978 F.3d 1043
8th Cir.2020Background
- Adam Weeks, the Legal Marijuana Now (LMN) Party candidate for MN-2, died on Sept. 21, 2020; Minnesota law treats LMN as a “major political party” because a statewide LMN candidate received ≥5% in 2018.
- Minn. Stat. § 204B.13 (2013) provides that if a major-party candidate dies after the 79th day before the general election, the November ballot remains unchanged but canvassing boards must not certify the vote totals and the office is to be filled in a special election (here, Feb. 9, 2021).
- Plaintiffs (incumbent Craig and a voter) sued; the district court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of § 204B.13 as to the MN-2 House race and ordered the Secretary of State to give legal effect to November 3 ballots, concluding the State cannot “invent” a failure to elect solely by refusing certification.
- Kistner (appellant) moved for a stay of the injunction pending appeal, arguing Minnesota may lawfully declare a “failure to elect” under 2 U.S.C. §§ 7 and 8(a) and hold a special election.
- The Eighth Circuit denied the stay: it assumed, for argument’s sake, that § 8(a) might allow postponement in exigent circumstances but held Minnesota’s cancellation here—based on the death of a third‑party candidate with minimal electoral history—was unlikely to satisfy that demanding standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Minn. Stat. § 204B.13 is preempted by federal election law (2 U.S.C. §§ 7, 8(a)) | Kistner: State may declare a “failure to elect” after a major‑party candidate’s death and schedule a special election under § 8(a). | State/district court: Federal law favors a uniform election date; death alone does not inevitably create a § 8(a) failure to elect. | Denied stay; court found Kistner unlikely to succeed—Minnesota’s reason (death of LMN candidate) insufficient to justify cancellation under federal law. |
| Whether a State may treat a plurality or other results as inconclusive (i.e., states’ policy choices create a ‘failure to elect’) | Kistner: Busbee/Public Citizen show a State can treat an election as inconclusive and invoke § 8(a). | State: Any postponement must meet exigent, compelling circumstances; policy choices cannot routinely override uniform date. | Court assumed those precedents arguendo but held Minnesota’s policy here fails the exigency standard. |
| Whether Secretary’s interim statements and voter confusion justify staying the injunction | Kistner: Irreparable harm to campaign and voters without a stay. | Secretary: A stay would cause voter confusion and suppress turnout (Purcell concerns); Secretary opposed a stay. | Court: Interim confusion and campaign impacts do not overcome lack of likelihood of success; harms do not justify a stay. |
| Whether State designation of “major party” controls preemption analysis | Kistner: State’s “major party” label authorizes special-election rule. | Opponents: Federal preemption question looks to substantive electoral significance, not just state label. | Court: State designation insufficient here; LMN’s weak electoral history makes cancellation unlikely to be a permissible exigent circumstance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Busbee v. Smith, 549 F. Supp. 494 (D.D.C. 1982) (upheld state postponement of congressional election in exigent circumstances; later summarily affirmed)
- Public Citizen, Inc. v. Miller, 813 F. Supp. 821 (N.D. Ga. 1993) (state may construe plurality as inconclusive and schedule later election)
- Foster v. Love, 522 U.S. 67 (1997) (states control election mechanics except where Congress preempts)
- Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc., 570 U.S. 1 (2013) (Election Clause can confer preemptive power to Congress)
- Brady v. NFL, 640 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard for stays pending appeal)
- Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012) (evaluate harmony of state and federal election rules)