitutional right will be violated).
Further, section 204B.44(a) provides that a person may seek to correct errors, omissions, or wrongful acts "which have occurred or are about to occur." Minn. Stat. § 204B.44(a). If an act has not already occurred or is not about to occur, a person cannot bring a claim under the statute.
We conclude that, as of our order dated November 8, 2023, one of petitioners' claimed errors-that the Secretary of State will place former President Trump's name on the Republican Party presidential nomination primary ballot-was ripe and "about to occur" under section 204B.44(a). The 2024 presidential nomination primary will occur on March 5, 2024. Major political parties in Minnesota wishing to participate in the presidential nomination primary were required to submit the names of the candidates that will appear on their respective presidential nomination primary ballots no later than January 2, 2024. Minn. Stat. §§ 207A.11(b), 207A.13, subd. 2(a). According to the Secretary of State, due to deadlines in state and federal law, Minnesota election officials had to provide printed ballots and programmed assistive voting equipment to voters no later than January 19, 2024. The Secretary of State also informed us that to meet this deadline, election officials were required to have the final list of candidates for the presidential nomination primary ballot no later than the close of business on January 5, 2024. No party has disputed these facts.
Further, in our November 2023 order in this matter, we noted that although it was not an absolute certainty that the Republican Party of Minnesota would submit former President Trump's name to appear on the Republican Party presidential nomination primary ballot for 2024, it was nearly certain. We now know that former President Trump is a candidate on the Republican Party presidential nomination primary ballot for 2024. Republican Party of Minn., Hann Announces Presidential Primary Candidates (Dec. 13, 2023), https://www.mngop.org/2023/12/13/hann-announces-presidential-primary-candidates/. In light of these facts, we hold that the alleged error of placing former President Trump's name on the 2024 Republican Party presidential primary ballot is justiciable and was "about to occur" at the time of our order and how now "occurred" under section 204B.44(a).
We reach a different conclusion regarding petitioners' claim that it would be error for the Secretary of State to place former President Trump's name on the 2024 general election ballot. That claim is neither ripe nor "about to occur" under section 204B.44(a). The Republican National Convention, at which the candidate for the Republican Party will be chosen, will not occur until July 15-18, 2024. Republican Nat'l Comm., RNC Announces Dates of 2024 Convention in Milwaukee (Dec. 21, 2022), https://gop.com/press-release/rnc-announces-dates-of-2024-convention-in-milwaukee/. At the time we issued our order in November 2023, multiple candidates were seeking the Republican nomination for president in 2024. Martín González Gómez & Maggie Astor, Who's Running for President in 2024?, NY Times, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/us/politics/presidential-candidates-2024.html (last visited Jan. 24, 2024). Indeed, in December, the Republican Party of Minnesota designated five candidates to appear on its presidential nomination primary ballot in 2024: former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, former South Carolina Governor and former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy, and former President Trump. Republican Party of Minn., supra. The Republican Party also did request that the ballot include a blank line for write-in candidates. Dana Ferguson, DFL, GOP set Minnesota presidential primary ballots with multiple choices on each, MPR News (Dec. 13, 2023), https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/12/13/dfl-gop- set-minnesota-presidential-primary-ballots-with-multiple-choices-on-each. Between now and July 15, 2024, when the Republican National Convention begins, all the states and territories of the United States must choose the delegates who will represent them at the national convention. The national convention must be held. Following the convention, the major party chairs have until August 26, 2024-71 days before the November 5, 2024, general election-to "certify to the secretary of state the names of the persons nominated as presidential electors, the names of persons nominated as alternate presidential electors, and the names of the party candidates for president and vice president." Minn. Stat. § 208.03. History tells us that a lot may happen in this election between now and the national conventions.
Since December 2023, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and Vivek Ramaswamy have suspended their presidential campaigns. Lisa Lerer, Jazmine Ulloa & Michael C. Bender, Haley Gets a Trump Matchup, but Now Faces the Trump Machine, NY Times (Jan. 22, 2024), https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/22/us/politics/nikki-haley-new-hampshire--primary. html.
The dispute over whether former President Trump should be excluded from the 2024 general election ballot is too remote and hypothetical to be a ripe, justiciable controversy at this time. Likewise, petitioners' claim that the Secretary of State will commit an error by placing former President Trump's name on the 2024 general election ballot is not "about to occur" under section 204B.44(a). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners' claim that it would be error for the Secretary of State to place former President Trump's name on the 2024 general election ballot.
