62 F. Supp. 3d 870
D. Minn.2014Background
- Plaintiffs (Election Integrity Watch, Minnesota Majority, North Star Tea Party Patriots, and individuals) sued Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and county officials shortly before the 2010 election to prevent enforcement of Minn. Stat. § 211B.11, subd. 1, which bans political badges/buttons/insignia at polling places and within 100 feet.
- Plaintiffs sought a TRO and preliminary injunction to permit wearing of "Please I.D. Me" buttons and North Star Tea Party apparel; the TRO was denied pre-election.
- After the election, Secretary Ritchie circulated an Election Day Policy to county election officials instructing judges to ask voters to remove/cover political material, record refusals, and still permit voting.
- Plaintiffs amended their complaint asserting as-applied First Amendment, Due Process, and Equal Protection claims and a facial First Amendment challenge to § 211B.11; district court dismissed; Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal of facial and Equal Protection claims but reversed and remanded the as-applied First Amendment claim for summary-judgment analysis (Minnesota Majority v. Mansky).
- On remand Ritchie moved to dismiss or for summary judgment (arguing Eleventh Amendment immunity/standing and merits under Rule 56); the court denied the Rule 12 Eleventh Amendment/standing defense as foreclosed by the Eighth Circuit remand but evaluated the Rule 56 merits.
- On summary judgment the court granted Ritchie as to the "Please I.D. Me" buttons (undisputed evidence showed the buttons were part of a campaign intended to mislead voters about ID requirements) but denied without prejudice summary judgment as to the North Star Tea Party hats/t-shirts for lack of undisputed record support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ritchie is a proper defendant (standing / Eleventh Amendment) | Ritchie lacks standing/immunity to be sued in his official capacity | Ritchie argued Eleventh Amendment bars suit and Plaintiffs lack standing | Denied: Eighth Circuit remand implicitly rejected these defenses; district court bound by that disposition |
| Whether § 211B.11 and the Election Day Policy are viewpoint neutral and reasonable as applied | Statute/Policy unconstitutionally restrict First Amendment expression at polls as-applied | Statute/Policy are viewpoint neutral and reasonably tailored to protect decorum, integrity, and prevent voter confusion/undue influence | Viewpoint neutrality: agreed. As-applied: mixed—summary judgment granted for buttons, denied for Tea Party apparel |
| Whether "Please I.D. Me" buttons are protected political expression as applied | Buttons are protected political speech/association and plaintiffs need discovery before ruling | Buttons were used as part of a campaign to mislead voters into thinking ID was required; that materially threatens voter confusion and integrity | Granted for defendant: undisputed online materials showed the buttons were intended to mislead; prohibition is rationally related to state interests |
| Whether North Star Tea Party hats/t-shirts can be excluded as applied | Apparel is political speech; plaintiffs sought discovery to show applicability and facts | Ritchie offered only tenuous documentary support (Tea Party Caucus material) and no undisputed facts showing disruption or confusion | Denied without prejudice for defendant: Ritchie failed to show absence of genuine dispute of material fact regarding Tea Party apparel |
Key Cases Cited
- Minnesota Majority v. Mansky, 708 F.3d 1051 (8th Cir. 2013) (remanding as-applied First Amendment claim for Rule 56 treatment)
- Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983) (forum analysis: restrictions must be viewpoint neutral and reasonable in light of forum's purpose)
- Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, 506 U.S. 139 (1993) (Eleventh Amendment provides a right not to be sued in federal court)
- Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) (Eleventh Amendment and limits on suits for retroactive relief against states)
- McAuley v. Fed. Ins. Co., 500 F.3d 784 (8th Cir. 2007) (district court should treat certain motions as summary judgment under Rule 12(d) when matters outside pleadings are considered)