Muhammad Abdurrahman v. Mark Dayton
903 F.3d 813
8th Cir.2018Background
- Muhammad Abdurrahman was nominated as a Minnesota Democratic presidential elector in 2016 and signed Minnesota’s required pledge to vote for the party’s nominees.
- Clinton and Kaine won Minnesota; Abdurrahman became an elector and the Governor’s certificate of ascertainment named him accordingly.
- At the December 19 electoral meeting Abdurrahman attempted to vote for Sanders and Gabbard; Minnesota officials refused his ballot under the Uniform Faithful Presidential Electors Act and treated him as having vacated his office, counting a substitute elector’s vote for Clinton–Kaine instead.
- Abdurrahman filed suit the same day seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming the Minnesota statute violated Article II, the Twelfth Amendment, and 3 U.S.C. § 5.
- The district court dismissed the case as moot after the electors’ votes were submitted to Congress, finding the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception inapplicable and that Abdurrahman had not litigated promptly; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case is moot | Abdurrahman argued his claims are not moot because the declaratory claim falls within the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception | State argued the dispute is moot because electoral votes were already transmitted and counted, and the exception does not apply | Moot: the general mootness rule applies; injunctive relief is moot |
| Whether the case fits the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception | Abdurrahman claimed the short pre-certification window makes full adjudication impossible and he may be an elector again | State argued Abdurrahman could have sued earlier and it is speculative he would be an elector again | Exception inapplicable: plaintiff failed to show litigation was too short to permit review because he did not sue promptly and cannot show reasonable expectation of repetition |
| Whether dismissal was premature for lack of record development | Abdurrahman argued he lacked notice and needed to supplement the record with affidavits | State pointed to its briefing and district-court hearing on mootness; affidavits could have been submitted earlier | Dismissal not premature: plaintiff had adequate notice and opportunity; supplementation denied |
| Whether laches or merits bar relief | Abdurrahman contested enforcement as unconstitutional | State argued laches and that the statute validly enforces pledge requirements | Court found laches noted below and did not reach merits because mootness disposed of case |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724 (2008) (federal courts require a live case or controversy at all stages)
- Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (2013) (mootness when issues are no longer live)
- Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478 (1982) (per curiam) (mootness principles)
- FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (2007) (articulating "capable of repetition, yet evading review" test)
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) (explaining elements of repetition-and-evading-review exception)
- Minn. Humane Soc’y v. Clark, 184 F.3d 795 (8th Cir. 1999) (party must use available procedural avenues to avoid mootness)
- South Dakota v. Hazen, 914 F.2d 147 (8th Cir. 1990) (delay by plaintiff undermines claim of evading review)
- Midwest Farmworker Emp’t & Training, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 200 F.3d 1198 (8th Cir. 2000) (burden on party to show mootness exception applies)
- Iowa Protection & Advocacy Servs. v. Tanager, Inc., 427 F.3d 541 (8th Cir. 2005) (failure to seek a stay pending appeal undercuts evading-review claim)