The Secretary of State asks us to exercise our discretionary power to hear the unripe claim related to the general election ballot because the argument is functionally justiciable. Functional justiciability is a doctrine that we apply to hear certain claims that are moot. In the context of moot claims, we have said that "[w]e may exercise discretion to hear an issue that is functionally justiciable when the issue presents an important question of statewide significance that should be decided immediately." Snell v. Walz, 985 N.W.2d 277, 284 (Minn. 2023) (quoting Dean v. City of Winona, 868 N.W.2d 1, 6 (Minn. 2015)) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have applied this doctrine narrowly. Id. And we have never applied this doctrine to resolve claims that we otherwise would not have jurisdiction to decide because the claims are not ripe.
The Secretary of State proposes that we extend application of the functional justiciability doctrine beyond moot claims to claims that are not ripe. It is true, as the Secretary of State posits, that mootness and ripeness are both questions of justiciability. Generally speaking, mootness considers whether subsequent events have rendered a once justiciable dispute no longer justiciable because" 'a decision on the merits is no longer necessary or an award of effective relief is no longer possible.'" Quinn v. LMC NE Minneapolis Holdings, LLC, 985 N.W.2d 571, 573 (Minn. 2023) (order) (quoting Dean, 868 N.W.2d at 5). In contrast, ripeness considers whether a dispute is brought too early. State ex rel. Ford v. Schnell, 933 N.W.2d 393, 402 (Minn. 2019). Nonetheless, we decline the Secretary of State's invitation to apply the functional justiciability doctrine to exercise jurisdiction over an unripe claim in this case.
Like the other parties here, the Secretary of State makes no distinction in his argument between the justiciability of petitioners' claim regarding the presidential nomination primary ballot and the justiciability of petitioners' claim regarding the general election ballot for the November 2024 election. When appropriate, we have analyzed independently the justiciability of different claims within a particular case. See, e.g., Snell, 985 N.W.2d at 286-87 (concluding that we would exercise our discretion to hear one technically moot claim but would not decide other moot claims). We conclude it is appropriate to do so here.
The case before us is functionally justiciable as we have understood that concept in the mootness context. "A case is functionally justiciable if the record contains the raw material (including effective presentation of both sides of the issues raised) traditionally associated with effective judicial [decision-making]." Dean, 868 N.W.2d at 6 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Rud, 359 N.W.2d 573, 576 (Minn. 1984)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Even if the claim is functionally justiciable, we also consider whether we should exercise our discretion and hear the nonjusticiable claim immediately. Quinn, 985 N.W.2d at 573 (refusing to hear a moot but functionally justiciable claim because it did not present "a matter of urgent statewide significance"). We are not convinced we should exercise our discretion to hear immediately the otherwise unripe claim that the name of former President Trump should be removed from the general election ballot.
The question of whether former President Trump should be barred from running for president and holding the office of president is obviously important and has garnered substantial public interest and scholarly attention. But this is similar to the type of nonjusticiable claims that we have previously declined to consider. It is a case that requires us to address "fundamental constitutional questions about the relative powers of" different branches of our government as well as significant issues of federalism. Limmer v. Swanson, 806 N.W.2d 838, 838-39 (Minn. 2011) (order) (declining to exercise our discretion to resolve a functionally justiciable but technically moot case over the authority of a district court to authorize expenditures by executive branch agencies after the Legislature failed to pass appropriation bills for those agencies before the constitutional deadline).
Finally, section 204B.44(a) itself only authorizes a petition to correct errors, omissions, or wrongful acts that "have occurred or are about to occur." The placement of former President Trump's name on the 2024 general election ballot is not "about to occur." This statutory limitation also prevents us from hearing the general election ballot claim- even if it is functionally justiciable.
Consequently, we decline to extend our functional justiciability doctrine to the circumstances of this case and hear petitioners' unripe claim that we should order the Secretary of State to keep former President Trump's name off the 2024 general election ballot.
Because petitioners' claim that it would be error for the Secretary of State to place former President Trump's name on the November 2024 general election ballot is not about to occur and because the claim is not ripe, we do not reach the merits of that claim. Our decision today does not foreclose petitioners from bringing such a claim at a later date, and we express no opinion on the merits of such a claim.
