888 N.W.2d 467
Minn.2016Background
- Petitioner Steve Carlson declared a write-in candidacy for President in Sept. 2016 and asked the Secretary of State to count write-in votes for him.
- Minnesota law (Minn. Stat. § 204B.09, subd. 3) requires a write-in presidential candidate requesting that votes be counted to designate a vice-presidential candidate (and at least one elector).
- The Secretary of State refused Carlson’s request because he had not named a vice-presidential candidate (and had not named an elector in the filing he submitted).
- Carlson sued under Minn. Stat. § 204B.44 seeking an order requiring the Secretary to accept his request, arguing the vice-presidential designation requirement burdens First Amendment associational rights of candidates and voters.
- The Supreme Court applied the flexible Burdick balancing approach (not strict scrutiny), concluded any burden from the requirement is at most de minimis, and held the State’s interests justify the rule.
- The Court also noted strict-compliance rules for election filings and affirmed the Secretary’s rejection of Carlson’s deficient filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Minn. Stat. § 204B.09, subd. 3 (requiring write-in presidential candidates to name a VP) violates First Amendment associational rights | Carlson: naming a VP burdens candidate and voter associational rights; State has no legitimate interest because Electors/Congress could fill VP if needed | Simon: Burdick/Anderson balancing applies; State has legitimate interests in uniformity and orderly electoral administration; requirement is reasonable and nondiscriminatory | The requirement is a reasonable, nondiscriminatory regulation serving important state interests; it does not violate First Amendment associational rights |
| Level of scrutiny and magnitude of burden | Carlson: the rule infringes associational rights and should receive heightened scrutiny | State: burden is minimal/de minimis; apply flexible Burdick balancing rather than strict scrutiny | Court: burden is at most de minimis; flexible balancing applies; strict scrutiny not triggered |
| Whether Secretary erred in rejecting Carlson’s filing (compliance) | Carlson: asked court to order Secretary to count votes despite not naming VP (and initially not naming an elector) | Secretary: filings must strictly comply with statutory requirements; refusal was proper | Court: candidates must strictly comply with filing rules; Secretary correctly rejected Carlson’s deficient request |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (announces balancing test for evaluating burdens on candidates and voters)
- Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (adopts flexible balancing approach for election regulations)
- Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997) (upholds state election restrictions that do not directly block ballot access)
- Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) (states have broad power to regulate selection of electors)
- Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974) (recognizes need for substantial regulation to ensure fair, orderly elections)
- Coal. for Free & Open Elections v. McElderry, 48 F.3d 493 (10th Cir. 1995) (noting timing burdens on write-in candidates are less severe than burdens on recognized parties)
- In re GlaxoSmithKline plc, 732 N.W.2d 257 (Minn. 2007) (discusses derivative nature of associational rights and procedural challenges)