II.
We now turn to the question of whether we can direct the Secretary of State to exclude former President Trump's name from the Republican Party presidential nomination primary ballot. Petitioners argue that we can do so under section 204B.44(a). That provision states:
Any individual may file a petition in the manner provided in this section for the correction of any of the following errors, omissions, or wrongful acts which have occurred or are about to occur:
(1) an error or omission in the placement or printing of the name or description of any candidate or any question on any official ballot, including the placement of a candidate on the official ballot who is not eligible to hold the office for which the candidate has filed;
(2) any other error in preparing or printing any official ballot;
(3) failure of the chair or secretary of the proper committee of a major political party to execute or file a certificate of nomination;
(4) any wrongful act, omission, or error of any election judge, municipal clerk, county auditor, canvassing board or any of its members, the secretary of state, or any other individual charged with any duty concerning an election.Minn. Stat. § 204B.44(a).
As we discussed earlier in the opinion, the winner of the presidential nomination primary will not necessarily continue on as the candidate in the general election. See supra note 6. To the extent that section 204B.44(a)(1) permits an individual to challenge the "placement of a candidate on the official ballot who is not eligible to hold the office for which the candidate has filed," that specific provision does not apply to presidential nomination primary candidates. See Minn. Stat. § 204B.06, subd. 4 ("Candidates for president or vice president of the United States are not required to file an affidavit of candidacy for office."). We do not decide today whether the inclusion of an ineligible or disqualified presidential candidate on the general election ballot would fall within the broader catchall categories under section 204B.44(a) of an "error of . . . the secretary of state" or an "error . . . in the placement or printing of the name . . . of any candidate . . . on any official ballot" for which an individual may petition this court for correction. Our holding today is limited. We simply hold that it is not an error under section 204B.44 if former President Trump's name is included on the presidential nomination primary ballot, based on the unique features of the process the Legislature enacted in chapter 207A and the express limitations on the authority of the Secretary of State to interfere with that process.
We have considered section 204B.44 petitions alleging that election statutes violated constitutional provisions. See, e.g., De La Fuente, 940 N.W.2d at 490, 492, 496-97 (holding that the procedure established by Minn. Stat. § 207A.13 (2020), which allows a major political party to determine which candidates' names will be on the presidential nomination primary ballot, did not violate the Minnesota Constitution's prohibition against special privileges, the Presidential Eligibility Clause of the United States Constitution, or the petitioners' rights of free association under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution); In re Candidacy of Indep. Party Candidates v. Kiffmeyer, 688 N.W.2d 854, 860-61 (Minn. 2004) (holding that a statute that imposed a threshold vote percentage in the primary election for a major political party's nominees to appear on the general election ballot violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of those candidates and their supporters); Erlandson v. Kiffmeyer, 659 N.W.2d 724, 732-34 (Minn. 2003) (holding that a statute prohibiting the mailing of a replacement ballot for the general election to certain absentee voters after the death of a candidate violated constitutional rights to equal protection). Petitioners do not challenge the constitutionality of chapter 207A or any other election statute. Our ruling here does not call into question our general ability to consider such claims in a section 204B.44 petition.
As discussed above, the Legislature established the presidential nomination primary process to allow major political parties to select delegates to the party's national convention; delegates at that national convention will cast votes along with delegates from all of the other states and territories for the purpose of choosing a presidential candidate for the party. As we noted in De La Fuente, the statutory scheme for the presidential nomination primary, which "directs political parties to determine which names will be on the ballot as the party's candidate(s), and then submit those names to the secretary of state as the candidates 'for that party,'" is simply "a process that allows political parties to obtain voter input in advance of a nomination decision made at a national convention." 940 N.W.2d at 492 (quoting Minn. Stat. § 207A.13, subd. 2(a)). Although the Secretary of State and other election officials administer the mechanics of the election, the presidential nomination primary is an internal party election to serve internal party purposes. The winners of the major political party's presidential nomination primaries do no not automatically advance to the general election ballot as candidates for President of the United States in Minnesota or anywhere else in the United States.
Indeed, the winner of Minnesota's delegates to a major party national convention does not always prevail at the national convention. In 2016, under the previous presidential preference vote system, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders prevailed over former New York Senator and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Minnesota, and Florida Senator Marco Rubio and Texas Senator Ted Cruz outpolled Donald Trump. Wilson Andrews, Matthew Bloch, Jeremy Bowers & Tom Giratikanon, Minnesota Caucus Results, N.Y. Times (Sept. 29, 2016), www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/primaries/minnesota.
Further, the decision of which candidates to place on the presidential nomination primary ballot rests with the party; the Legislature expressly directed that "[o]nce submitted, changes must not be made to the candidates that will appear on the ballot." Minn. Stat. § 207A.13, subd. 2(a) (emphasis added). As a matter of state law, the Secretary of State has no authority to interfere with that process in the context of a presidential nomination primary. More critically, there is no Minnesota statute that prohibits a major political party from including an ineligible candidate on the presidential nomination primary ballot or sending delegates to the national convention to support an ineligible candidate; this is different from the Colorado primary statutory scheme that requires candidates to be "qualified." There is no error to correct here as to the presidential nomination primary ballot.
Our decision in De La Fuente confirms this same principle as applied to the current presidential nomination primary statutory scheme. As we observed in that case, "a political party could (in theory) submit the names of every announced candidate for president, and because 'changes must not be made' once the party does so, the secretary of state would be required to use a ballot that includes every submitted name." De La Fuente, 940 N.W.2d at 495 (citation omitted). Indeed, there, the Secretary of State conceded that under these statutes, the Secretary of State has no authority to inquire into a party's candidate decisions for the presidential nomination primary ballot. Id. The Secretary of State has effectively maintained that same position here. And we do not see anything in section 204B.44 or the statutes governing the presidential nomination primary process which permits us to intrude where the Legislature has determined that the Secretary of State may not.
The Colorado Supreme Court recently concluded that former President Trump is "disqualified from holding the office of President" under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment and that "certifying an unqualified candidate to the presidential primary ballot constitutes a 'wrongful act' that runs afoul of" Colorado law. Anderson v. Griswold, P.3d, 2023 CO 63, 2023 WL 8770111, at *3, 13 (Colo. Dec. 19, 2023). Colorado has a statutory scheme regarding presidential primary elections that is distinct from Minnesota's. Presidential primary elections in Colorado are limited by statute to "qualified" candidates. Colo. Stat. § 1-4-1203(2)(a). Minnesota's statutes on the presidential nomination primary process do not contain a comparable provision.
We also observe that the Republican Party has First Amendment associational rights to gather for the purpose of advancing shared beliefs including strong associational rights in delegate selection. See Democratic Party of the U.S. v. Wis. ex rel. La Follette, 450 U.S. 107, 121 (1981). As we noted in De La Fuente, "the right to vote in a state primary on a presidential nominee is not integral to our republican form of government," where "[t]he U.S. Constitution mentions neither political parties, nor the presidential nominating process." De La Fuente, 940 N.W.2d at 495 n.19 (emphasis added). And to the extent that the presidential nomination primary is directed towards the party selecting its candidate, "the associational rights of political parties to choose a candidate are well-established," including "a First Amendment right 'to choose a candidate-selection process that will in its view produce the nominee who best represents its political platform.'" Id. at 496 (quoting N.Y. State Bd. of Elections v. López Torres, 552 U.S. 196, 202 (2008)). At the same time, it is true that the State has "a legitimate interest in regulating 'parties, elections, and ballots to reduce election and campaign-related disorder.'" Id. at 493-94 (quoting Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351, 358 (1997)). Here, the Legislature has granted to major political parties discretion over the selection of candidates who will appear on the presidential nomination primary ballots and expressly barred the Secretary from changing that selection. Minn. Stat. § 207A.13, subd. 2(a). The presidential nomination primary process is limited to selecting delegates to the party's national convention; it does not implicate the State's strong interest that we have recognized in ensuring the integrity of the ballot for the general election in which presidential electors will be selected. The presidential nomination primary is an internal party election; it is only tangentially connected to the general election process. And the Legislature has not prohibited major political parties from selecting delegates to the national convention who will support an arguably ineligible candidate.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we dismiss the Petition with prejudice as it relates to the placement of former President Trump's name on the presidential nomination primary ballot. We dismiss the Petition without prejudice as it relates to the placement of former President Trump's name on the general election ballot.
CHUTICH, PROCACCINI, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.